ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Endoscopic Treatment for Pediatric Esophageal Stenosis Induced by Chemical Burn, Congenitally, or After Surgical Repair of Esophageal Atresia.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic remodeling of esophageal stenosis refractory to traditional endoscopic treatment.JPGN reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic treatment for congenital pediatric esophageal stenosis or pediatric stenosis that develops after a chemical burn or surgical repair of esophageal atresia. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 15 pediatric patients who underwent endoscopic treatments (dilation and/or stenting and/or incision) for congenital esophageal stenosis or esophageal stenosis that developed after a chemical burn or surgical repair of esophageal atresia, between January 2010 and January 2019. The patients were periodically followed-up to assess the safety and efficacy of treatment by comparing the diameter of stricture and dysphagia score before and after procedures, and complications or recurrence. Results: All children successfully underwent the procedures. Fourteen of the 15 patients received endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) as the first step of treatment, but EBD alone only resolved the symptoms in two patients. The remaining patients received other comprehensive treatments, such as EBD with endoscopic incision (EI), EBD with stent replacement, or a combination of EBD, stent replacement, and EI. Eleven (11/15, 73.3%) patients experienced symptomatic relief after endoscopic treatment, and recurrence was noted in four patients on 3-36 months after the final endoscopic treatment. All four patients underwent esophageal surgery to relieve their symptoms. Until October 2021, all patients experienced symptom relief, and their dysphagia scores decreased from 3-4 to 0-1 during the follow-up period of 8-121 months. The average diameter of stenosis was increased from 0.34 cm (range 0.2-0.7 cm) to 1.03 cm (range 0.8-1.2 cm). No severe complications occurred during endoscopic treatment and follow-up. Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment is safe and effective for pediatric esophageal stenosis that is congenital or induced by chemical burns or surgical repair of esophageal atresia. Comparative large-scale studies are required to confirm our findings.
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.