ClinicalTrials.gg
Enrolling by invitationNCT06862479ES-LCCE-UDFMUpdated May 6, 2026

Luso-Cor Stent Compared to Other Endoscopic Techniques for Management of Fistulas and Anastomotic Dehiscences(ES-LCCE-UDFM)

An observational study in Obesity, Obesity, Morbid and Esophageal Cancer, sponsored by Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in Portugal. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-06.

Primary conditionObesity, MorbidRegistry: ObesityReclassifiedWhy we changed it
Registry
Obesity — the first condition term the registry derived for this study.
ClinicalTrials.gg
Obesity, Morbid
Why
  1. The study's listed conditions name Obesity, Morbid, a narrower term within Obesity.
Confidence
High: the new condition is named in the study's own listed conditions. Of 351 hand-checked studies reclassified this way, 68% were exactly right and 84% in the right disease family; the registry's first term was right for 5% (measured 2026-10-21). How we classify →
Wrong?
Tell us the study's main condition →

Sponsored by Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
180
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The global prevalence of obesity has prompted an increase in bariatric surgery, which is the only management strategy that provides long-term weight loss and improvement of obesity-related diseases. Bariatric surgeries include sleeve gastrectomy(SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass(RYGB),and laparoscopically adjustable gastric banding(LAGB). The incidence of adverse events depends on the type of bariatric surgery performed, with serious adverse events occurring in approximately 4% and mortality in 0.1% patients. The incidence of fistulas after SG varies between 0.2% to 2.5% and between 1% and 4.9% in patients who have undergone an RYGB. The incidence of strictures after SG is approximately 0.35%. Older, more obese, and male patients with multiple comorbidities related to obesity are at increased risk for the development of fistulas and mortality following bariatric surgery. Additionally, surgery after LAGB increases the risk of adverse events.

This study will compare the efficacy and safety of the Luso-Cor esophageal stent versus conventional covered metallic stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in the management of fistulas and anastomotic dehiscences after oncologic or bariatric surgery on the stomach and esophagus.

Read the detailed description

The morbidity and mortality related to adverse events increases with surgical re-exploration at the site of a fistula orifice. For this reason, management of fistulas after bariatric surgery has shifted from a surgical to a primarily endoscopic approach, primarily with covered metallic stents, with fistula closure success rates between 75% and 100%. However, a primarily endoscopic approach is demanding in terms of resource use, and the high incidence of stent migration often requires multiple reinterventions - both endoscopically and surgically.

The Luso-Cor esophageal stent was designed to take into account altered anatomy after bariatric surgery and to overcome strictures in the gastric tube, which can be concomitantly present in patients with fistulas following SG. A pilot study involving 15 patients with fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy managed with the Luso-Cor esophageal stent showed a 100% rate of fistula closure, low rate of adverse events with only one episode of stent dysfunction.

A recent meta-analysis suggested that endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) was associated with a 21% increase in successful fistula closure compared to self expanding metallic stents (RD 0.21, CI 0.10-0.32; P = 0.0003), a 12% reduction in mortality compared to stenting (RD 0.12, CI 0.03-0.21; P = 0.006) and an average reduction of 14.22 days in duration of treatment (CI 8.38-20.07; P \< 0.00001). Additionally, EVT was associated with a 24% reduction in adverse events (RD 0.24, CI 0.13-0.35; P = 0.0001. There were no statistical differences between the studied therapies regarding the length of hospital stay.

Therefore, this study aims to evaluate and compare the success of the novel Luso-Cor esophageal stent in the exclusion of fistulas, reinterventions, stent-related adverse events, duration of hospitalization and its efficacy in the management of fistulas after SG compared to other stents or EVT.

Hypothesis of the study The novel concept of esophageal anchoring of a specially designed long stent may be useful in management of fistulas after gastric surgery with high success rate and minimal morbidity compared to conventionally available esophageal or bariatric surgery stents and EVT.

Objectives of the study

To evaluate and compare the performance of the Luso-Cor oesophageal stent with other stents or EVT in management of fistulas after bariatric and oncologic surgery on the upper digestive tract with regard to:

  • Technical success defined as successful deployment of the stent at the desired location and exclusion of the fistula orifice.
  • Clinical efficacy defined as successful closure of the fistula orifice after stent removal.
  • Safety - Early and late adverse events related to stent placement.
  • Duration of hospitalization
  • Number of endoscopic procedures required till fistula closure
  • Mortality

Inclusion criteria Patients undergoing endoscopic management of fistulas after bariatric surgery or dehiscences of esophago-jejunal, esophago-gastric or gastro-jejunal anastomosis after esophageal or gastric oncologic surgery will be included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

  • Pregnancy
  • Age \< 18years
  • Inability to give informed consent.

