Esophageal stents are effective in managing various pathologies. However, they are limited by their most common complication: migration. This study aimed to present the largest comprehensive review of the risk factors associated with stent migration and the interventions leveraged to prevent stent migration.

A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were primary data sources (no systematic reviews), ≥18 years of age, esophageal stent placement, and reported indication for intervention, site of placement, and migration rate. A total of 162 studies met the inclusion criteria. Proportions experiencing migration were pooled using a random-effects model with a DerSimonian-Laird estimator to account for potential heterogeneity, and forest plots were used to visualize the treatment effects across studies.

A total of 14,092 patients were included in the analysis. The mean migration rate across all studies and stent types was 17.2%, and the mean reintervention rate was 83.2%. Cancerous indications, benign strictures, history of esophageal surgery, stent diameter of <20 mm, plastic stents, and fully covered stents were associated with significantly higher migration rates. There was a trend toward stents using antimigration technology having lower migration rates (effect size [ES] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20) than those that did not (ES = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.48). However, this difference was not significant. There were no statistically significant differences among the stent fixation strategies (clips, sutures, wire hooks, and Shim technique).

Several risk factors are associated with stent migration. However, no currently available solutions can significantly reduce stent migration. Further optimization of these devices or the creation of new technology to prevent migration is required.

High migration rates for fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FC-SEMSs) have been reported in the literature. Endoscopic suture fixation has been explored as a mitigation strategy. This study sought to compare rates of migration and other adverse events after esophageal FC-SEMS placement with and without endoscopic suturing.

We performed a randomized controlled trial involving adult patients who underwent FC-SEMS placement at our institution for management of esophageal strictures. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 stratified randomization based on benign or malignant etiology) to undergo FC-SEMS placement with endoscopic suture fixation or FC-SEMS placement alone. All investigators were blinded to the randomization sequence. Patients and statistical analysts were blinded to intervention assignment. Primary outcome was stent migration, and secondary outcomes were other stent-related adverse events, technical success, procedure duration, time to migration, and premature stent removal due to adverse events. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed comparing endoscopic suturing with FC-SEMS placement alone.

Between July 2021 and December 2022, a total of 46 patients were enrolled: 24 in the fixation group and 22 in the non-fixation group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the stent migration rate was significantly lower in the fixation group compared with the non-fixation group (risk ratio, .28; 95% CI, .11-.74; P = .008). All secondary outcomes were similar in both groups, except procedure duration, which was longer in the fixation group (P = .001). Endoscopic suturing was cost-effective for preventing stent migration compared with stent placement alone. The trial was terminated early after an interim analysis clearly showed inferior primary outcomes in the non-fixation group.

These findings support the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic suture fixation for preventing esophageal FC-SEMS migration. Further studies comparing endoscopic suturing and other stent fixation strategies are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05082948.).

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) are effective for symptom palliation in patients with esophageal obstruction. However, their placement can lead to adverse events such as stent migration and restenosis. A novel fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) with antimigration properties has been developed to address these issues. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this novel stent in treating malignant esophageal obstruction.

This prospective pilot study enrolled patients with malignant esophageal obstruction treated with the novel stent at a tertiary referral center. Primary outcomes included technical and clinical efficacy, whereas secondary outcomes were adverse events. Treatment outcomes were compared between the novel stent and historical control groups.

137 patients were analyzed, comprising 32 in the novel stent group and 105 in the historical control group. In the novel stent group, technical success was achieved in 100% of patients and clinical success in 96.9%. No stent placement-related events, including bleeding or perforation, were observed. Though no significant differences in adverse events were found, the novel stent group had a lower migration rate than the historical control group (9.4% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.565). Median stent patency was similar between the groups (70.5 vs. 43.0 days, p = 0.185).

The novel multisegmented FCSEMS demonstrated high technical and clinical efficacy with a low migration rate, presenting a promising treatment option for malignant esophageal obstruction. Further studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these findings.

 Esophageal stenting is an important intervention for managing malignant and benign dysphagia, with stent migration representing a common drawback. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the benefit of stent fixation over nonfixation.

 A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 2023 for comparative studies evaluating the migration rates of esophageal stents with versus without (control) fixation. The primary outcome was migration rate. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rate. A subgroup analysis stratified the results based on different fixation techniques: suturing, over-the-scope (OTS) clipping, and through-the-scope (TTS) clipping. Meta-analysis was based on a random effects model and the results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 %CIs.

