ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Advances in the treatment of postoperative anastomotic strictures in esophageal cancer a comparative analysis of the efficacy of endoscopic versus interventional dilatation.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative anastomotic stricture is a frequent and debilitating complication following esophageal cancer surgery, significantly diminishing patients' quality of life by causing dysphagia and impaired nutrient intake. Current standard treatments, such as balloon dilatation, often cause widespread concern due to high recurrence rates and potential complications like perforation.
aimThis paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy, safety, and recurrence rates of endoscopic and interventional dilatation techniques in treating postoperative anastomotic strictures in esophageal cancer patients.
methodsThis narrative review synthesizes current clinical evidence on endoscopic dilatation (balloon dilatation, endoscopic incisional therapy) and interventional radiology dilatation techniques. Comparative analysis was performed across five core indicators: technical success rate, short-term remission rate, recurrence rate, severe complication rate, and average recurrence time.
resultsEndoscopic balloon dilatation demonstrated technical success rates of 94.9%-96.3% and short-term clinical efficacy up to 94.3%, with perforation rates of 0.53%-0.6%. Endoscopic incisional therapy showed superior outcomes with 0% recurrence versus 44.4% for traditional dilatation in comparative studies. Interventional dilatation exhibited wide technical success variability (83%-100%) and was positively correlated with refractory stricture development (OR=8.92). Recurrence after endoscopic dilatation occurred in approximately 30% of patients within 6 months, with average recurrence time of 144 days. Combined endoscopic incision with balloon dilatation demonstrated synergistic effects, improving patency and reducing re-stenosis.
conclusionEndoscopic techniques, particularly combined incisional and balloon dilatation, offer superior efficacy and safety profiles compared to interventional dilatation alone. Individualized treatment approaches considering stricture morphology, length, and patient factors are essential. Future directions include biomaterial integration, anti-scarring agents, and multidisciplinary team-based precision medicine strategies to optimize long-term outcomes.
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.