Type of study: Prospective observational multicentre study.

Materials and methods Conventional covered metallic and bariatric surgery stents and EVT will be used as per standard of care.

Design features of the Luso-Cor esophageal stent: This is a specifically designed stent to manage fistulas after sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and esophago-jejunal anastomotic dehiscences after total gastrectomy. This metallic stent measuring 24 cm in length is covered with silicone and has three sections: 1) A proximal flared portion with diameters of 30, 34 and 36 mm measuring 6 cm in length; 2) Middle narrow portion with a fixed diameter of 20 mm measuring 16 cm in length; and 3) Distal flared portion with a fixed diameter of 30 mm measuring 2 cm in length.

Esophageal anchoring, is achieved through the larger diameter of the proximal flared portion compared to conventional stents and a 5 mm uncovered portion located 1 cm below the proximal edge of the stent. The remainder of the stent is covered with a thin silicone coating. This contrasts with the conventional partially covered metallic esophageal stents which usually have at least 1 cm of uncovered portions near the proximal and distal edges.

There are two zones within the middle narrowed portion of the stent which allow articulation of the stent on itself up to 90º. This allows the stent to adapt to altered anatomy and peristaltic activity of the foregut. The distal flared portion of the stent is designed to be placed in the gastric antrum or in the proximal jejunum, to avoid peri-stent reflux of enteric fluid.

Radio-opaque markers are placed at the proximal and distal edge of the stent and at the junction of the proximal flared portion with the middle narrow portion, unlike conventional metallic esophageal where the radio-opaque markers are placed at the stent edges and in the middle.

Stent placement: Placement of the stent is done by over the wire technique and ideally with X-ray imaging control. It can also be done with endoscopic control by the bedside in emergencies. The distal edge of the stent should be placed at least 2 cm proximal to the pylorus and the proximal flared portion should be placed in the distal esophagus, at least 2 cm above the esophago-gastric junction or esophago-jejunal anastomosis. During stent delivery, after verifying opening of the distal flare of the stent near the pylorus, the endoscopist should focus on the radio-opaque markers in the proximal portion of the stent which are separated by 6 cm so that the proximal flare is liberated in the distal third of the esophagus.

Due to the usually smaller diameter of the esophagus in women, we recommend the use of the Luso-Cor esophageal stent with proximal flare of 30 mm diameter in women and 34 and 36 mm diameters in men. However, the endoscopist should choose the ideal diameter based on the endoscopic assessment of the esophageal lumen diameter prior to stent placement.

After deployment, the stent should be kept in place for at least 4 weeks and up to a maximum of 12 weeks. An oral contrast study should be done 48 to 72 hoursafter stent deployment to confirm effective exclusion of fistula orifice after which oral dietary intake may be commenced. All patients should receive proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) twice a day with a recommendation for head elevation in the supine position to decrease reflux esophagitis.

Stent Removal: Stent removal is easy compared to conventional stents. It requires ablation of the mucosal ingrowth in the 5mm uncovered portion near the proximal edge of the stent with argon plasma 50W/1L, followed by scraping of the tissue with a cap applied at the tip of the endoscope and capture of the drawstring at the proximal edge of the stent with a rat tooth forceps.

Clinical data and management strategy of patients with fistulas or anastomotic dehiscences:

The type of stent used or option for use of EVT as first line endoscopic option will be at the discretion of the endoscopist.

The Luso-Cor esophageal stent was approved for clinical use in Portugal in 2016 by regulatory authorities (INFARMED).

After diagnosis of fistulas, whenever required, patients should undergo surgical peritoneal toillete either by laparotomy or laparoscopy with placement of abdominal drains.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures to manage fistulas or anastomotic dehiscences will be obtained from all patients.

The location and size of the fistula orifice will be determined and the presence of concomitant stricture of the gastric tube noted endoscopically.

Fistulas will be considered as acute if endoscopy was performed within one month of surgery and chronic if performed >1 month after surgery.

Whenever possible, the fistula orifice will be closed with either through the scope clips(TTSCs) or the over the scope clips(OTSCs). Small fistula orifices measuring \<5 mm will be initially managed with either TTSCs or OTSCs.

