Efficacy and safety of lumen-apposing metal stent for benign gastrointestinal stricture

Ann Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul-Aug;31(4):425-438. doi: 10.20524/aog.2018.0272. Epub 2018 May 7.

Abstract

Management of benign gastrointestinal (GI) strictures refractory to primary (balloon and savary dilation) and secondary (steroid injection, fully covered self-expanding metal stent, incision therapy) treatment modalities remains a challenge. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs), originally designed for the management of pancreatic fluid collections, are an attractive option for GI stricture because of their anti-migratory property, attributable to their saddle-shaped design. In this article, we reviewed 70 patients from 12 original studies who received LAMS for refractory (68/70) or treatment-naïve (2/70) benign GI stricture. The technical and clinical success rates were 98.6% (69/70) and 79.7% (55/69), respectively. Endoscopic placement, with or without fluoroscopic guidance, was generally successful, with only a minority requiring endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance where the lumen was completely obscured. The majority of the strictures were short (≤1 cm), but comparable technical and clinical success was noted in isolated cases with long strictures, where 2 overlapping LAMSs were placed. For the overall population, a failure rate of 21.5% (14/69) was noted and was attributed to either lack of follow up, or to persistent or de novo symptoms requiring stent removal/exchange or surgical referral. One perforation (1.4%), five stent migration events (7.1%), two bleeding events (2.9%) and two de novo strictures proximal to the LAMS (2.9%) were reported for the entire study cohort. No mortality was attributable to LAMS placement. Although experience is still evolving, LAMS placement guided by esophagogastroduodenoscopy or EUS is a technically feasible and safe procedure with good clinical outcomes for benign refractory GI strictures.

Keywords: Benign stricture; gastrointestinal stricture; lumen-apposing metal stent.

Publication types

  • Review