SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Endoscopic Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Anastomosis Strictures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacological therapy for preventing esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Automated machine learning model for predicting anastomotic strictures after esophageal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robust Results Regarding Frailty and the Prognosis of Acute Pancreatitis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Complete Rectal Anastomotic Occlusion That Spontaneously Recanalized, Allowing for Unusual Endoscopic Treatment with a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent: A Case Report.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
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
backgroundAnastomotic strictures following colectomy and proctectomy are a significant cause of benign lower gastrointestinal tract (LGIT) obstruction, with a reported incidence of up to 30%. Endoscopic interventions such as balloon dilation, stricturotomy, mechanical dilation, electrocautery incision, and stent placement are utilized for management. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic interventions for the management of benign LGIT anastomotic strictures.
methodsLiterature search was performed for published full-text articles using the Embase, Pubmed, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane databases for endoscopic management of anastomosis strictures and related terms including endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD), stricturotomy (EST), mechanical dilation, electrocautery incision (ECI), and stent placement.
resultsA total of 1363 patients from 33 studies were included. The most common indication for anastomosis was colorectal cancer (92%). Overall technical success (ability to pass the endoscope) was achieved in 93% of cases, with immediate clinical success in 85% and sustained success in 81% at follow-up. ECI demonstrated the highest clinical success rates (98% immediate, 91% at the end of follow-up). Adverse events occurred in 6% of patients, most commonly perforation, which was most frequent with EBD. Stent placement showed high initial success but had issues with stent migration and adverse events.
conclusionOverall, EBD and ECI were the most effective, with ECI showing the highest success rates. Despite its technical challenges, EST was both effective and safe. This study underscores the need for further prospective research comparing various endoscopic interventions to improve management strategies for LGIT anastomotic strictures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39269668What 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.