Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Jan 28;10(1):e0117483.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117483. eCollection 2015.

Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison

Harald Farnik et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Intestinal perforation or leakage increases morbidity and mortality of surgical and endoscopic interventions. We identified criteria for use of full-covered, extractable self-expanding metal stents (cSEMS) vs. 'Over the scope'-clips (OTSC) for leak closure.

Methods: Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for postoperative leakage, endoscopic perforation, or spontaneous rupture of the upper gastrointestinal tract between 2006 and 2013 were identified at four tertiary endoscopic centers. Technical success, outcome (e.g. duration of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality), and complications were assessed and analyzed with respect to etiology, size and location of leakage.

Results: Of 106 patients (male: 75 (71%), female: 31 (29%); age (mean ± SD): 62.5 ± 1.3 years, 72 (69%) were treated by cSEMS and 34 (31%) by OTSC. For cSEMS vs. OTSC, mean treatment duration was 41.1 vs. 25 days, p<0.001, leakage size 10 (1-50) vs. 5 (1-30) mm (median (range)), and complications were observed in 68% vs. 8.8%, p<0.001, respectively. Clinical success for primary interventional treatment was observed in 29/72 (40%) vs. 24/34 (70%, p = 0.006), and clinical success at the end of follow-up was 46/72 (64%) vs. 29/34 (85%) for patients treated by cSEMS vs. OTSC; p = 0.04.

Conclusion: OTSC is preferred in small-sized lesions and in perforation caused by endoscopic interventions, cSEMS in patients with concomitant local infection or abscess. cSEMS is associated with a higher frequency of complications. Therefore, OTSC might be preferred if technically feasible. Indication criteria for cSEMS vs. OTSC vary and might impede design of randomized studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Workflow of the treatment of patients with upper gastrointestinal leakage.
Success—clinical success defined as demission from the hospital with resolution of symptoms that had been caused by the leakage; sponge—endoscopic vacuum therapy; *success: n = 5, death: n = 5, success by further treatment: n = 4; **success: n = 1.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier curve with calculated actuarial event free survival probabilities after the first session of endoscopic therapy for the cSEMS group (solid line) and OTSC group (scattered line).

References

    1. Chang S, Stoll CRT, Song J, Varela JE, Eagon CJ, et al. (2014) The Effectiveness and Risks of Bariatric Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, 2003–2012. JAMA Surg. 149: 275–87. 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3654 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, et al. (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–92. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lim SM, Park JC, Lee H, Shin SK, Lee SK, et al. (2013) Clinical validity of the expanded criteria for endoscopic resection of undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer based on long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 27: 1397–403. 10.1007/s00464-012-2643-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schecter WP, Hirshberg A, Chang DS, Harris HW, Napolitano LM, et al. (2009) Enteric fistulas: principles of management. J Am Coll Surg. 209:484–91. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.05.025 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kantsevoy SV, Bitner M, Mitrakov AA, Thuluvath PJ (2014) Endoscopic suturing closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically feasible, fast, and eliminates the need for hospitalization (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 79: 503–7. 10.1016/j.gie.2013.10.051 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types