ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Clinical outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilation for dysphagia after anti-gastroesophageal reflux surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDysphagia is a potential complication following anti-gastroesophageal reflux surgery (ARS), with challenging management. Endoscopic balloon dilation is recommended for patients with significant dysphagia from tight wraps or strictures. We aim to evaluate factors associated with the need for post-ARS dilation and the outcomes of balloon dilation. Additionally, we assessed the predictors of sustained clinical failure after dilation.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic ARS between January 2012 and April 2023. Patients were divided based on whether they received balloon dilation using a through-the-scope wire-guided dilator. Excluded were those with pre-existing achalasia, other dilation devices, or inadequate follow-up.
resultsOf 1002 patients, 69 underwent 94 postoperative dilations, and the remainder were controls. The dilation cohort was older (63.78 vs. 56.14 years, P = 0.032) and had more magnetic sphincter augmentations (MSA) (P = 0.004), a prior history of ARS (P = 0.039), and a higher rate of laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.009) compared to controls. Of all dilations, 54 (57.5%) patients reported immediate dysphagia improvement, and 39 (41.5%) had sustained improvement. Sixteen (23.2%) patients required reoperation, primarily for hiatal hernia recurrence or slipped wrap. Multivariable logistic regression showed that MSA (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.46, P = 0.031) and requiring multiple dilations (OR 0.16, CI 0.03-0.68) predicted sustained dilation failure.
conclusionsFactors including older age, history of prior ARS, and MSA are correlated with higher post-ARS dilation rates. Although dilation improves symptoms in approximately half of patients initially, one-fourth may eventually require reoperation, mostly due to a slipped wrap or hernia recurrence. Thus, in cases of persistent dysphagia, consideration for surgical failure is important, and further imaging and workup are warranted. Patients who undergo MSA and those who have more than one dilation are more likely to experience dilation failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39210060What 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.