ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
A real-world study of endoscopic and fluoroscopic management of benign colorectal strictures: clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious endoscopic and interventional techniques have been employed in the management of benign colorectal strictures (BCS), but the optimal treatment strategy has not been established. In this real-world study, we divided the patients into four groups based on different treatment regimens: large balloon first (LB group), small balloon first (SB group), stent first (Stent group), and endoscopic incision first (EI group). PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the difference in the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of each method to explore the possible optimal therapeutic strategy.
methodsA total of 76 patients with BCS were retrospectively studied between October 2012 and February 2025. In the LB group, 15 patients were treated by means of large balloon (diameter: 20-26 mm) dilation first, while in the SB group 32 patients underwent dilation with small balloon (diameter: 10-18 mm) dilation first. Seventeen patients in the Stent group preferred stent placement as the first treatment, while 12 patients in the EI group preferred endoscopic incision, with or without balloon dilation. The technical and clinical success, number of treatment sessions, complications, disease-free time intervals, and the hospitalization cost were evaluated and compared.
resultsThe technical success rates range from 71.4% to 92.3%. Recurrence of stricture and colorectal perforation were the main reasons for technical failures. After dilation, stricture length and stricture rates decreased significant, and stricture diameter increased significant in LB Group (P < 0.0001). Mild bleeding and abdominal pain were the common minor complications occurred in either group. Colorectal perforations occurred in 6 dilations: 2 (7.7%) in the LB group, 3 (5.3%) in the SB group and 1 (2.2%) in the EI group (P = 0.2629), respectively. Stent-related complications were observed in 8 patients (47.1%) and 13 sessions (44.8%) in the Stent group. A total of 29 patients (38.2%) were clinically cured: 7 (46.7%) in the LB group, 16 (50.0%) in the SB group, 3 (17.6%) in the Stent group and 3 (25.0%) in the EI group (P = 0.1223), respectively. More treatment sessions and more hospitalization cost were observed in the Stent group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of hospitalization, treatment duration, or median interval to recurrence among the four groups.
conclusionBalloon dilation, stenting and endoscopic incision are safe and effective methods for the treatment of BCS. However, stent placement first with/without dilation, associated with more treatment sessions, increased hospitalization cost and stent-related complications, should not be the preferred treatment for BCS, primarily anastomotic BCS.
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.