 10 studies (1014 patients) were included. The rate of stent migration was significantly lower after fixation (OR 0.20, 95 %CI 0.11-0.37; I2  = 59 %, P = 0.01). The adverse event rate was similar between fixation and control groups (OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.28-1.52; I2  = 55 %, P = 0.06). In the subgroup analysis, all fixation techniques remained superior to nonfixation of stents (suturing OR 0.23, 95 %CI 0.10-0.53; OTS clips OR 0.31, 95 %CI 0.17-0.58; TTS clips OR 0.10, 95 %CI 0.03-0.38); however, only the OTS and TTS clip groups achieved nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2  = 0 %, P = 0.67 and P = 0.73, respectively). No difference between techniques was recorded for migration rates.

 Esophageal stent fixation was associated with significantly lower migration rates compared with nonfixation of stents, regardless of fixation technique and stenting indication.

Palliative endoscopic stent placement may be considered in patients with malignant gastrointestinal obstruction. Stent migration is a potential complication, particularly for those placed at a surgical anastomosis or across a stricture caused by extra-alimentary tract factors. We report a patient with left renal pelvis cancer and gastrojejunostomy obstruction who underwent endoscopic stent placement and laparoscopic stent fixation.

A 60-year-old male with peritoneal dissemination of a left renal pelvis cancer was admitted for treatment of upper gastrointestinal obstruction. A laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy had been previously performed for cancer invasion of the duodenum. Imaging showed gastroduodenal dilation and impaired passage of contrast medium through the efferent loop of the gastrojejunostomy. Gastrojejunostomy anastomosis site obstruction due to dissemination of left renal pelvis cancer was diagnosed. Conservative treatment failed and endoscopic stent placement with laparoscopic stent fixation was performed. After surgery, the patient was able to tolerate oral intake and he was discharged without complications. The patient gained weight and was able to resume chemotherapy, indicating the procedure was effective.

Endoscopic stent placement with laparoscopic stent fixation for malignant upper gastrointestinal obstruction appears effective in patients with a high risk of stent migration.

Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is routinely performed in a variety of benign and malignant GI diseases. One of the most frequent adverse events after esophageal SEMS placement is stent migration. We evaluated a novel over-the-scope clip device (stentfix OTSC; Ovesco Endoscopy, Tuebingen, Germany) designed and approved for SEMS fixation.

This single-center retrospective observational cohort study was performed to analyze stent migration rates before and after availability of the stentfix OTSC device. A cohort of patients who consecutively underwent SEMS fixation with the stentfix OTSC system (SF cohort) was compared with an historical cohort of patients who did not receive stentfix OTSC fixation or any other stent fixation method (NF cohort) before the stentfix OTSC system became available. Outcome variables including technical success, adverse events and clinical success were analyzed.

Seventy-seven patients (SF cohort, 26; NF cohort, 51) underwent esophageal SEMS implantation for malignant (69%) and benign (31%) conditions. The technical success rate of stent fixation was 100%, and no procedure-related adverse events were observed. The stent migration rate was significantly lower in the SF cohort compared with the NF cohort (8.3% vs 35.4%, P < .001), indicating a relative risk reduction of 76.5% associated with stentfix OTSC application. Stent implantation across the gastroesophageal junction was identified as a predictor of stent migration.

In patients with benign or malignant gastroesophageal diseases, there was a significantly lower stent migration rate in patients managed with the stentfix OTSC system compared with those without stent fixation. The application was technically successful in all cases, and no adverse events related to clip application or removal were observed.

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are routinely used to palliate malignant dysphagia. However esophageal SEMS can migrate or obstruct due to epithelial hyperplasia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rates and factors predicting migration and obstruction, and the nutritional outcomes in partially covered (pc) vs. fully covered (fc) SEMS vs. fcSEMS with antimigration fins (AF) placed for malignant dysphagia.

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing SEMS placement for malignant dysphagia at three academic medical centers.

Among 357 patients, there were 55 (15.4%) stent migrations, 45 (12.6%) obstructions from epithelial hyperplasia, and 20 (5.6%) food impactions. Median overall survival was 79 days (IQR 41,199). The percent weight change/change in albumin at 30 and 60 days after SEMS placement were -2.24%/-0.544 g/dL and -2.98%/-0.55 g/dL, respectively. Stent migration occurred significantly more often with fcSEMS than pcSEMS (25.3% vs 10.9%; P < .003), but there was no difference when either group was compared to fcSEMS-AF (19.3%). The overall rate of epithelial hyperplasia resulting in stent obstruction was low (12.6%) and not different between stent types. Factors associated with increased risk of SEMS migration on multivariable logistic regression included stricture traversability with a diagnostic endoscope (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.29-4.35) and use of fcSEMS (OR, 2.56; 1.31-5.00) or fcSEMS-AF (OR, 2.30, 1.03-5.14).

