X-ray Planning and Control in Gastrointestinal Stenting

Yu. A. Kozlova, Z. A. Bagateliya, D. Dolidze, I. Korzheva, G. Chechenin, Y. Barinov, G. V. Danilov
{"title":"X-ray Planning and Control in Gastrointestinal Stenting","authors":"Yu. A. Kozlova, Z. A. Bagateliya, D. Dolidze, I. Korzheva, G. Chechenin, Y. Barinov, G. V. Danilov","doi":"10.20862/0042-4676-2023-104-1-47-55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are widely used in gastrointestinal (GI) tract obstructive lesions. Planning and stent placement control can be performed with using roentgenological, endoscopic or combined method. The choice of the method depends on doctor’s preferences and clinic’s traditions, but endoscopic one is used more often. Comparison of the above methods efficacy in a single-institution material was not found in the literature. Objective: to compare clinical and roentgenological results of GI stenting depending on the method used. Material and methods. In 2016–2021, 267 cases of GI stenting were performed in Botkin Municipal Clinical Hospital. In 70 (26%) of them an endoscopic method was used, in 97 (36%) – a roentgenological one, and in 100 (37%) – a combined one. All patients underwent X-ray control postop. Results were analyzed statistically. Results. The implementation of X-ray diagnostics solo or in combination with endoscopy in GI SEMS planning and placement provided better results in comparison with endoscopic method only. Total SEMS expansion was achieved in 99% of cases versus 79% after only endoscopic procedures, correct stent placement – in 98% and 75%, respectively, evacuation was restored in 98% and 70%, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). It is evident that X-ray methods are not useful for preliminary marking in decompensated patients with GI stenosis. But after elimination of such cases from analysis, the difference between the groups remained statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The data obtained substitute expediency of X-ray method solo or with endoscopic one. Significant improvement of the results can be referred to more exact preoperative selection of SEMS type and size with X-ray method.","PeriodicalId":34090,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2023-104-1-47-55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are widely used in gastrointestinal (GI) tract obstructive lesions. Planning and stent placement control can be performed with using roentgenological, endoscopic or combined method. The choice of the method depends on doctor’s preferences and clinic’s traditions, but endoscopic one is used more often. Comparison of the above methods efficacy in a single-institution material was not found in the literature. Objective: to compare clinical and roentgenological results of GI stenting depending on the method used. Material and methods. In 2016–2021, 267 cases of GI stenting were performed in Botkin Municipal Clinical Hospital. In 70 (26%) of them an endoscopic method was used, in 97 (36%) – a roentgenological one, and in 100 (37%) – a combined one. All patients underwent X-ray control postop. Results were analyzed statistically. Results. The implementation of X-ray diagnostics solo or in combination with endoscopy in GI SEMS planning and placement provided better results in comparison with endoscopic method only. Total SEMS expansion was achieved in 99% of cases versus 79% after only endoscopic procedures, correct stent placement – in 98% and 75%, respectively, evacuation was restored in 98% and 70%, respectively. All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). It is evident that X-ray methods are not useful for preliminary marking in decompensated patients with GI stenosis. But after elimination of such cases from analysis, the difference between the groups remained statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The data obtained substitute expediency of X-ray method solo or with endoscopic one. Significant improvement of the results can be referred to more exact preoperative selection of SEMS type and size with X-ray method.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胃肠支架的X线规划与控制
背景自膨胀金属支架(SEMS)广泛应用于胃肠道梗阻性病变。计划和支架放置控制可以使用放射学、内窥镜或联合方法进行。方法的选择取决于医生的偏好和诊所的传统,但内镜方法更常用。文献中未发现上述方法在单一机构材料中的疗效比较。目的:比较不同方法的胃肠道支架置入术的临床和X线结果。材料和方法。2016-2021年,博特金市临床医院共进行了267例胃肠道支架植入术。其中70人(26%)使用了内窥镜检查方法,97人(36%)使用了X线检查方法,100人(37%)使用了联合检查方法。所有患者术后均行X线对照检查。对结果进行统计学分析。后果与仅内窥镜方法相比,在胃肠道SEMS规划和放置中单独或结合内窥镜进行X射线诊断提供了更好的结果。99%的病例实现了总SEMS扩张,而仅在内镜手术、正确放置支架后实现的SEMS扩张率为79%,分别为98%和75%,排空恢复率为98%和70%。所有差异均具有统计学意义(p<0.001)。很明显,X射线方法对胃肠道狭窄失代偿期患者的初步标记无效。但在从分析中排除这些病例后,两组之间的差异仍然具有统计学意义(p<0.05)。所获得的数据代替了单独X射线法或与内窥镜法的方便性。结果的显著改善可以参考术前用X射线方法更准确地选择SEMS的类型和大小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparative Reproducibility Analysis of Thoracic Aorta Morphometric Parameters According to Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Angiography Radiological Features of Changes in the Lungs Caused by Fast- or Slow-Growing Nontuberculous Mycobacteria To Help the Practitioner: Imaging of Ovarian Masses According to the O-RADS MRI Ovarian Malignancy Categorical Risk Scale Experience in Using Breast Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-MIBI Differential Diagnosis of Fibrotic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis with Its Non-Fibrotic Phenotype and Usual Interstitial Pneumonia During High-Resolution Computed Tomography
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1