The Luso-Cor esophageal stent may be used as the first option in patients with fistula orifices >5 mm either alone or in combination with OTSCs or TTSCs, in those patients who have fistula persistence after initial application of TTSCs or OTSCs or in those with concomitant stricture in the gastric tube detected endoscopically.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease after stent placement will be managed with double dose PPI and sucralfate 1g up to 4 times a day.

Definitions Technical success will be defined as correct placement and coaptation of the stent at the previously planned location under fluoroscopic imaging with radio-opaque markers with effective exclusion of fistula orifice.

Clinical efficacy will be defined as closure of the fistula orifice after Luso-Cor esophageal stent removal. Definitive closure of the fistula orifice should be confirmed by contrast injection during endoscopy and / or oral contrast study after Luso-Cor esophageal stent removal.

A secondary endpoint of clinical efficacy will be the effectiveness of the Luso-Cor esophageal stent or other stents in managing fistulas in the gastric tube after vertical gastrectomy.

Stent related adverse events will be defined as early (within 1 week of stent placement) and late (> 1 week after stent placement) and include stent migration, perforation, hemorrhage, stent fracture and mortality.

Primary outcome for this study will be closure of the fistula orifice after stent removal. Secondary outcomes will be effectiveness of the stent in managing strictures in the gastric tube, stent-related adverse events, number of endoscopies, motives for endoscopic reinterventions and the number of stents used, duration of hospitalization and fistula or stent-related mortality.

Simple fistulas will be defined as fistulas communicating between a hollow organ and the peritoneum or pleura (Gastro-pleural or gastro-peritoneal).

Complex fistulas will be defined as fistulas communicating between two hollow organs (Gastro-bronquial) or between a hollow organ and the skin (Gastro-cutaneous) or those with sub-divisions and multiple trajectories in continuity with a fistula orifice.

All procedures will be performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.

Statistical Analysis Qualitative data will be presented as percentages and quantitative data as median (Min-Max). Factors at baseline predicting technical success, clinical success, clinical efficacy and development of adverse events will be evaluated using the Logistic regression analysis.

Qualitative data will be compared with the Chi-square test and quantitative data will be compared with the Student´s t test or Mann-Whitney test if the distribution is normal or non-normal.

Multivariate analysis will take into account all factors at baseline associated with the outcomes measured (p\<0,1) and will be performed using the backward stepwise regression.

A p value \<0,05 will be considered statistically significant. Data will be analyzed using IBM SPSS 21 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

02

Conditions studied

  • Obesity
  • Obesity, Morbid
  • Esophageal Cancer
  • Esophageal Neoplasms
  • Gastric Cancer
  • Gastric Adenocarcinoma
  • Fistula
  • Dehiscence
  • Anastomotic Leak
  • Anastomotic Leak Esophagus
  • Dehiscence; Postoperative

Keywords

  • Fistulas
  • Anastomotic dehiscences
  • Endoscopic management
  • Stents
  • Endoscopic vacuum therapy
03

In context

Obesity, Morbid Reclassified

941 studies on the registry are indexed under Obesity, Morbid; 163 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 180 is above the median of 80 across 311 observational studies indexed under Obesity, Morbid.

Browse Obesity, Morbid studies →

Lead sponsor

Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.

Compared within Obesity, Morbid, this study's primary condition as ClinicalTrials.gg classifies it; the registry's first condition term is Obesity. The counts are of registry records indexed under each term, refreshed daily. How we classify →

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients who develop fistulas or anastomotic dehiscences after oncologic surgery on the stomach or esophagus or after bariatric surgery.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients undergoing endoscopic management of fistulas after bariatric surgery or dehiscences of esophago-jejunal or gastro-jejunal anastomosis after esophageal or gastric oncologic surgery will be included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pregnancy
  • Age \< 18years
  • Inability to give .
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
180 participants (estimated)
Target follow-up
1 Year
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Fistulas after oncologic or bariatric surgery on the stomach or esophagus

    Patients who develop fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach or esophagus or those patients who develop fistulas after bariatric surgery (Vertical or sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass) managed endoscopically with endoscopic vacuum therapy group.