Traversability of a malignant esophageal stenosis predicts SEMS migration. In these patients with a limited overall survival, pcSEMS are associated with lower rates of stent migration and similar rates of obstruction compared to fcSEMS.

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

Endoscopic stenting is the standard of care for full thickness esophageal wall defects. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic closure of esophageal defects using stenting, with or without endoscopic suturing.

This is a single-center retrospective study of patients with esophageal wall defects who underwent endoscopic interventions. Outcomes of stenting with or without endoscopic suturing of the defect were assessed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with successful defect closure.

One hundred and fourteen patients with esophageal wall defects underwent 254 endoscopies with an overall complete closure rate of 75.8%. Twenty-three (20.2%) patients underwent primary closure using endoscopic suturing and subsequent esophageal stenting, while 91 (79.8%) underwent esophageal stenting only. The dual modality group (versus the stent-only group) had similar defect closure rates (84.2 vs. 73.8%, p = 0.55) and time to stent migration (37 vs. 12.5 days, p = 0.07), but was associated with longer procedure times (60 vs. 36 min, p < 0.01) and fewer additional endoscopic procedures (13.6 vs. 43.2%, p = 0.01). Stent suturing significantly decreased migration (35.5 vs. 58.5%, p = 0.04), was associated with fewer additional endoscopies (15.4 vs. 50%, p < 0.01) and reduced need for additional stents (7.7 vs. 34.3%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, chronic defects (> four weeks old) were 81% less likely to close compared to acute (≤ 4 weeks) defects (OR 0.19, CI 0.04-0.77, p = 0.02), and large diameter stents (23 mm) were associated with higher odds of defect closure (OR 3.36, CI 1.02-11.4, p = 0.04).

Endoscopic treatment of esophageal wall defects is safe, effective, and more likely to be successful in acute defects using larger caliber stents. Stent suturing reduces migration, need for additional endoscopic procedures, and stent exchanges. Further comparative studies with larger cohorts are needed to validate our results.

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement is primarily indicated to palliate dysphagia for patients with expected short-term survival. We aimed to assess the migration rate and other stent-related adverse events (AEs) of a fully covered SEMS with an anti-migration system (FCSEMS-AMS) for palliation of malignant dysphagia.

This is a prospective study including patients with inoperable esophageal cancer that received a FCSEMS-AMS (Taewoong, Niti-S Beta™), in five tertiary-care endoscopic centers from January 2014 to February 2016.

Fifty-three consecutive patients were enrolled. Tumor location was proximal, mid and distal esophagus±esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) in 6, 14, and 33 cases, respectively. Overall, non-severe AEs were reported in 18 patients (34.0%), 13 of them required an additional endoscopic procedure. Migration occurred in 7 patients (13.2%): 3 from the upper and 4 from the lower esophagus and EGJ. Stent retrieval was necessary in one patient due to intolerable pain. Food bolus impaction and tumor overgrowth occurred in 2 patients (3.8%) and 4 (7.5%) patients respectively. Four patients complained of gastroesophageal reflux as late AEs. Median follow-up was 19.3 months. Dysphagia significantly improved until 3 and 6 months from stent insertion (median score before FCSEMS-AMS: 3, vs median score: 1). Median dysphagia-free time was 10 months.

Placement of the Taewoong, Niti-S Beta™ stent appeared to be a safe and effective treatment of malignant dysphagia. The anti-migration system reduced the overall migration rate, although it remained high in strictures located in the upper esophagus and when the stent was placed across the EGJ.

An intragastric satiety-inducing device (ISD) (Full Sense Device; Baker, Foote, Kemmeter, Walburn, LLC, Grand Rapids, MI) is a novel weight-loss device, which may induce satiety by applying continuous pressure on the gastric cardia. This study investigated the effect of the ISD on food intake and body weight gain in a rodent model.

Thirty-two male Sprague-Dawley rats (weight, 250-300 g) were randomly divided into four groups of eight individuals. Single-disk (SD) and double-disk (DD) group animals underwent peroral placement of a single- or double-disk ISD, respectively, under fluoroscopic guidance. The ISD comprised a 4 mm × 1.5 cm nitinol stent placed in the lower esophagus and one (single-disk) or two (double-disk) 2.5-cm-diameter star-shaped nitinol disks placed in the gastric fundus. Esophageal stent (ES) and sham-operated (SO) group animals underwent peroral placement of the ES part of the ISD and a sham operation, respectively.

