ArticleDysphagia2020
Outcomes of Endoscopic Dilation in Patients with Esophageal Anastomotic Strictures: Comparison Between Different Etiologies.
Article in Dysphagia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term and long-term management of caustic-induced gastrointestinal injury: An evidence-based practice guidelines.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Guideline
- Use of biliary metal stents and defect-closure systems: a new strategy to treat refractory benign esophageal strictures.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Outcomes of transhiatal colon bypass with or without esophagectomy for establishing continuity after corrosive esophageal burns in pediatric patients.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Offering Tailored Therapy for Patients with Benign Esophageal Strictures-A Tertiary Center Experience in Romania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThis retrospective study was aimed at assessing the efficacy of endoscopic dilation for esophageal anastomotic strictures, and to compare response between caustic anastomotic strictures (CAS) and non-caustic anastomotic strictures (NCAS). MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with anastomotic strictures (enrolled during January 1996-December 2015) were analyzed. Short- and long-term outcomes of dilation, in terms of clinical success, refractory, and recurrent strictures were compared between NCAS and CAS. Patients with refractory and recurrent strictures were managed with adjunctive therapy including intralesional steroids. Factors predicting refractoriness at start of dilation and reasons for more than ten lifetime dilations were also evaluated.
resultsOf the 142 patients, 124 (mean age-44.02; males-74) underwent dilation. Clinical success was achieved in 113 (91.3%) patients requiring a median [Interquartile range (IQR)] of 4 (2-10) sessions. The number of dilations to achieve clinical success, refractory strictures, and recurrent strictures, and the use of adjunctive therapy were significantly higher for CAS than for NCAS. Intralesional steroid use decreased periodic dilation index (PDI) significantly in CAS. Caustic etiology and starting dilation diameter of < 10 mm were found to be predictors of refractoriness, with the former alone being an independent predictor of more than ten lifetime dilations. No patient had free perforation; however, five required revision surgery.
conclusionPatients with CAS fared worse than those with NCAS in terms of number of dilations, refractoriness, recurrence of strictures, and need of adjunctive therapy. Endoscopic dilation can successfully ameliorate dysphagia due to anastomotic strictures in a majority of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.