Sanyika C, Corr P, Haffejee A
Department of Radiology, University of Natal, Durban.
S Afr Med J. 1999 Jun;89(6):640-3.
A prospective randomised study of patients with irresectable oesophageal carcinoma treated with self-expandable covered metal Wallstent and plastic Procter Livingstone tubes was performed. The purpose was to compare the efficacy, cost effectiveness, ease of implantation, long-term patency and complications of the two different stents.
Data recorded included dysphagia score (0-4) the day before and after stent placement, location and length of stricture, procedural time and complications, and stent patency at 1 and 3 months' follow-up. A comparative costing of materials, theatre and anaesthetic time and hospital stay was undertaken.
Forty patients were studied over 12 months (20 in each group). Strictures were located most commonly in the middle third of the oesophagus (75%), followed by the upper third (12.5%) and lower third (12.5%). Mean stricture length was 6 cm (2-12 cm); 10 patients (25%) had strictures 8 cm or longer. Five patients had tracheo-oesophageal fistulas (3 Wallstent; 2 Procter Livingstone tube). There was effective fistula sealing in all 3 Wallstent patients, and non-sealing in 1 of the Procter Livingstone patients. The mean pre-operative dysphagia score in both groups was 3, and immediately postoperatively the score was 0 in the Wallstent group and 2 in the plastic tube group. Initial stent placement was satisfactory in all Wallstent patients, with 2 patients requiring 2 stents each for adequate tumour coverage, and in 15 patients (75%) having plastic stents. Immediate complications were chest pain in 2 patients with Wallstents and oesophageal perforation in 2 patients (10%) with plastic stents. Wallstent patency at 1 and 3 months was 90% and 88%, respectively, and plastic stent patency was 66% and 50%. Four patients (10%), 2 in each group, died during the study from massive tumour load or metastatic disease. Comparative costing of the Wallstent versus the plastic tube stent was R4 123 versus R2 146 or a factor of 1.9.
Palliation with the Wallstent is effective, with excellent 1- and 3-month patency. The Wallstent is superior to the conventional plastic stent in terms of ease of implantation, better long-term patency and fewer complications. It is particularly useful for the treatment of patients with fistulas and long strictures. Accurate placement is critical in order to prevent stent migration and tumour overgrowth. However, it costs almost twice as much to implant the Wallstent as it does to implant the plastic tube.
对不可切除食管癌患者进行前瞻性随机研究,比较自膨式覆膜金属Wallstent支架和塑料Procter Livingstone管的疗效、成本效益、植入难易程度、长期通畅率及并发症。
记录的数据包括支架置入前后一天的吞咽困难评分(0 - 4分)、狭窄部位和长度、手术时间及并发症,以及随访1个月和3个月时的支架通畅情况。对材料、手术及麻醉时间和住院时间进行成本比较。
12个月内共研究40例患者(每组20例)。狭窄最常见于食管中1/3段(75%),其次是上1/3段(12.5%)和下1/3段(12.5%)。平均狭窄长度为6 cm(2 - 12 cm);10例患者(25%)狭窄长度达8 cm或更长。5例患者有气管食管瘘(3例用Wallstent支架;2例用Procter Livingstone管)。3例使用Wallstent支架的患者瘘管均有效封闭,而使用Procter Livingstone管的患者中有1例未封闭。两组术前平均吞咽困难评分为3分,术后Wallstent支架组评分为0分,塑料管组为2分。所有使用Wallstent支架的患者初始支架置入均满意,2例患者因肿瘤覆盖范围需各置入2个支架,15例(75%)患者使用塑料支架。即时并发症方面,2例使用Wallstent支架的患者出现胸痛,2例(10%)使用塑料支架的患者发生食管穿孔。Wallstent支架1个月和3个月时的通畅率分别为90%和88%,塑料支架通畅率分别为66%和50%。4例患者(10%),每组2例,在研究期间因肿瘤负荷过大或转移性疾病死亡。Wallstent支架与塑料管支架的成本比较为4123兰特对2146兰特,相差1.9倍。
Wallstent支架缓解症状有效,1个月和3个月通畅率良好。在植入难易程度、长期通畅率及并发症方面,Wallstent支架优于传统塑料支架。对伴有瘘管和长段狭窄的患者治疗尤其有用。为防止支架移位和肿瘤过度生长,准确放置至关重要。然而,植入Wallstent支架的成本几乎是植入塑料管的两倍。