Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32306110›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Endoscopic treatment of pouch inlet and afferent limb strictures: stricturotomy vs. balloon dilation.

Nan Lan, Jin-Jie Wu, Xian-Rui Wu, Tracy L, Hull, Bo Shen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Pouchitis: pathophysiology and management.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Therapeutic Endoscopy in Postoperative Pouch Complications.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nan LanInterventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Jin-Jie WuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xian-Rui WuInterventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Tracy L
HullDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Bo ShenInterventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. boshenmd@gmail.com.
Cleveland Clinic · USSixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrictures are common complications after ileal pouch surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic stricturotomy vs. endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) in the treatment of pouch inlet strictures.

methodsAll consecutive ulcerative colitis patients with the diagnosis of pouch inlet or afferent limb strictures treated in our Interventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit (i-IBD) from 2008 to 2017 were extracted. The primary outcomes were surgery-free survival and post-procedural complications.

resultsA total of 200 eligible patients were included in this study, with 40 (20.0%) patients treated with endoscopic stricturotomy and 160 (80.0%) patients treated with EBD. Symptom improvement was recorded in 11 (42.3%) patients treated with endoscopic stricturotomy and 16 (13.2%) treated with EBD. Subsequent surgery rate was comparable between the two groups (9 [22.5%] vs. 33 [20.6%], P = 0.80) during a median follow-up of 0.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.4-0.8) vs. 3.6 years (IQR 1.1-6.2) in patients receiving endoscopic stricturotomy and EBD, respectively. The overall surgery-free survival seems to be comparable as well (P = 0.12). None of the patients in the stricturotomy group developed pouch failure, while 9 patients (5.6%) had pouch failure in the balloon dilation group (P = 0.17). Procedural bleeding was seen in three occasions (4.7% per procedure) in patients receiving endoscopic stricturotomy and perforation was seen in three occasions (0.8% per procedure) in patients receiving EBD (P = 0.02). In multivariable analysis, an increased length of the stricture (hazard ratio [HR] 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.8) and concurrent pouchitis (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.0-5.7) were found to be risk factors for the requirement of surgery.

conclusionEndoscopic stricturotomy and EBD were both effective in treating patients with pouch inlet or afferent limb strictures, EBD had a higher perforation risk while endoscopic stricturotomy had a higher bleeding risk.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalColonic PouchesConstriction, PathologicDilatationExtremitiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisProportional Hazards ModelsRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeBalloon dilationEndoscopyIleal pouch–anal anastomosisInletStrictureStricturotomyUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID32306110
OpenAlexW3016458769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.