Endoprosthesis implantation at the pharyngo-esophageal level： Problems, limitations and challenges

AIM: To present our experience with endoscopic placement of an esophageal endoprosthesis in 19 patients. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was made for the use of 19 stents positioned at the level of the cervical esophagus: 11 for malignant tumours (7 causing obstruction, 4 complicated by an esophago -tracheal or -cutaneous fistula), and 8 for an acquired benign tracheo-esophageal fistula due to prolonged intubation. The covered Ultraflex stent was used in all cases except two. These two patients had an esophagocutaneous fistula following laryngectomy and a Flamingo Wall stent was used. RESULTS: Stent implantation was technically successful in all patients. Dysphagia score was improved from 3 to 2 in stenosis patients, while sealing of the fistula was achieved in all cases. The median hospital stay was 3 d for malignant tumour patients and 13.5 d for esophagocutaneous fistula patients. One Ultraflex stent and two Flamingo Wall stents were easily removed 33 d and 3 months respectively after implantation when the fistulas had totally occluded. CONCLUSION: Endoprosthesis implantation for malignancy and/or fistula of malignant or benign origin at the level of the cervical esophagus is an easy, well tolerated, safe and effective procedure with no complications or mortality.

Endoprosthesis implantation at the pharyngo-esophageal level: problems, limitations and challenges

AIM: To present our experience with endoscopic placement of an esophageal endoprosthesis in 19 patients. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was made for the use of 19 stents positioned at the level of the cervical esophagus: 11 for malignant tumours (7 causing obstruction, 4 complicated by an esophago -tracheal or -cutaneous fistula), and 8 for an acquired benign tracheo-esophageal fistula due to prolonged intubation. The covered Ultraflex stent was used in all cases except two. These two patients had an esophagocutaneous fistula following laryngectomy and a Flamingo Wall stent was used. RESULTS: Stent implantation was technically successful in all patients. Dysphagia score was improved from 3 to 2 in stenosis patients, while sealing of the fistula was achieved in all cases. The median hospital stay was 3 d for malignant tumour patients and 13.5 d for esophagocutaneous fistula patients. One Ultraflex stent and two Flamingo Wall stents were easily removed 33 d and 3 months respectively after implantation when the fistulas had totally occluded. CONCLUSION: Endoprosthesis implantation for malignancy and/or fistula of malignant or benign origin at the level of the cervical esophagus is an easy, well tolerated, safe and effective procedure with no complications or mortality.