消化道狹窄的內(nèi)鏡治療

消化道狹窄的內(nèi)鏡治療,病理類型,我國 鱗癌為主 97.6% 上1/3段 8.8% 中1/3段 65.9% 下1/3段 25.3% 西方國家 以下段食管為主、主要為腺癌（60以上）,食管癌的治療 （強(qiáng)調(diào)早期發(fā)現(xiàn)、早期診斷、早期治療）,手術(shù)治療 -姑息性手術(shù) -根治性手術(shù) 內(nèi)鏡下治療 -食管擴(kuò)張，食管支架取代傳統(tǒng)的旁路手術(shù) -內(nèi)鏡下電灼切除、 Nd:YAG激光切除、光動力療法等 化療：5-Fu和順鉑為主 放療：外放射為主 以手術(shù)為主的綜合治療,手術(shù)適應(yīng)證,早期食管癌 中期（）、中下段食管癌病變在5cm內(nèi)，上段在3cm內(nèi)，全身情況好者 中期（）、病變在5cm以上，無明顯遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移，全身?xiàng)l件允許，可采用術(shù)前放化療與手術(shù)綜合療法 放射治療后復(fù)發(fā)，病變范圍尚不大，無遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移，全身情況良好者,手術(shù)禁忌證,食管癌病變廣泛或累及鄰近器官如氣管、肺、縱隔等者 已有鎖骨上窩淋巴結(jié)等遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移者 有嚴(yán)重心、肺或肝功能不全者 嚴(yán)重惡病質(zhì)者,Surgical resection is the only curative treatment option for invasive esophageal cancer. However, despite careful staging and advances in adjuvant therapy and surgical techniques, 5-year survival rates rarely exceed 40%.1,2 Many patients present with locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis within 2 years after curative esophagectomy. 3 Treatment of patients with local disease recurrence aims at relieving dysphagia,食管氣管瘺金屬支架置放術(shù),復(fù)查碘油造影未見造影劑瘺出。,Esophageal diseases and types of SEMS used UU CU E GZ W Esophageal carcinoma Cervical (n=14) 7 7 Thoracic (n=93) 31 47 7 3 5 G-E junction (n=79) 44 26 2 7 Locally recurrent carcinoma 12 36 (n=48) Achalasia (n=8) 4 4 UU, Uncovered Ultraflex (Boston Scientific, Boston, Mass.); CU, covered Ultraflex (Boston Scientific); E, Esophacoil (Instent Inc., Eden Prarie, Minn.); GZ, Gianturco Z-stent (Cook Inc.,Bloomington, Ind.); W, Wallstent (Boston Scientific).,Factors that may predispose to esophageal stent migration: multivariate analysis N Migration (%) p value Gender Female 58 8/13 (61.5) 0.0038 Stricture TC 80 2/13 (15.4) 0.954 GEJ 67 9/13 (11.4) 0.017 EAC 8 2/13 (25) 0.625 Previous therapy S + B 4 2/13 (15.4) 0.997 R 10 2/13 (15.4) 0.997 Dilation 10 mm 24 6/13 (46.1) 0.000 Stent GZ 3 2/13(15.4) 0.719 E 12 4.13 (30.7) 0.104 UU 87 4/13 (30.7) 0.169 CU 95 3/13 (23.0) 0.166 TC, Esophageal thoracic carcinoma; GEJ, carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction; EAC, esophageal achalasia; S+B, surgery CU, covered Ultraflex,(Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:96-97.),Esophageal stents for malignant strictures close to the upper esophageal sphincter,Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:1082-90,Esophageal stents for the palliation of malignant dysphagia and fistula recurrence after esophagectomy,Luminal patency. The median survival time after stenting for all patients with stenosis was 70 days (range 1day to 34 months). Stent insertion was technically successful in all but 1 patient (98%) (Fig. 1). Median duration of primary stent patency was 56 days (range 1 day to 33 months) (Fig. 2). A total of 20 episodes of stent dysfunction occurred in 18 (27%) of 66 patients at a median of 38 days post-SEMS insertion (range 2-406 days). Stent dysfunction was caused by tissue in- or overgrowth (n 8),stent migration (n 9), and food impaction (n 3).Tissue in- and overgrowth occurred at a median of 119 days post-SEMS insertion (range 33297 days); 5 patients were successfully treated with a second SEMS. Six (24%) of 25 fully covered stents versus 3 (7%) of 41 partially covered SEMS migrated (P .07) at a median time interval of 66 days after SEMS insertion (range 12-406 days). Of these patients, 6 patients required a second SEMS. Food bolus impaction occurred in 3 (20%) patients at a median time interval of 11 days after SEMS insertion; all 3 were successfully cleared endoscopically. Insertion of a second SEMS was successful in all patients (100%). Median patency of these stents was 59 days (range 5286 days),Fistula sealing. The median survival time of patients with malignant fistula caused by tumor recurrence was 73 days (range 10 days to 91 months). The coated segment of the stent effectively sealed fistulae in all but 1 patient (93%). This patient was successfully treated with a second stent. Stent dysfunction occurred in 6 (40%) of 15 patients.In 5 (33%) patients, additional stents were successfully inserted to manage stent migration (n 4) and persistent leakage during stent treatment (n 1). Two (22%) of 9 fully covered stents versus 2 (33%) of 6 partially covered SEMSs migrated at a median time interval of 5 months post-SEMS insertion (range 5 days to 11 months). Food bolus impaction occurred in 1 patient 17 days post-SEMS insertion, this patient was also successfully treated endoscopicallyby stent clearance.,Overall complications Mild complications after stent placement occurred in 7 (9%) patients including retrosternal pain and symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux. Major complications occurred in 9 (11%) patients. Stridor developed immediately after insertion in 3 patients with a lesion within 4 cm of the upper esophageal sphincter. In all 3 patients, the stent was removed,and they were managed conservatively. Three patients had an upper GI hemorrhage from the tumor site at a median time interval of 26 days after SEMS insertion (range 11 days to 10 months). The bleeding subsided spontaneously in 1 of these patients; the other 2 patients died of the persistent bleeding. An esophageal fistula developed during stent treatment in 2 patients, both of which were located at the distal funnel of the partially covered stent at a median time interval of 48 days post-SEMS insertion. These wall defects were successfully sealed with an additional stent. One patient had stent-induced ulceration after stent migration at 7 months after SEMS insertion and required endoscopic stent extraction.,SEMS placement in recurrent esophageal cancer after surgical resection offers adequate palliation by relieving dysphagia and sealing off esophageal respiratory fistula.Therefore, in these patients who have a relatively short life expectancy, the implantation of SEMSs to should be considered the treatment of choice,Esophageal respiratory fistulae occur in 5% to 10% of patients with esophageal cancer. In our series, 19% of patients with recurrent cancer after gastric tube interposition presented with a fistula. This represents a devastating complication leading to recurrent pulmonary infections and the inability to eat or even swallow saliva. This condition is associated with a very high short-term mortality rate. The technical success of fistula sealing by SEMSs was 93%, which is within the range of the 80% to 100% reported by other series. In the majority of patients with cancer recurrence after esophagectomy, the fistula or stenosis is located close to the upper esophageal sphincter. At this location, SEMS placement may cause foreign-body sensation, tracheal compression, or respiratory fistula. It has been hypothesized that stents should have a body diameter of 18 mm or less to avoid these complications. In our series, however, stridor developed in 3 (4%) patients and a fistula developed in 2 (2%) patients after stent placement, despite the use of small-diameter stents in 4 of them. None of the patients reported globus sensation,Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:249-54,Comparison of Temporary and Permanent Stent Placement with Concurrent Radiation Therapy in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma,J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16:6774,MATERIALS AND METHODS: Covered retrievable expandable nitinol stents were placed in 47 patients with esophageal carcinoma 1 week before starting radiation therapy; the stents were electively removed 4 weeks after placement in 24 patients (group A), while not electively removed in the other 23 patients (group B). In cases of complications, the stents were also removed from patients in groups A and B. The dysphagia score, complications (severe pain, granulation tissue formation, stent migration, esophagorespiratory fistula, and hematemesis), tumor overgrowth/regrowth, reintervention rates, and dysphagiaprogression-free and overall survival rates were compared in the two groups.,RESULTS: Stent placement or removal was technically successful and well tolerated in all patients. The dysphagia score was significantly improved in both groups after stent placement (P .01). Each of the stent-related complications was less in group A than in group B but there was no significant difference. However, the total number of patients with one or more than one complications and who needed related reinterventions was significantly less in group A than in group B (P .042 and .030, respectively). Tumor overgrowth/regrowth and the total number of patients who required related reinterventions was not significantly different (P1.00 and .517, respectively). Dysphagiaprogression-free and overall survival rates