4.6 Article

Outcome for self-expandable metal stents in malignant gastroduodenal obstruction: single-center experience with 104 patients

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0686-x

关键词

Complication; Duodenal stent; Enteral stenting; Gastric cancer; Gastric outlet obstruction; Mortality; Palliation; Pancreatic cancer

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) leads to malnutrition and limits quality of life. Gastrojejunostomy has been the traditional treatment for GOO. Recently, the results of releasing duodenal obstruction with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have been encouraging. After the exclusion of 13 patients with gastrojejunal or jejunal strictures and 1 patient with intraabdominal lymphoma, the authors palliated the malignant GOO in 104 patients with 130 SEMS at a single center during the years 1999-2007. The GOO was caused by pancreatic (n = 51), gastric (n = 24), duodenal (n = 7), biliary (n = 5), and other (n = 17) malignancies. Of the 104 patients, 76 (73%) did well with only one enteral stent placement, 21 (20.2%) required two stent placements, 4 (3.8%) required three stent placements, and 1 required four stent placements. The median dysphagia score was 0 before stenting and 2 after treatment (p < 0.001). Immediate failure occurred after 10 procedures (7.7%). Among the 104 patients, 6 (5.8%) died of stent placement-related reasons. Complications occurred for 13 patients (12.5%). The median hospital stay was 3 days, and the overall survival time was 62 days (range, 1-933 days). Of 11 patients with concomitant biliary obstruction and GOO, 10 (91%) underwent successful enteral and biliary stent placement within the same session. Of 15 patients experiencing jaundice after enteral stent placement, 6 (40%) underwent endoscopic biliary drainage successfully. Enteral stenting is a safe and effective way to treat GOO. Gastrojejunostomy should be preserved for cases in which endoscopic stenting is not successful or possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据