    Procedure: Endoscopic management of fistulas with stents or vacum therapy

Interventions

  • ProcedureEndoscopic management of fistulas with stents or vacum therapy

    A prospective registry of patients who develop fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach or esophagus as well as those after bariatric surgery and managed endoscopically with stents or endoscopic vacuum therapy will be evaluated to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of the Luso-Cor versus conventional partially or fully covered metallic stents or bariatric stents or endoscopic vacuum therapy.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Compare the efficacy of the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in the management of fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery in terms of fistula closure.

    To evaluate and compare the performance of the Luso-Cor oesophageal stent with other stents or EVT in management of fistulas after bariatric and oncologic surgery on the upper digestive tract with regard to fistula closure rate expressed as percentage

    Time frame: 36 months for recruitment of 180 patients.

  2. Compare the safety of the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in the management of fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery in terms of rate of adverse events

    To evaluate and compare the safety of the Luso-Cor oesophageal stent with other stents or EVT in management of fistulas after bariatric and oncologic surgery on the upper digestive tract with regard to early and late adverse event rate expressed as percentage.

    Time frame: 36 months for recruitment of 180 patients.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Compare the technical success of the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in the management of fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery

    Technical success is defined as successful deployment of the stent at the desired location and exclusion of the fistula orifice and will be expressed as percentage.

    Time frame: 36 months for recruitment of 180 patients.

  2. Compare duration of hospitalization in patients developing fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus or bariatric surgery managed with the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy.

    Compare the duration of hospitalization in patients who developed fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery managed with the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in weeks expressed as median (min-max).

    Time frame: 36 months for recruitment of 180 patients.

  3. Compare the number of endoscopies till fistula closure in patients managed with the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy who developed fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus or bariatric surgery.

    Compare the number of endoscopic procedures required till fistula closure in patients managed with the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy who developed fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery expressed as median (min - max)

    Time frame: 36 months for recruitment of 180 patients.

  4. Compare the mortality in patients who developed fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery, managed with the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy.

    Compare the mortality in patients who developed fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery, managed with the Luso-Cor versus conventional stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy expressed as a percentage.

    Time frame: 36 months for recruitment of 180 patients.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Serviço de Gastrenterologia e Hepatologia, Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria
    Lisbon, Lisbon District 1649-035, Portugal
08

