We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Endoscopic closure of esophageal intrathoracic leaks: stent versus endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, a retrospective analysis.
Endoscopy 2013 June
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Placement of covered self-expanding metal or plastic stents (SEMS or SEPS) is an established method for managing intrathoracic leaks. Recently, endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) has been described as a new effective treatment option. Our aim was to compare stent placement with EVAC for nonsurgical closure of intrathoracic anastomotic leaks.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis we were able to identify 39 patients who were treated with SEMS or SEPS and 32 patients who were treated with EVAC for intrathoracic leakage. In addition to successful fistula closure, we analyzed hospital mortality, number of endoscopic interventions, incidence of stenoses, and duration of hospitalization.
RESULTS: In a multivariate analysis, successful wound closure was independently associated with EVAC therapy (hazard ratio 2.997, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.568 - 5.729; P = 0.001). The overall closure rate was significantly higher in the EVAC group (84.4 %) compared with the SEMS/SEPS group (53.8 %). No difference was found for hospitalization and hospital mortality. We found significantly more strictures in the stent group (28.2 % vs. 9.4 % with EVAC, P < 0,05).
CONCLUSIONS: EVAC is an effective endoscopic treatment option for intrathoracic leaks and showed higher effectiveness than stent placement in our cohort.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis we were able to identify 39 patients who were treated with SEMS or SEPS and 32 patients who were treated with EVAC for intrathoracic leakage. In addition to successful fistula closure, we analyzed hospital mortality, number of endoscopic interventions, incidence of stenoses, and duration of hospitalization.
RESULTS: In a multivariate analysis, successful wound closure was independently associated with EVAC therapy (hazard ratio 2.997, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.568 - 5.729; P = 0.001). The overall closure rate was significantly higher in the EVAC group (84.4 %) compared with the SEMS/SEPS group (53.8 %). No difference was found for hospitalization and hospital mortality. We found significantly more strictures in the stent group (28.2 % vs. 9.4 % with EVAC, P < 0,05).
CONCLUSIONS: EVAC is an effective endoscopic treatment option for intrathoracic leaks and showed higher effectiveness than stent placement in our cohort.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app