SynthesisArquivos de gastroenterologia2026
REFRACTORY BENIGN ESOPHAGEAL STRICTURES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY.
Synthesis in Arquivos de gastroenterologia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES) represent a significant clinical challenge due to their diverse etiologies and the variety of available therapeutic approaches. They affect approximately 30-40% of patients with recurrent strictures.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic therapies stratified by stricture etiology (anastomotic vs nonanastomotic).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, including studies published between 2005 and 2025. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the CAPES Portal. Outcomes assessed included technical success, complication rates, and long-term clinical success. Study screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers using Rayyan software.
resultsEighteen studies were included, comprising 208 individuals with anastomotic strictures (72.2% of studies) and 265 with nonanastomotic strictures (77.8% of studies). Therapeutic modalities included bougie dilation (7 studies; 38.9%), balloon dilation (7; 38.9%), triamcinolone injection (2; 11.1%), mitomycin C (3; 16.7%), stricturotomy (6; 33.3%), stent placement (10; 55.6%), and self-dilation (1; 5.6%). The overall technical success rate was 84.1%, whereas clinical success was 58.1%. Anastomotic strictures were associated with a worse prognosis, exhibiting a technical success rate of 89.4%, a complication rate of 33.2%, and a clinical success rate of 53.8%. Nonanastomotic strictures showed a technical success rate of 80.0%, a complication rate of 11.3%, and a clinical success rate of 61.1%. Four definitions of refractoriness were identified; the most common was the failure to achieve a diameter of 14 mm to 15 mm or greater after multiple dilations (9 studies) and repeated dilations without quantified criteria (5 studies).
conclusionRBES demonstrate high technical success rates across therapeutic modalities; however, long-term clinical success remains limited and varies according to etiology. Anastomotic strictures are associated with a worse prognosis than nonanastomotic strictures, likely reflecting the complexity of postsurgical fibrotic remodeling. The marked heterogeneity in definitions of refractoriness across studies represents a critical limitation in the current literature.
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.