Trial reportJournal of Crohn's & colitis2026
Self-expandable metal stents versus endoscopic balloon dilatation for the treatment of strictures in Crohn's disease: a retrospective long-term follow-up of the ProtDilat study, an open label, multicenter, randomized trial.
Trial report in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAt 1-year of follow-up, the ProtDilat trial indicated that endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) was more effective than self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for treating Crohn's disease (CD) strictures. We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of ProtDilat participants, focusing on surgery-free rates, factors related to surgery, and endoscopic retreatment.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data on medical treatment, endoscopic-surgical interventions, and smoking status. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who remained free of surgery at the end of follow-up.
resultsEighty participants were included (39 SEMS, 41 EBD); 39 were women and the median age was 45 years (IQR: 38-55). Over a 7-year follow-up (median 77 months; IQR 61-84), 31.5% (25/80) of patients required surgery, with a median time to surgery of 30.6 months (IQR 6.4-55.2). Surgery-protective factors were no-intensification of medical therapy (HR 0.22 [0.08-0.58]), EBD treatment (HR 0.26 [0.10-0.68]), and single endoscopic treatment (HR 0.33 [0.15-0.74]). Among the 55 patients who avoided surgery, the median number of endoscopic treatments was two. Notably, 36.3% (29/80) required neither surgery nor endoscopic retreatment. Among the 53 patients (20 SEMS vs 33 EBD) with successful initial endoscopic treatment in the ProtDilat, the long-term effectiveness (free of surgery and endoscopic retreatment) was 45% and 57.6% respectively (P = .374). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 8.75% (7/80) of endoscopic cases vs 36% (9/25) of surgical cases (P = .003), with a severity (AGREE/Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) of 38% (3/8) vs 84% (10/12), respectively (P = .011).
conclusionsEndoscopic approaches (especially EBD) are effective long-term therapies for avoiding surgery and requiring few endoscopic treatments. Stable medical management and single EBD therapy were independently associated with a lower likelihood of surgery during follow-up. Our findings also highlight the higher frequency and severity of adverse events associated with surgical intervention compared to endoscopic management.
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.