References and documents

Publications

  • do Monte Junior ES, de Moura DTH, Ribeiro IB, Hathorn KE, Farias GFA, Turiani CV, Medeiros FS, Bernardo WM, de Moura EGH. Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus endoscopic stenting for upper gastrointestinal transmural defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2021 Sep;33(6):892-902. doi: 10.1111/den.13813. Epub 2020 Oct 28. PubMed 33300634 ↗
  • Clinical Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Stent for Fistula Management Following Sleeve Gastrectomy Noronha Ferreira, Carlos et al. Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Volume 26, Issue 1, 12 - 20
  • Eisendrath P, Cremer M, Himpens J, Cadiere GB, Le Moine O, Deviere J. Endotherapy including temporary stenting of fistulas of the upper gastrointestinal tract after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Endoscopy. 2007 Jul;39(7):625-30. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-966533. PubMed 17611917 ↗
  • Kanters AE, Shubeck SP, Varban OA, Dimick JB, Telem DA. Incidence and Efficacy of Stent Placement in Leak Management After Bariatric Surgery: An MBSAQIP Analysis. Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):134-139. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003023. PubMed 30247333 ↗
  • Swinnen J, Eisendrath P, Rigaux J, Kahegeshe L, Lemmers A, Le Moine O, Deviere J. Self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of benign upper GI leaks and perforations. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 May;73(5):890-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.019. PubMed 21521563 ↗
  • Bege T, Emungania O, Vitton V, Ah-Soune P, Nocca D, Noel P, Bradjanian S, Berdah SV, Brunet C, Grimaud JC, Barthet M. An endoscopic strategy for management of anastomotic complications from bariatric surgery: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):238-44. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.010. PubMed 21295637 ↗
  • Eubanks S, Edwards CA, Fearing NM, Ramaswamy A, de la Torre RA, Thaler KJ, Miedema BW, Scott JS. Use of endoscopic stents to treat anastomotic complications after bariatric surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 May;206(5):935-8; discussion 938-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.02.016. PubMed 18471727 ↗
  • Puli SR, Spofford IS, Thompson CC. Use of self-expandable stents in the treatment of bariatric surgery leaks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75(2):287-93. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.010. Epub 2011 Nov 1. PubMed 22047699 ↗
  • Fernandez AZ Jr, DeMaria EJ, Tichansky DS, Kellum JM, Wolfe LG, Meador J, Sugerman HJ. Experience with over 3,000 open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures: multivariate analysis of factors related to leak and resultant mortality. Surg Endosc. 2004 Feb;18(2):193-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-8926-y. Epub 2003 Dec 29. PubMed 14691697 ↗
  • van Wezenbeek MR, de Milliano MM, Nienhuijs SW, Friederich P, Gilissen LP. A Specifically Designed Stent for Anastomotic Leaks after Bariatric Surgery: Experiences in a Tertiary Referral Hospital. Obes Surg. 2016 Aug;26(8):1875-80. doi: 10.1007/s11695-015-2027-6. PubMed 26699374 ↗
  • Ballesta C, Berindoague R, Cabrera M, Palau M, Gonzales M. Management of anastomotic leaks after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2008 Jun;18(6):623-30. doi: 10.1007/s11695-007-9297-6. Epub 2008 Apr 8. PubMed 18392906 ↗
  • Rosenthal RJ; International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel; Diaz AA, Arvidsson D, Baker RS, Basso N, Bellanger D, Boza C, El Mourad H, France M, Gagner M, Galvao-Neto M, Higa KD, Himpens J, Hutchinson CM, Jacobs M, Jorgensen JO, Jossart G, Lakdawala M, Nguyen NT, Nocca D, Prager G, Pomp A, Ramos AC, Rosenthal RJ, Shah S, Vix M, Wittgrove A, Zundel N. International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel Consensus Statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of >12,000 cases. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Jan-Feb;8(1):8-19. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2011.10.019. Epub 2011 Nov 10. PubMed 22248433 ↗
  • Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) Consortium; Flum DR, Belle SH, King WC, Wahed AS, Berk P, Chapman W, Pories W, Courcoulas A, McCloskey C, Mitchell J, Patterson E, Pomp A, Staten MA, Yanovski SZ, Thirlby R, Wolfe B. Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 30;361(5):445-54. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0901836. PubMed 19641201 ↗
  • American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues Committee. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery position statement on global bariatric healthcare. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011 Nov-Dec;7(6):669-71. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2011.08.009. Epub 2011 Aug 27. No abstract available. PubMed 21955741 ↗
  • Sjostrom L, Lindroos AK, Peltonen M, Torgerson J, Bouchard C, Carlsson B, Dahlgren S, Larsson B, Narbro K, Sjostrom CD, Sullivan M, Wedel H; Swedish Obese Subjects Study Scientific Group. Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 23;351(26):2683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa035622. PubMed 15616203 ↗
  • Schiesser M, Kressig P, Bueter M, Nocito A, Bauerfeind P, Gubler C. Successful endoscopic management of gastrointestinal leakages after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Dig Surg. 2014;31(1):67-70. doi: 10.1159/000358849. Epub 2014 May 8. PubMed 24819500 ↗
  • Rogalski P, Swidnicka-Siergiejko A, Wasielica-Berger J, Zienkiewicz D, Wieckowska B, Wroblewski E, Baniukiewicz A, Rogalska-Plonska M, Siergiejko G, Dabrowski A, Daniluk J. Endoscopic management of leaks and fistulas after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021 Mar;35(3):1067-1087. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07471-1. Epub 2020 Feb 27. PubMed 32107632 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — This is an investigator driven study which aims to evaluate and compare efficacy of the Luso-Cor esophageal stent versus conventional covered stents versus endoscopic vacuum therapy in the management of fistulas after oncologic surgery on the stomach and esophagus and bariatric surgery

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Jan 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jan 2028, 36 months after the start.

Of 137 non-industry observational studies under Obesity, Morbid, half reached primary completion within 46 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 132. This study's planned 36 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 138 studies reached it within 46 months; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 132.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Feb 18, 2025
First posted
Mar 6, 2025
StartActual
Jan 1, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Jan 1, 2028
CompletionEst.
Jan 1, 2030
Last update
May 6, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 6, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06862479
Lead sponsor
Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria
Responsible party
Carlos Noronha Ferreira (Professor Dr., Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 6, 2025
Start date
Jan 1, 2025
Primary completion
Jan 1, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 1, 2030 (estimated)
Last update
May 6, 2026

Study contacts

Carlos Noronha Ferreira, MD, MSc, PhD
principal investigator · Serviço de Gastrenterologia e Hepatologia, Unidade Local de Saúde Santa Maria

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion