Minimally invasive, maximum impact: advances in the application of colonic stents.

Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

Malignant colorectal obstruction: looking for synchronous lesions with the scope through a metal stent…!

Enteral stents: from esophagus to colon

Response:

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in the large bowel can be employed in malignant colorectal obstruction (MCRO), benign colorectal obstruction (BCRO), and rectocolonic fistulae (RCF). MCRO is the most frequent scenario. Endoscopic insertion of SEMS for colonic obstructions relies on crossing the stricture with a guidewire inserted through the working channel of an endoscope. Afterward, the undeployed SEMS is slid over the guidewire inside the working channel (through-the-scope or TTS insertion) or outside the scope (over-the-wire or OTW). The stent is finally opened up, bridging the entire stricture. Both endoscopic and fluoroscopic monitoring during the procedure are the best methods to achieve success. Insertion of colonic SEMS takes part in advanced therapeutic endoscopy, and special interventional skills are needed for the endoscopic team. For MCRO, an average of 93% in technical success and at least about 80% in clinical success has been reported. Patients can then either undergo scheduled surgery or have the stent left in place as a definitive palliative treatment. A complication rate up to 24 % can occur. Many are manageable endoscopically, but perforation (up to 9%) and death have been reported. Despite these drawbacks, initial treatment of MCRO by means of SEMS compares favorably with surgery. SEMS allow an earlier patients’ recovery, shorter hospital stay, lower rate of early complications, less need for colostomy, and chemotherapy to be administered earlier; have no detrimental effect on morbidity and survival; and have long-term efficacy comparable to that with surgery.

Metal stents for distal biliary malignancy: have we got you covered?

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by use ofanovel biflanged stent with electrocautery-enhanced deliverysystem.

Endoscopic drainage has become the preferred treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). There is still a lack of reliable evidence to prove which metal stent is the best choice for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of PFCs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) compared to traditional self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to July 15, 2023. Relevant publications that compared LAMS with traditional SEMS for drainage of patients' PFCs under EUS-guidance were included. This meta-analysis assessed endpoints using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.0 statistical software. Nine citations comprising 707 patients with PFCs were included. The clinical success rate of LAMS tended to be higher than that of SEMS (RR = 1.07, 95%CI [1.00, 1.15], P = 0.05). LAMS had a lower technical success rate (RR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.94, 0.99], P = 0.02) and faster procedure time (minutes) (MD = - 24.29, 95%CI [- 25.59, - 22.99], P < 0.00001) compared to SEMS. In addition, LAMS had fewer overall adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95%CI [0.48, 0.87], P = 0.004). For specific adverse events, LAMS had fewer migration (RR = 0.37, 95%CI [0.19, 0.72], P = 0.003), occlusion (RR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.82], P = 0.01) and infection (RR = 0.38, 95%CI [0.20, 0.70], P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in bleeding and perforation between the two stents. For hospital stay (days), LAMS group was similar to SEMS group (MD = - 3.34, 95%CI [- 7.71, - 1.03], P = 0.13). Regarding recurrence, LAMS group was fewer than SEMS group (RR = 0.41, 95%CI [0.21, 0.78], P = 0.007). Compared to traditional SEMS, LAMS has a higher clinical success rate, faster procedure time, fewer adverse events, similar hospital stay and lower recurrence rate in EUS-guided drainage of PFCs. LAMS is a good choice with a high technical success rate over 95%, and using a shorter length or "one-step" operation can further improve it. Richer placement experience is required for LAMS placement under EUS-guidance.

The field of therapeutic endoscopy has seen many recent advancements. One such emerging field is the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Although a few LAMS have been developed, the most commonly reviewed and the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved LAMS is the Axios stent by Boston Scientific. In 2013, LAMS were initially approved by the FDA for the management of pancreatic fluid collection drainage in the presence walled-off necrosis. Pancreatic fluid collections are traditionally drained with either a plastic stent or a covered biliary self-expanding metal stent. Plastic stents have a double pigtail feature which prevents stent migration. However, their narrow lumen poses limitations as it can lead to early stent occlusion. Fully covered metal stents have larger diameters, allowing improved drainage and decreased stent occlusion but their tubular shape is prone to migration. Consequently, this results in leakage, and frequent retrievals. Over the years, due to their versatility, LAMS now have many off label uses. This includes management of gastric outlet obstruction, superior mesenteric artery syndrome, strictures, gallbladder drainage, and postsurgical collection drainage. In this review, we will be discussing the FDA approved and the nonapproved uses of LAMS.

EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) is an effective option for biliary drainage in malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly been used for EUS-CDS. It is unknown how LAMS compare to tubular self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for EUS-CDS. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of LAMS versus SEMS for EUS-CDS. Single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-CDS after failed ERCP for initial biliary drainage between 2011 and 2019. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who had conventional covered SEMS and LAMS placed for EUS-CDS. Outcome measures included unplanned procedural events, technical success, clinical success, adverse events and reinterventions. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. During the study period 57 patients met inclusion criteria (37 LAMS, 20 SEMS). All EUS-CDS were technically successful (LAMS group 95% CI 90.3-100%, SEMS group 95% CI 83.2-100%). There were no differences between groups in unplanned procedural events (4 LAMS deployment issues, 2 mild bleeding in SEMS group; 10 vs 10.8%), clinical success (37/37 [100%] vs 19/20 [95%]), and short-term adverse events (5/37 [13.5%] vs 4/20 [20%], p = 0.71). Complete follow-up data were available in 41 patients for a mean of 376 ± 145days. Endoscopic reintervention was required for duodenal stent placement (n = 9) or biliary stent dysfunction (n = 4), with no difference between LAMS and SEMS group (6/37 [16.2%] vs 7/20 [35%]). There were no differences in overall survival between both groups. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy after failed ERCP has equally high technical and clinical success rates with either LAMS or SEMS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. No differences in adverse events, reinterventions and survival were seen with either type of stent. The cost-effectiveness of LAMS vs SEMS for EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy remains to be proven.

Background and aimEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the gold standard approach for the treatment of encapsulated pancreatic collections (EPCs) including pseudocyst and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and is associated with an equivalent clinical efficacy to surgical drainage with fewer complications and less morbidity. Drainage may be achieved via several types of stents including a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). However, to date there have been no randomized trials to compare these devices. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the SEMS versus LAMS for EUS-guided drainage of EPCs.MethodsA phase IIB randomized trial was designed to compare the SEMS versus LAMS for the treatment of EPCs. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were evaluated. A sample size of 42 patients was determined.ResultsThere was no difference between the two groups in technical (LAMS 80.95% vs 100% SEMS, p=0.107), clinical (LAMS 85.71% vs 95.24% SEMS, p=0.606) or radiological success (LAMS 92.86% vs 83.33% SEMS, p=0.613). There was no difference in AEs including stent migration rate and mortality. The procedure time was longer in the LAMS group (mean time 43.81 min versus 24.43 min, p=0.001). There was also a difference in the number of intra-procedure complications (5 LAMS vs 0 SEMS, p=0.048).ConclusionSEMS and LAMS have similar technical, clinical, and radiological success as well as AEs. However, SEMS has a shorter procedure time and fewer intra-procedure complications compared to non-electrocautery-enhanced LAMS in this phase IIB randomized controlled trial (RCT). The choice of the type of stent used for EUS drainage of EPCs should consider device availability, costs, and personal and local experience.

Rare and Fatal Complication of Gianturco Tracheobronchial Stent

The evolution and the natural selection process in the stenting of malignant bile duct obstruction: size does matter!

Introduction: The use of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for the treatment of postoperative leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract is already established. However, there are discrepancies between the relatively small caliber of the esophageal stents available and the postsurgical luminal size, which may determine an inadequate juxtaposition. As colonic stents have a bigger diameter, they might be more adequate. Additionally, stents with a larger diameter might have a lower risk of migration. Materials and Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications associated with the use of colonic fully covered SEMS (FSEMS) in the treatment of postoperative leaks in critical patients. All patients with postoperative leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract treated with colonic stents (Hanarostent® CCI) between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively included. Results: Four patients with postoperative leaks were treated with colonic SEMS. The underlying surgeries were a gastric bypass, an esophagogastrectomy for Boerhaave syndrome, a primary repair of esophagopleural fistula due to Boerhaave syndrome, and an esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer. The leaks were detected on average 17 days after the initial surgery. All patients needed admission to a critical care unit after index surgery. Stent placement was technically feasible in all patients. The median residence time of the stents was 7 weeks, and no complications were verified when they were removed. There were no cases of stent migration. The treatment was successful in all patients, with complete healing of the leaks. Discussion and Conclusions: The placement of colonic FSEMS seems to be successful and safe in the treatment of postoperative leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

4655 Preliminary results of the new membrane covered self-expandable nitinol biliary metal stent.