Safety and efficacy of conventional compared to segmented esophageal fully covered self-expanding metal stents: a retrospective multicenter case-control study

BackgroundSegmented self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an alternative to conventional unsegmented SEMS in the treatment of esophageal strictures. Due to their segmented design, they may adapt better to the surrounding structures making them less likely to migrate or cause trauma. We examined if there are clinically relevant differences between segmented and conventional esophageal SEMS in benign and malignant stenosis in terms of their functionality and safety.Patients and methodsWe performed a multicenter, retrospective case-control study of segmented and conventional SEMS implantations in esophageal stenosis. Outcome parameters were adverse events such as migration, occlusion, and severe complications (i.e., bleeding and perforation).Results79 segmented SEMS were identified and compared to 79 conventional SEMS implantations. Groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and etiology. We observed 13.9% severe complications (SEMS-associated clinically significant bleeding or perforation) in the conventional SEMS group compared to 3.8% in the segmented SEMS group. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.025). Rates of migration and occlusion were similar between both groups. Likewise, there was no significant difference in terms of short-term (30 days) clinical success.ConclusionIn this first controlled analysis, segmented SEMS were associated with fewer severe clinical complications compared to conventional SEMS.