ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative study of small and large balloon dilation for the treatment of benign colorectal anastomotic stricture after colectomy for colorectal cancer in adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several treatments have been used for benign colorectal anastomotic stricture (BCAS). We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of small and large balloon dilation for BCAS. Between October 2012 and February 2025, 43 consecutive patients with BCAS who underwent dilation of small balloon (SB Group, n = 29) and large balloon (LB Group, n = 14) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients' characteristics, technical success, complications, and recurrence were analyzed. Technical success rates of dilation were 83.3% and 82.6% in SB Group and LB Group, respectively. After dilation, stricture diameter and stricture rates decreased significant in two groups (P < 0.05). Stricture recurrence and colorectal perforation were the main reasons for technical failures. There were two colorectal perforations during dilation procedures in each group (P = 0.5784). Only one patient underwent surgical colon resection and colostomy immediately after perforation, and the remaining 3 patients healed spontaneously after conservative treatment. A total of 17 patients (32.6%) were clinically cured: 10 in the SB Group and 7 in the LB Group, respectively. The clinical effective rate was significantly higher in LB Group (92.9%) than that of SB group (65.5%, P = 0.0373). The duration of treatment in group LB was significantly shorter than that in SB Group (P = 0.0352). In conclusion, both small and large balloon are safe and effective for the treatment of BCAS. Large balloon dilation can be more preferable to small balloon because of its less treatment duration, similar complication incidence and better clinical effect.
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.