Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37198410›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Esophageal dilation with EsoFLIP is faster than CRE balloon dilation combined with EndoFLIP in children.

Brett Hoskins, Erik Almazan, Brenna Hohl, Kenneth Ng

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Brett HoskinsDivision of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 North Broadway, Suite 1003, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. bhoskin1@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3048-5662
Erik AlmazanDepartment of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8625-0083
Brenna HohlDepartment of Medicine, Campbell University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lillington, NC, 27546, USA.
Kenneth NgDivision of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 North Broadway, Suite 1003, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1554-6204

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundControlled radial expansion (CRE) balloon dilators are traditionally used to dilate esophageal strictures during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). EndoFLIP is a diagnostic tool used during an EGD to measure important parameters of the gastrointestinal lumen, capable of assessing treatment before and after dilation. EsoFLIP is a related device that combines a balloon dilator with high-resolution impedance planimetry to provide some of the luminal parameters in real time during dilation. We sought to compare procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and safety profile of esophageal dilation using either CRE balloon dilation combined with EndoFLIP (E + CRE) versus EsoFLIP alone.

methodsA single-center retrospective review was performed to identify patients ≤ 21 years of age who underwent an EGD with biopsy and esophageal stricture dilation using E + CRE or EsoFLIP between October 2017 and May 2022.

resultsTwenty-nine EGDs with esophageal stricture dilation were performed in 23 patients (19 E + CRE and 10 EsoFLIP). The two groups did not differ in age, gender, race, chief complaint, type of esophageal stricture, or history of prior gastrointestinal procedures (all p > 0.05). The most common medical history in the E + CRE and EsoFLIP groups were eosinophilic esophagitis and epidermolysis bullosa, respectively. Median procedures times were shorter in the EsoFLIP cohort compared to E + CRE balloon dilation (40.5 min [IQR 23-57 min] for the EsoFLIP group; 64 min [IQR 51-77 min] for the E + CRE group; p < 0.01). Median fluoroscopy times were also shorter for patients who underwent EsoFLIP (0.16 min [IQR 0-0.30 min] for EsoFLIP dilation; 0.30 min [IQR 0.23-0.55] for the E + CRE group; p = 0.003). There were no complications or unplanned hospitalizations in either group.

conclusionEsoFLIP dilation of esophageal strictures was faster and required less fluoroscopy than CRE balloon dilation combined with EndoFLIP in children, while being equally as safe. Prospective studies are needed to further compare the two modalities.

Indexed as

Esophageal StenosisChildConstriction, PathologicDilatationHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBalloon dilationCREEndoFLIPEsoFLIPEsophageal stricturePediatrics

Identifiers

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.