Management of refractory benign esophageal strictures with non-self-expandable stents and self-expandable metallic stents

傅剑华,戎铁华,黄植藩,杨名添,林鹏,李小东,马国伟
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2001.04.008
2001-01-01
Abstract:Objective To Compare the effect between non self expandable stents and self expandable metallic stents in the management of refractory benign esophageal strictures.Methods Thirty nine consecutive patients were classified into two groups according to the type of stent. Group A(23 patients):non self expandable stents(Self made plastic prosthesis, Wilson Cook Esophageal Prosthesis), group B(16 patients): self expandable metallic stents(SEMS). A comparative study was made on several aspects including the rate of technical success, the degree of swallow function(express as dysphagia score), the rate of stent dislocation and the incidence of complications.Results The follow up time was from 4 to 60 months and the median was 12 months. The grades of swallow function in this series were 2, 3 and 4 in 15, 21 and 3 cases respectively before stenting, 0 and 1 in 27 and 12 cases respectively after stenting. Obvious improvement of swallow function and the efficacy of two types of stents were well established in the treatment of refractory benign esophageal stricture(z=-5.531, P=0.000). The technical successful rates were 100.0% in both group A and group B. It was not significantly different in the grade of swallow function between two groups after stenting (P=0.107). The rate of stent dislocation was 82.6%(19/23) in group A and 6.3%(1/16) in group B, and the difference was statisticaly significant (P=0.000). Although the recurrent rate of stricture was not significantly different (P=1.000) between groups A (34.6%) and groups B (31.3%), the causes of recurrent stricture were different. Conclusions Stenting is an effective and safe alternative of conventional operation in the treatment of refractory benign esophageal stricture in some degree. Non self expandable stents are obviously better than SEMS on efficacy and long term results.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?