ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Predictive factors for the success of endoscopic dilation of esophageal caustic stricture: the experience of a French tertiary reference center.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 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
- Treatment methods for oesophageal strictures in paediatric patients with epidermolysis bullosa: a systematic review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Pooled it
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Predicting Stricture Formation Following Caustic Injury.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Endoscopic and surgical treatment of refractory caustic esophageal strictures.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Endoscopic dilation with bougies versus balloons in caustic esophageal strictures: 17-year experience from a tertiary care center.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPredictors of the efficacy of endoscopic dilation for caustic esophageal stricture have been poorly studied.
methodsAll patients undergoing an endoscopic dilation for an esophageal caustic stricture between 1990 and 2015 in a French national reference center were included. Success of dilation was defined by self-food autonomy without the need for reconstructive esophageal surgery.
resultsDuring the study period, 894 patients were admitted after caustic ingestion. Among them, 101 patients developed esophageal stricture and 92 patients were eligible for analysis (missing data in 8 cases, 1 patient died before endoscopic dilation). In this cohort (median age 42 years, women 53%, strong alkali 74%, suicide attempt 77%, hydrostatic balloon use 93%), the overall success rate of dilation was 57% with a median number of 3 dilation sessions (274 sessions, range 1-17). Factors predicting the success of the procedure were: non-inflammatory stricture or non-inflammatory intercalated mucosa between stricture (88% vs 47%, p = 0.001), a single stricture versus 2 or more strictures (69% vs 47% vs 33%, respectively, p = 0.04), a stricture of less than 5 cm (70% vs 27%, p < 0.001) and the existence of mild/ moderately tight or very tight stricture (70% vs 21% of success, p < 0.001). Perforation rate was 6.5% (18/274) requiring emergency surgery in 2 cases.
conclusionSeveral characteristics of caustic esophageal strictures are significantly associated with the success rate of endoscopic dilation. Our data may be useful for customizing treatment strategies in patients with a caustic stricture.
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.