1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70290-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plastic prosthesis versus expandable metal stents for palliation of inoperable esophageal thoracic carcinoma: a controlled prospective study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the rigid stent group experienced 14% procedure related mortality, whereas, the SEMS group experienced no procedure related mortality. Similar complication and MRs were observed by others (5)(6)(7). Uncovered SEMS rapidly replaced rigid stents for management of malignant dysphagia (8).…”
Section: Original Articlesupporting
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the rigid stent group experienced 14% procedure related mortality, whereas, the SEMS group experienced no procedure related mortality. Similar complication and MRs were observed by others (5)(6)(7). Uncovered SEMS rapidly replaced rigid stents for management of malignant dysphagia (8).…”
Section: Original Articlesupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Uncovered SEMS rapidly replaced rigid stents for management of malignant dysphagia (8). However, frequent tumor in-growth obstruction problems were encountered (7,(9)(10)(11). Covering the stent mesh reduced tumor in-growth, but increased SEMS migration rates (12)(13)(14).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, metal stents were associated with fewer complications, shorter hospitalisation after stent placement and superior cost effectiveness (Knyrim et al, 1993). Subsequent randomised studies and a retrospective review produced similar results (De Palma et al, 1996;Roseveare et al, 1998;Eickhoff et al, 2005). Furthermore, the perforation rates and early mortality rates were lower in those patients receiving SEMS.…”
Section: Oesophageal Stents For Malignant Oesophageal Obstructionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…[8][9][10][11] Me an sur vi val ti me fol lo wing stent pla ce ment is re por ted between 2.6 and 5.6 months. 12,13 The re are no ab so lu te con tra in di ca ti ons for esop ha ge al stent pla ce ment. Re la ti ve con tra in di ca tions are ab nor mal co a gu la ti on pro fi le (INR> 1.5 and pla te lets <50.000) and re cent high do se of che mothe raphy/ra di ot he raphy (3-6 we eks) which in cre a se the risk of he morr ha ge and per fo ra ti on, se ve rely ill pa ti ents with li mi ted li fe ex pec tancy, obs truc ti ve lesi on of the sto mach and/or of the small bo wel du e to pe ri to ne al se e ding, se ve re trac he al com pres si on that wo uld be ma de wor se by esop ha ge al in tu ba ti on and ex tre mely high ste no ses clo se to vo cal cords.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%