Food intake was significantly different among the four groups over the 4-week study period (P < 0.001); food intake was significantly lower in the SD and DD groups than in the SO group (P = 0.016 and P = 0.002, respectively) but was not significantly different between the SD and DD groups (P > 0.999) and between the ES and SO groups (P = 0.677). Body weight was significantly different among the four groups by the end of the study period (P < 0.001); body weight was significantly lower in the DD group than in the SD, ES, and SO groups (P = 0.010, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively) and in the SD group than in the SO group (P = 0.001), but it was not significantly different between the ES and SO groups (P = 0.344).

ISD reduced food intake and suppressed body weight gain in a rodent model.

To evaluate the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a novel full sense device (FSD) for the treatment of obesity in a porcine model.

The novel FSD comprised a self-expanding metallic esophageal stent connected to a star-shaped nitinol disk. Three types of FSD were used: fully covered (type A), fully covered with barbs (type B), and uncovered with barbs (type C). Nine juvenile pigs were divided into two groups: FSD (n = 6) and control (n = 3). FSD type A was placed in the FSD group. In case of migration, either FSD type B or type C was then randomly placed. Food intake was monitored daily. Weight changes and ghrelin hormone levels were monitored weekly for 12 weeks.

FSD placement was technically successful in all pigs. All FSDs except one migrated to the stomach within 1 week after placement. The pig in which the FSD was retained showed decreased food intake in the first week after FSD placement, and there was a difference in the final weight between the FSD pig and control pigs. The percentage of weight gain was 116.6% in the control group and 105.3% in the FSD pig.

FSD placement under fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance is technically feasible and safe in a porcine model. The uncovered FSD appears to decrease food intake and reduce the rate of weight gain. However, the high FSD migration rate is not encouraging.

We report our institution's experience with endoscopic suturing and hypothesize that it has high technical and clinical success.

This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent a procedure with the endoscopic suturing system between April 2010 and March 2019. Definitions of technical and clinical success were established for each application.

Overall technical and clinical success in 151 procedures was 97.4% and 74.2%, respectively. Endoscopic suturing was used 24 times to treat leaks or fistulas, with a clinical success rate of 55.6%. The clinical success of stent fixations (11) was 72.7%. Intentional mucosal and submucosal defects were closed 20 times with a clinical success of 83.3%. Iatrogenic perforations (9) were repaired with a clinical success of 87.5%. Marginal ulcers were oversewn (5), with an 80% clinical success rate. Diverticulopexy in the esophagus was clinically successful in two patients. Endoscopic suturing was used in endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in 10 patients and endoscopic gastrojejunostomy revision in 70 patients; weight loss was observed in both groups at up to 2 and 5 years, respectively.

Endoscopic suturing was used successfully in numerous situations spanning the gastrointestinal tract with high rates of technical and clinical success.

There is currently limited long-term data regarding the clinical outcomes of endoscopic stents as an alternative for emergency surgery in the treatment of acute esophageal perforation. Our aim was to compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic stenting with those of surgery for patients with acute esophageal perforation.

We performed a retrospective study of acute esophageal perforation patients who underwent insertion of esophageal stents (N.=80) or surgery (N.=85) for treatment. The primary endpoint was technical and clinical success to resolve esophageal perforation. Secondary endpoints include early (procedural) and long-term adverse event, acute mortality, and hospital stay duration.

Technical success was achieved in 78% of patients treated with stent, and 90.6% of patients who underwent surgery. Clinical success to resolve perforation was 88.7% of patients with stent placement and 95.3% in the surgery group (P=0.15). Stent patients had significantly less procedural adverse events compared to the surgery group (3.8% vs. 15%, P=0.0001). The acute mortality for the stent group was 2.5% compared to 3.5% in surgery group (P=0.6). Patients in the stent group had shorter median hospital stay (22 days) as compared to the surgery group (32 days) (P<0.00001). Stent placement was associated with higher long-term complication rates as compared to surgery (31.2% vs. 10.6%, P=0.0001). Patients who underwent surgery had a significantly higher mortality (10.6%) compared to stent group (2.5%) (P=0.05).

