Palliative treatment of malignant esophageal stenosis: experience with plastic versus metal stents.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We report on the palliative treatment of 44 patients with malignant dysphagia by placement of plastic (Celestin tubes, n = 24) vs metal stents (Wall stents, Nitinol stents, Gianturco stents, n = 20).

METHODOLOGY

Prior to stent insertion, esophageal stenosis was dilated stepwise to 16 mm (plastic tube) and to 10 mm (metal stent).

RESULTS

Stent insertion was technically successful in all cases and led to a reduction of dysphagia. Risk of perforation was comparable in both groups (n = 1 in each group). Most of the plastic stents were placed when the tumor was localized in the proximal part of the esophagus close to the upper esophageal sphincter, when esophageal-bronchial fistula was present and in the risk of fistula development after radiation. During follow-up, tumor ingrowth (TI) and stent migration (SM) were the major complications. Whereas tumor ingrowth predominantly occurred in metal stents (TI after 6 weeks, 45% vs. SM, 10%) that required repeated argon beamer therapy, tube migration and bolus impaction (BI) often occurred in patients with plastic stents (TI, 0% vs. SM, 16%; BI, 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the study suggest that the decision whether plastic tubes or metal stents used should be taken individually considering tumor localization, axis deviation and the presence of esophago-respiratory fistulas. When stepwise dilation of malignant stenoses is performed carefully, perforation risk appears not to be different between placement of plastic prostheses and metal stents.