A prospective, randomized trial of esophageal submucosal tunnel closure with a stent versus no closure to secure a transesophageal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery access site.

BACKGROUND

Secure esophagotomy closure methods are a critical element in the advancement of transesophageal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes in swine receiving an esophageal stent or no stent after a submucosal tunnel NOTES access procedure.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 10 Yorkshire swine.

SETTING

Academic center.

INTERVENTION

An endoscopic mucosectomy device was used to create an esophageal mucosal defect. An endoscope was advanced through a submucosal tunnel into the mediastinum and thorax, and diagnostic mediastinoscopy and thoracoscopy were performed. Ten animals were randomized to no stenting (n = 5) or stenting (n = 5) with a prototype small-intestine submucosa-covered stent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Gross and histologic appearance of the mucosectomy and esophagotomy sites as well as clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the overall procedure time between the animals that received a stent (35.0 min, range 27-46.0 min) and those with no closure (19.0 min, range 17-32 min) (P value = .018). The unstented group achieved endoscopic and histologic evidence of complete re-epithelialization and healing (100%) at the mucosectomy site compared with the stented group (20%, P = .048). Stent migration into the stomach occurred in two swine. Both groups had complete closure of the submucosal tunnel and well-healed esophagotomy sites.

LIMITATIONS

Animal study, small number of subjects.

CONCLUSION

The placement of a covered esophageal stent significantly interferes with mucosectomy site healing.