Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

Is fluoroscopy necessary for oesophageal SEMS placement? A retrospective cohort study

2025Artigo científico Acesso aberto
Ver registo simples
datacite.subject.sdg03:Saúde de Qualidade
datacite.subject.sdg09:Indústria, Inovação e Infraestruturas
datacite.subject.sdg10:Reduzir as Desigualdades
dc.contributor.authorRelvas, Luís Miguel
dc.contributor.authorGago, Tânia
dc.contributor.authorBarros, Sónia
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, Isabel
dc.contributor.authorPortugal, Margarida
dc.contributor.authorVelasco, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorCaldeira, Paulo
dc.contributor.authorPeixe, Bruno
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-07T12:37:26Z
dc.date.available2026-05-07T12:37:26Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are widely used for the palliation of malignant esophageal conditions, including strictures, fistulas, and extrinsic compression. Placement may be guided by fluoroscopy, direct endoscopy, or both. However, few studies have directly compared the outcomes of these techniques. Objective: to compare the safety and efficacy of SEMS placement under endoscopic versus fluoroscopic control in a real-world clinical setting. Methods: we conducted a retrospective observational study of adult patients who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between January 2011 and December 2023. Patients were assigned to either the endoscopic control (EC) or fluoroscopic control (FC) group based on fluoroscopy availability. Outcomes included technical success, complication rates (early and late), and overall survival. Results: a total of 103 patients were included (mean age 69.4 years; 79 % male), with 43 receiving SEMS under EC and 60 under FC. The primary indication was malignant esophageal stricture (91.3 %). Technical success was achieved in 97 % of EC cases and 100 % of FC cases. Early complications occurred in 53 % of EC and 49 % of FC patients (p = 0.70), including chest pain (40.7 %), vomiting (22.3 %), and stent migration (5.8 %). Late complications occurred in 28 % of EC and 31 % of FC cases (p = 0.74), most commonly tumor overgrowth (14.6 %) and stent migration (10.7 %). Thirty-day mortality was 2.3 % in the EC group and 0 % in the FC group (p = 0.31). Median survival was 102 days (EC) versus 113 days (FC) (p = 0.44). Conclusions: SEMS placement under both endoscopic and fluoroscopic control is safe and effective, with no significant differences in complication rates, technical success, or survival. Endoscopic guidance may be a viable alternative to fluoroscopy in experienced hands, particularly in resource-limited settings.eng
dc.identifier.doi10.17235/reed.2025.11330/2025
dc.identifier.issn1130-0108
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/28884
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.publisherSociedad Espanola de Patologia Digestiva (SEPD)
dc.relation.hasversionhttps://www.reed.es/ArticuloFicha.aspx?id=16884&hst=0&idR=153&tp=1
dc.relation.ispartofRevista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectEsophageal cancer
dc.subjectEsophageal stents
dc.subjectMalignant dysphagia
dc.subjectFluoroscopy control
dc.subjectEndoscopy control
dc.titleIs fluoroscopy necessary for oesophageal SEMS placement? A retrospective cohort studyeng
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage94
oaire.citation.issue2
oaire.citation.startPage88
oaire.citation.titleRevista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
oaire.citation.volume118
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
Is Fluoroscopy Necessary for Oesophageal SEMS Placement.pdf
Tamanho:
736.56 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Ver/Abrir
Licença
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
3.46 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição:
Ver/Abrir

Coleções

ULS_10.1-MED-Artigos