Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy

Steve J. Schomisch, Liming Yu, Yuhsin Wu, Eric Pauli, Cassandra Cipriano, Amitabh Chak, Richard H. Lash, Jeffrey L. Ponsky, Jeffrey M. Marks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and study aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) offers a minimally invasive therapy for advanced esophageal dysplasia and early cancers but stricture formation limits its applicability. We aimed at assessing the efficacy of placement of a commercially available biological mesh for preventing stricture formation following esophageal EMR. Methods: 25 swine were submitted to circumferential esophageal EMR with 10-cm extent and divided in five groups: one group with EMR only (control); one receiving an uncovered stent (stent-only group); and three groups receiving a stent covered with one of three extracellular matrices, namely small intestine submucosa (SIS group), acellular dermal matrix (ADMgroup), or urinary bladder matrix (UBM group). Stricture formation was evaluated with weekly esophagograms. Results: The stent-only group had significantly less stricture formation and survival was extended compared with controls (4.8 vs. 2.4 weeks). Compared with stenting only, the addition of a biological mesh did not reduce stricture formation: percent reductions in esophageal diameter for the groups were SIS 86%, ADM94%, and UBM 94%, compared with 82% in the stent-only group. Conclusions: Placement of commercially available biological meshes did not alter remodeling sufficiently to prevent stricture formation after esophageal EMR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)144-148
Number of pages5
JournalEndoscopy
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2014

Fingerprint

Esophageal Stenosis
Pathologic Constriction
Stents
Acellular Dermis
Small Intestine
Extracellular Matrix
Urinary Bladder
Swine
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Schomisch, S. J., Yu, L., Wu, Y., Pauli, E., Cipriano, C., Chak, A., ... Marks, J. M. (2014). Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy. Endoscopy, 46(2), 144-148. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1344997
Schomisch, Steve J. ; Yu, Liming ; Wu, Yuhsin ; Pauli, Eric ; Cipriano, Cassandra ; Chak, Amitabh ; Lash, Richard H. ; Ponsky, Jeffrey L. ; Marks, Jeffrey M. / Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy. In: Endoscopy. 2014 ; Vol. 46, No. 2. pp. 144-148.
@article{bb52add55b4c4108ab5128e4a87ac9bb,
title = "Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy",
abstract = "Background and study aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) offers a minimally invasive therapy for advanced esophageal dysplasia and early cancers but stricture formation limits its applicability. We aimed at assessing the efficacy of placement of a commercially available biological mesh for preventing stricture formation following esophageal EMR. Methods: 25 swine were submitted to circumferential esophageal EMR with 10-cm extent and divided in five groups: one group with EMR only (control); one receiving an uncovered stent (stent-only group); and three groups receiving a stent covered with one of three extracellular matrices, namely small intestine submucosa (SIS group), acellular dermal matrix (ADMgroup), or urinary bladder matrix (UBM group). Stricture formation was evaluated with weekly esophagograms. Results: The stent-only group had significantly less stricture formation and survival was extended compared with controls (4.8 vs. 2.4 weeks). Compared with stenting only, the addition of a biological mesh did not reduce stricture formation: percent reductions in esophageal diameter for the groups were SIS 86{\%}, ADM94{\%}, and UBM 94{\%}, compared with 82{\%} in the stent-only group. Conclusions: Placement of commercially available biological meshes did not alter remodeling sufficiently to prevent stricture formation after esophageal EMR.",
author = "Schomisch, {Steve J.} and Liming Yu and Yuhsin Wu and Eric Pauli and Cassandra Cipriano and Amitabh Chak and Lash, {Richard H.} and Ponsky, {Jeffrey L.} and Marks, {Jeffrey M.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0033-1344997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "144--148",
journal = "Endoscopy",
issn = "0013-726X",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag",
number = "2",

}

Schomisch, SJ, Yu, L, Wu, Y, Pauli, E, Cipriano, C, Chak, A, Lash, RH, Ponsky, JL & Marks, JM 2014, 'Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy', Endoscopy, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 144-148. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1344997

Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy. / Schomisch, Steve J.; Yu, Liming; Wu, Yuhsin; Pauli, Eric; Cipriano, Cassandra; Chak, Amitabh; Lash, Richard H.; Ponsky, Jeffrey L.; Marks, Jeffrey M.

In: Endoscopy, Vol. 46, No. 2, 01.02.2014, p. 144-148.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy

AU - Schomisch, Steve J.

AU - Yu, Liming

AU - Wu, Yuhsin

AU - Pauli, Eric

AU - Cipriano, Cassandra

AU - Chak, Amitabh

AU - Lash, Richard H.

AU - Ponsky, Jeffrey L.

AU - Marks, Jeffrey M.

PY - 2014/2/1

Y1 - 2014/2/1

N2 - Background and study aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) offers a minimally invasive therapy for advanced esophageal dysplasia and early cancers but stricture formation limits its applicability. We aimed at assessing the efficacy of placement of a commercially available biological mesh for preventing stricture formation following esophageal EMR. Methods: 25 swine were submitted to circumferential esophageal EMR with 10-cm extent and divided in five groups: one group with EMR only (control); one receiving an uncovered stent (stent-only group); and three groups receiving a stent covered with one of three extracellular matrices, namely small intestine submucosa (SIS group), acellular dermal matrix (ADMgroup), or urinary bladder matrix (UBM group). Stricture formation was evaluated with weekly esophagograms. Results: The stent-only group had significantly less stricture formation and survival was extended compared with controls (4.8 vs. 2.4 weeks). Compared with stenting only, the addition of a biological mesh did not reduce stricture formation: percent reductions in esophageal diameter for the groups were SIS 86%, ADM94%, and UBM 94%, compared with 82% in the stent-only group. Conclusions: Placement of commercially available biological meshes did not alter remodeling sufficiently to prevent stricture formation after esophageal EMR.

AB - Background and study aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) offers a minimally invasive therapy for advanced esophageal dysplasia and early cancers but stricture formation limits its applicability. We aimed at assessing the efficacy of placement of a commercially available biological mesh for preventing stricture formation following esophageal EMR. Methods: 25 swine were submitted to circumferential esophageal EMR with 10-cm extent and divided in five groups: one group with EMR only (control); one receiving an uncovered stent (stent-only group); and three groups receiving a stent covered with one of three extracellular matrices, namely small intestine submucosa (SIS group), acellular dermal matrix (ADMgroup), or urinary bladder matrix (UBM group). Stricture formation was evaluated with weekly esophagograms. Results: The stent-only group had significantly less stricture formation and survival was extended compared with controls (4.8 vs. 2.4 weeks). Compared with stenting only, the addition of a biological mesh did not reduce stricture formation: percent reductions in esophageal diameter for the groups were SIS 86%, ADM94%, and UBM 94%, compared with 82% in the stent-only group. Conclusions: Placement of commercially available biological meshes did not alter remodeling sufficiently to prevent stricture formation after esophageal EMR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893776093&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893776093&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0033-1344997

DO - 10.1055/s-0033-1344997

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 144

EP - 148

JO - Endoscopy

JF - Endoscopy

SN - 0013-726X

IS - 2

ER -