ArticleThoracic cancer2022
Balloon dilatation complications during esophagogastric anastomotic stricture treatment under fluoroscopy: Risk factors, prevention, and management.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a prognostic nomogram model for predicting outcomes in benign esophagogastric anastomotic stenosis treated with fluoroscopic balloon dilation.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Balloon dilatation complications during esophagogastric anastomotic stricture treatment under fluoroscopy: Risk factors, prevention, and management.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBalloon dilatation (BD) is a common treatment for esophagogastric anastomotic stricture (EAS), but with complications. This study investigates the risk factors, prevention, and management of BD complications to provide clinical guidance.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 378 patients with EAS treated by BD from March 2011 to June 2021. The association between esophagogastric anastomotic rupture outcome and patient and stricture characteristics and treatment were analyzed by logistic regression.
resultsBD was performed 552 times and technical success, 98.0%; overall clinical success, 97.8%; major adverse events, 1.3%; minor adverse events, 9.4%; mortality, 0.3%. Logistic regression showed that age (p = 0.080), sex (p = 0.256), interval from surgery to stricture development (p = 0.817), number of dilatations (p = 0.054), cause of stricture (p ≥ 0.168), and preoperative chemotherapy (p = 0.679) were not associated with anastomotic rupture. Balloon diameter (p < 0.001), preoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.003), and chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.021) were correlated with anastomotic rupture. All patients with type I and II ruptures resumed oral feeding without developing into type III rupture. Type III rupture occurred in six cases, who resumed oral feeding after 7-21 days of nasal feeding and liquid feeding. One patient died of massive bleeding after BD.
conclusionsSymptomatic treatment for type I and II ruptures and transnasal decompression and jejunal nutrition tubes for type III rupture, are suggested pending rupture healing. Tumor recurrence, preoperative radiotherapy, and balloon diameter affected the anastomotic rupture outcome.
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.