Technical and clinical success for acute esophageal perforation therapy were similar among patients who underwent placement of stents as compared to surgery. Surgery was associated with a higher mortality, longer hospital stay and a markedly higher rate of procedural adverse events. Esophageal stents may be considered as the initial mode of therapy of a patient with acute esophageal perforation.

Esophageal cancer is a very deadly disease, killing more than 15,000 people in the United States annually. Almost 400,000 new cases happen in the worldwide every year. More than 50% esophageal cancer patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage when they need an esophageal stent to open the blocked esophagus for feeding and drinking. Esophageal stents have evolved in stages over the years. Current clinically used stents commonly include stainless steel or nitinol self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and self-expandable plastic stent (SEPS). There are many choices of different types of stents and sizes, with fierce competition among manufacturers. However, current stent technology, whether uncovered, partially covered, fully covered SEMS or SEPS, has their own advantages to solve the dysphagia, stricture, and fistula problems, but they also cause some clinical complications. The ideal stent remains elusive. New 3D printing technique may bring new promising potential to manufacturing personalized esophageal stents. Drug-eluting stents could be the new avenue to do more than just pry open a stricture or cover a defect in the esophageal lumen, a possibility of proving local anticancer therapy simultaneously. Additionally, the lack of esophageal cancer animal models also hinders the progress of stent development. This paper reviews these topics for a comprehensive understanding of this field. In a conclusion, the ultimate goal of the future esophageal stent would have multifunction to treat the underlying conditions and restore esophageal function to near normal.

Palliation of dysphagia is the cornerstone of palliative treatment in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. Available palliative options for dysphagia are oesophageal stent placement and radiotherapy. In general, oesophageal stent placement is the preferred therapeutic option in patients with a relatively poor prognosis because of its rapid relief of dysphagia. Regardless of ongoing technical developments, recurrence of dysphagia and stent-related complications are still occurring. For patients with a relatively good prognosis, intra-luminal brachytherapy is advised because of its sustained palliation of dysphagia. Due to limited availability of intra-luminal brachytherapy in clinical practice, fractionated external beam radiation therapy is commonly applied as an alternative. Selection of the optimal palliative approach for patients remains however challenging as conclusive high-quality evidence is limited. Moreover, with the introduction of new palliative treatment options (e.g. palliative chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic options) and the concurrent change of patient characteristics, supporting evidence from large randomised studies is warranted.

Oesophageal stents are widely used for palliating dysphagia from malignant obstruction. They are also used with increasing frequency in the treatment of oesophageal perforation, as well as benign strictures from a variety of causes. Improved oncological treatments have led to prolonged survival of patients treated with palliative intent; as a consequence, stents need to function and last longer in order to avoid repeat procedures. There is also increasing need for meticulous procedure planning, careful selection of the device most appropriate for the individual patient and planned follow-up. Furthermore, as more patients are cured, there will be more issues with resultant long-term side-effects, such as recalcitrant strictures due to radiotherapy or anastomotic scarring, which will have to be addressed. Stent design needs to keep up with the progress of cancer treatment, in order to offer patients the best possible long-term result. This review article attempts to illustrate the changing realities in oesophageal stenting, differences in current stent designs and behaviour, as well as the pressing need to refine and modify devices in order to meet the new challenges.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Esophageal stents are used in clinical practice for endoscopic treatment of a wide variety of esophageal diseases and conditions. This review provides key principles and a literature update on the utility and limitations of esophageal stenting in clinical practice.

Indications for esophageal stenting can be subdivided into two groups. The first group consists of patients with malignant or benign dysphagia, in which an esophageal stent restores luminal patency. In the past years, temporary stent placement has increasingly been used in the therapeutic management of refractory benign esophageal strictures. When endoscopic repeated bougie dilation and other endoscopic treatment modalities have failed, an esophageal stent could be considered. Based on the literature, a fully covered self-expandable metal stent may be the preferred choice for the treatment of both malignant and benign dysphagia. The second group consists of patients with leakage from the esophageal lumen into the surrounding tissue. Esophageal leakage can be subdivided into three forms, benign esophageal perforations (iatrogenic and spontaneous), anastomotic leakage after reconstructive esophageal surgery, and fistula. In a carefully selected group of patients, a covered esophageal stent may be used for sealing off the leakage, thereby preventing further contamination of the tissue surrounding the defect. The past few years, several validated prediction tools have been developed that may assist clinicians in the selection of patients eligible for esophageal stent placement. Based on retrospective studies and expert opinion, a partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stent may have a role in treatment of esophageal leakage. Research do date supports the utilization of esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant or benign dysphagia and esophageal leakage.

