Esophageal stent placement versus endoscopic incision for the treatment of refractory esophageal anastomotic stricture
10.16571/j.cnki.1008-8199.2019.06.007
- VernacularTitle: 食管支架置入术和内镜下切开术治疗难治性食管癌术后吻合口狭窄的疗效比较
- Author:
Pei-yao WU
1
;
Quan-peng LI
1
;
Fei WANG
1
;
Xiao-chao WU
1
;
Si-min TANG
1
;
Lin MIAO
1
Author Information
1. Digestive Department, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210011, Jiangsu, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
refractory esophageal anastomotic stricture;
esophageal stent placement;
endoscopic incision method;
effective
- From:
Journal of Medical Postgraduates
2019;32(6):591-595
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective Few reports are seen comparing esophageal stent placement (ESP) and the endoscopic incision method (EIM) in the treatment refractory esophageal anastomotic strictures (EAS) following esophageal carcinoma resection (ECR). This study was to evaluate the effect ESP versus that of EIM in the treatment of refractory EAS after ECR. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data on 50 cases of post-ECR refractory EAS treated by ESP (n = 32) or EIM (n = 18) in our Center of Digestive Medicine between January 2012 and December 2018. We recorded and compared the pre- and post-operative dysphagia scores, post-operative complications and follow-up results between the two groups of patients. Results Compared with the EIM group, the patients of the ESP group had a remarkably lower dysphagia score post-operatively (1.4±0.5 vs 1.0±0.0, P<0.01), a smaller diameter of the dilated esophagus ([19.9±1.8] vs [11.0±1.9] mm, P<0.01), higher incidence rates mild and severe chest pain (P=0.022), and a higher rate of relief of esophageal stricture at 12 months after surgery (P<0.05). Conclusion EIM can rapidly relieve the symptoms of esophageal anastomotic stricture, while ESP may achieve a longer duration of relief. Both of the procedures are safe for patients with refractory esophageal anastomotic stricture.