were significantly longer in group A than in group B (P .005 and .001, respectively).,CONCLUSION: Temporary placement of a covered retrievable expandable metallic stent with concurrent radiation therapy for patients with esophageal carcinoma is beneficial for reducing complications and related reinterventions and for increasing resultant survival rates compared with permanent esophageal stent placement.,Use of self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks,Surg Endosc (2009) 23:15261530,Esophagorespiratory Fistula: Long-term Results of Palliative Treatment with Covered Expandable Metallic Stents in 61 Patients,Radiology Vol 232 , 253-259,MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with ERFs due to esophageal or bronchogenic carcinoma and one patient with ERF due to pressure necrosis caused by initial esophageal stent placement for esophageal carcinoma were treated with covered expandable esophageal or tracheobronchial metallic stents. Information about technical success of stent placement, initial clinical success and failure, fistula reopening, and complications was obtained. Survival curves for both patient groups with initial clinical success and failure were obtained and compared with Kaplan- Meier methods and log-rank test.,RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in all patients, with no immediate procedural complications. The stent completely sealed off the fistula in 49 (80%) of 61 patients so that they had no further aspiration symptoms (initial clinical success). Twelve (20%) of 61 patients had persistent aspiration symptoms due to incomplete ERF closure (initial clinical failure). During follow-up, the fistula reopened in 17 (35%) of 49 patients with initial clinical success: In eight patients, the reopened ERF was sealed off successfully with stent placement or balloon dilation. In two patients with reopened ERF caused by food impaction, the reopened fistula resolved spontaneously. Seven patients did not undergo further treatment. All patients died during follow-up, and mean survival was 13.4 weeks (range, 156 weeks) after stent placement. Mean survival in patients with initial clinical success was significantly longer than that in patients with initial clinical failure (15.1 vs 6.2 weeks, P .05).,CONCLUSION: Covered expandable metallic stents were placed in 61 patients with ERFs, but the initial clinical success rate was poor and the rate of reopening was high; however, interventional treatment was effective for sealing off reopened ERFs.,Use of self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks,P. Salminen Surg Endosc (2009) 23:15261530,10 (6.4%) were treated with SEMS for sealing of an iatrogenic esophageal perforation (n = 4), a spontaneous esophageal rupture in Boerhaaves syndrome (n = 4), or an anastomotic leakage (n = 2). Results The median time from perforation or anastomotic leak to stent insertion was 13 days (range, 2 h to 48 days). The esophageal leak was totally sealed for 8 (80%) of 10 patients. The overall mortality rate was 50% (n = 5), and three (30%) of the five deaths were related to the perforation (n = 2) or leakage (n = 1). In both of the perforation cases, the diagnosis and treatment were substantially delayed. One patient with an anastomotic leak after gastrectomy died of the complication despite successful operative and SEMS treatment. Two of the deaths were unrelated to the perforation. In both cases, the cause of death was a disseminated malignant disease.,Conclusions Traumatic perforations and anastomotic leaks can be treated effectively with covered SEMS together with adequate drainage of the thoracic cavity even in cases of severely ill patients with inveterate esophageal perforations and leaks.,Postoperative esophageal leak management with the Polyflex esophageal stent,J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:333-8,Objective: Leak after esophageal anastomosis or perforation repair prolongs hospitalization, prevents oral hydration and nutrition, and can produce localized infection or sepsis. This investigation reviews our experience treating postoperative esophageal leaks with the Polyflex esophageal stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass).,Methods: Over a 30-month period, patients with a postoperative esophageal leak were treated with the Polyflex stent for leak occlusion. Leak occlusion was confirmed by means of esopha