Endoscopic suturing of fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FC-SEMSs) may prevent migration. The aim of this study was to compare rates of migration between sutured FC-SEMSs (S-FCSEMSs), unsecured FC-SEMSs, and partially covered SEMSs (PC-SEMSs) placed for benign esophageal leaks and strictures.

In a retrospective, single-center, cohort study, rates of migration for S-FCSEMSs, FC-SEMSs, and PC-SEMSs were assessed in patients with at least 1 month of follow-up or experiencing clinically significant stent migration (CSSM) any time after placement. CSSM was defined as proximal or distal displacement of the stent by ≥2 cm or passage into the stomach plus the recurrence of pre-SEMS symptoms or signs. A multivariable analysis was done to identify additional risk factors for stent migration.

A total of 184 SEMSs were placed in 101 patients, including 32 S-FCSEMSs in 25 patients, 114 FC-SEMSs in 59 patients, and 38 PC-SEMSs in 30 patients. CSSM occurred with 56 of 184 stents (30.4%) in 36 of 101 patients (35.6%), including 3 of 32 (9.4%) S-FCSEMSs, 45 of 114 (39.5%) FC-SEMSs, and 8 of 38 (21.1%) PC-SEMSs (P = .005). Migration was less likely for S-FCSEMSs than for FC-SEMSs (9.4% vs 39.5%; P = .01) but not between S-FCSEMSs and PC-SEMSs (9.4% vs 21.1%; P = .07) or between FC-SEMSs and PC-SEMSs (39.5% vs 21.1%; P = .38). Previous stent migration (odds ratio [OR], 3.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-8.19; P = .01) and previous esophageal surgery (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.67; P = .002) were associated with increased and decreased risk of CSSM, respectively.

Endoscopic suturing of FC-SEMSs for benign esophageal disease reduces CSSM compared with unsecured FC-SEMSs but not PC-SEMSs. Patients with previous stent migration may benefit from prophylactic suturing of FC-SEMSs.

Covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are utilized for the management of benign and malignant esophageal conditions; however, covered SEMS are prone to migration. Endoscopic suture fixation may mitigate the migration risk of covered esophageal SEMS. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic suture fixation for covered esophageal SEMS.

Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review from 2011 to 2016 to identify studies (case control/case series) reporting the technical success and migration rate of covered esophageal SEMS following endoscopic suture fixation. We searched multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings. We calculated pooled rates (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of technical success and stent migration using a random effects model.

We identified 14 studies (212 patients) describing covered esophageal SEMS placement with endoscopic suture fixation. When reported, SEMS indications included leak/fistula (n = 75), stricture (n = 65), perforation (n = 10), and achalasia (n = 4). The pooled technical success rate was 96.7% (95% CI 92.3-98.6), without heterogeneity (I ² = 0%). We identified 29 SEMS migrations at rate of 15.9% (95% CI 11.4-21.6), without heterogeneity (I ² = 0%). Publication bias was observed, and using the trim-and-fill method, a more conservative estimate for stent migration was 17.0%. Suture-related adverse events were estimated to occur in 3.7% (95% CI 1.6-8.2) of cases.

Endoscopic suture fixation of covered esophageal SEMS appears to reduce stent migration when compared to published rates of non-anchored SEMS. However, SEMS migration still occurs in approximately 1 out of 6 cases despite excellent immediate technical success and low risk of suture-related adverse events.

Endoscopic placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) has emerged as a palliative treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Although covered SEMSs can prevent tumor ingrowth, frequent migration of covered SEMSs may offset their advantages in preventing tumor ingrowth.

We conducted this multicenter, single-arm, retrospective study at six tertiary referral centers to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a partially covered SEMS with an uncovered large-bore flare at the proximal end as an antimigration system in 41 patients with symptomatic malignant GOO. The primary outcome was clinical success, and the secondary outcomes were technical success, stent dysfunction, adverse events, and survival after stent placement.

The technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 95%, respectively. Stent dysfunctions occurred in 17 patients (41%), including stent migration in nine (23%), tumor ingrowth in one (2%), and tumor overgrowth in four (10%). Two patients (5%) developed adverse events: one pancreatitis and one perforation. No procedure-related death was observed.

A novel partially covered SEMS with a large-bore flare proximal end was safe and effective for malignant GOO but failed to prevent stent migration. Further research is warranted to develop a covered SEMS with an optimal antimigration system.