Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37653157›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Endoscopic dilation with bougies versus balloons in caustic esophageal strictures: 17-year experience from a tertiary care center.

Anupam Kumar Singh, Yalaka Rami Reddy, Anuraag Jena, Sreekanth Appasani, Pankaj Gupta, Saroj Kant Sinha, Rakesh Kochhar

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Esophageal strictures: Management beyond dilation.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Esophageal Mucosal Injuries From Drugs, Radiation, and Caustic Agents.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025
    Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anupam Kumar SinghDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Yalaka Rami ReddyDepartment of Gastroenterology, STAR Hospital, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, India.
Anuraag JenaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Topiwala National Medical College & BYL Nair Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Sreekanth AppasaniDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, India.
Pankaj GuptaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Saroj Kant SinhaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Rakesh KochharDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. dr_kochhar@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4077-6474
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INTopiwala National Medical College & BYL Nair Charitable Hospital · INYashoda Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEndoscopic dilation is the preferred management strategy for caustic esophageal strictures (CES). However, the differences in outcome for different dilators are not clear. We compared the outcome of CES using bougie and balloon dilators.

methodsBetween January 2000 and December 2016, the following data of all the patients with CES were collected: demographic parameters, substance ingestion, number of strictures, number of dilations required to achieve ≥ 14 mm dilation, post-dilation recurrence, and total dilations. Patients were divided into two groups for the type of dilator, i.e., bougie or balloon. The two groups were compared for baseline parameter, technical success, short- and long-term clinical success, refractory strictures, recurrence rates, and major complications.

resultsOf the 189 patients (mean age 32.17 ± 12.12 years) studied, 119 (62.9%) were males. 122 (64.5%) patients underwent bougie dilation and 67 (35.5%) received balloon dilation. Technical success (90.1% vs. 68.7%, p < 0.001), short-term clinical success (65.6% vs. 46.3%, p value 0.01), and long-term clinical success (86.9% vs. 64.2%, p < 0.01) were higher for bougie dilators compared to balloon dilators. Twenty-four (12.7%) patients developed adverse events which were similar for two groups. On multivariate analysis, use of bougie dilators (aOR 4.868, 95% CI 1.027-23.079), short-term clinical success (aOR 5.785, 95% CI 1.203-27.825), and refractory strictures (aOR 0.151, 95% CI 0.033-0.690) were independent predictors of long-term clinical success.

conclusionUse of bougie dilators is associated with better clinical success in patients with CES compared to balloon dilators with similar rates of adverse events.

Indexed as

CausticsEsophageal StenosisAdultConstriction, PathologicDilatationEsophagoscopyFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCausticsBalloon dilationBenign strictureCorrosive strictureEsophageal dilationEsophagusSavary Gilliard

Identifiers

PMID37653157
OpenAlexW4386324947

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.