ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Safety of a Novel Upper Esophageal Sphincter Balloon Dilator.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. 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.
- Feasibility of Awake In-Office Transnasal Double Balloon Dilation of the Pharyngoesophageal Segment.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Pharyngeal High-Resolution Manometry-Based Evaluation of Dysphagia Recovery After Lateral Medullary Syndrome: A Case Series of Two Patients.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe shape of esophageal dilators has not changed in over 350 years. Clinical and animal research suggests that the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) is not round but approximates a kidney shape and that cylindrical dilators may be suboptimal. The Infinity UES Dilation System has been developed specifically for the anatomic configuration of the UES. This study evaluates the safety of the UES-specific Infinity Dilation System.
methodsAll patients undergoing dilation of the UES between January 1, 2022 and September 1, 2023 were included. Demographics, procedure indication, dilator type, minor adverse events, and major complications were abstracted. Minor adverse events, complications, and maximum dilation dimension (mm) were compared between groups.
resultsA total of 477 patients were included. Eight hundred and seventy-three total UES dilations were performed. The primary indications for UES dilation were cricopharyngeus muscle dysfunction (43%) and stenosis from radiation toxicity (40%). Twenty-three percent (202/873) of dilations were performed with an Infinity balloon, 31% (270/873) were performed using two conventional balloons placed side by side, and 46% (401/873) were performed with one singleton conventional balloon. The average maximum dilation dimension was 33 (±4.7) mm for Infinity balloons, 32 (±3.8) mm for two side-by-side balloons, and 18 (±3.4) mm for singleton balloons. There were three major complications with conventional balloons and none with Infinity balloons. There were no significant differences in minor adverse events between groups.
conclusionsA UES-specific esophageal dilator provides a greater maximum dilation dimension and appears to be at least as safe as dilation with a single cylindrical balloon designed to dilate the esophagus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 135:66-72, 2025.
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.