ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Endoscopic and surgical treatment of refractory caustic esophageal strictures.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel endoscopic treatment to prevent refractory caustic esophageal strictures: a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Recurrent Esophageal Stricture Following Caustic Injury From a Concentrated Herbal Preparation in a Resource-Limited Setting.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Retrograde gastrostomy-assisted recanalization for refractory post-caustic esophageal stricture.Endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaustic esophageal stricture is usually refractory to endoscopic dilation. A stepwise endoscopic intervention using various modalities has been recommended, with surgery reserved as a last resort. However, the outcomes of stepwise treatment and the impact of prolonged prior endoscopic interventions on subsequent esophageal reconstruction in caustic refractory benign esophageal stricture (cRBES) are not well understood. This study aims to investigate the long-term outcomes of stepwise endoscopic and surgical treatments for this condition.
methodsPatients diagnosed with cRBES were included. Stepwise endoscopic interventions, including intralesional steroid injections combined with dilations and esophageal stent insertion, were sequentially performed as the initial treatment. Esophageal reconstruction is offered to patients who experience failed sequential endoscopic therapies.
resultsOf the 252 patients with a history of corrosive ingestion, forty-one met the criteria for cRBES. Intralesional steroid injections with dilations and stent insertions were primarily performed. Among the 41 patients, 8 (20%) were successfully treated with endoscopic therapy. The success rate of endoscopic treatment was significantly higher for patients with the recurrent subtype compared to those with the refractory subtype (8/11 vs. 0/30, p < 0.0001). Of these 41 patients, 33 (80%) underwent esophageal reconstruction at a median of 16 months after ingestion. There was one (3%) operative mortality. The prevalence of anastomotic leakage was 10%, and stricture was 12%. At a median follow-up of 32 months, nutritional autonomy was achieved in 91% following reconstruction.
conclusionOne-fifth of patients with cRBES can be successfully treated with endoscopic interventions. However, 80% of these patients require subsequent esophageal reconstruction. This procedure is safe and effective, achieving favorable long-term outcomes in over 90% of patients who have previously failed various modalities of endoscopic treatments for cRBES. Early surgery should be considered for patients with the refractory subtype, while a stepwise approach can be applied to individuals with the recurrent subclassification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40447898What 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.