Comparison between esophageal Wallstent and Ultraflex stents in the treatment of malignant stenoses of the esophagus and cardia

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Several published studies have examined various self-expanding metal esophageal stents for use in the palliative treatment of esophageal or cardiac neoplasia, but few have compared different self-expanding metal stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate non-covered Wallstent and Ultraflex prostheses in the treatment of malignancies in the esophagus and the cardiac region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, the effectiveness of non-covered Wallstents (46 patients) and Ultraflex stents (36 patients) was compared in the treatment of malignancies in the esophageal and cardiac regions. RESULTS: Reintervention procedures were necessary in 16 of the 46 Wallstent patients (six patients during an early phase) and in 22 of the 36 Ultraflex patients (13 during an early phase) (overall P = 0.022; early P = 0.018). The major complication in the Wallstent group was tumor ingrowth (12 of 35 complications), while in the Ultraflex group, it was incomplete deployment (18 of 49 complications). Incomplete stent deployment occurred more often in patients treated with Ultraflex (P = 0.01), and food impaction was more often observed in the Wallstent group (P = 0.001). In addition, in patients with Ultraflex stents, more complex reinterventions were necessary than those required with Wallstents (four vs. 13 complex reinterventions, P = 0.0046). Wallstents tended to improve dysphagia better than Ultraflex stents. CONCLUSION: Compared to Ultraflex stents, Wallstents have several significant short-term and long-term advantages in the palliative treatment of malignancy of the esophagus and cardia