4.7 Article

Endoscopic stricturotomy versus ileocolonic resection in the treatment of ileocolonic anastomotic strictures in Crohn's disease

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 90, Issue 2, Pages 259-268

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ed and Joey Story Endowed Chair

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: Endoscopic stricturotomy (ESt) is a novel technique in the treatment of anastomotic strictures in Crohn's disease (CD). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with ileocolonic anastomotic stricture treated with ESt versus ileocolonic resection (ICR). Methods: This historical cohort study included consecutive CD patients with ileocolonic anastomotic stricture treated with ESt or ICR from 2010 to 2017. The primary outcomes were surgery-free survival and postprocedural adverse events. Results: Thirty-five patients treated with ESt and 147 patients treated with ICR were analyzed. Median follow-up was .8 years (interquartile range [IQR], .2-1.7) and 2.2 years (IQR, 1.2-4.4) in the ESt and ICR groups, respectively (P < .001). Subsequent stricture-related surgery was needed in 4 patients (11.3%) receiving ESt and in 15 patients (10.2%) receiving ICR (P = .83). Kaplan-Meier analysis also showed no statistical difference regarding surgery-free survival between the 2 groups (P = .24). Procedure-related major adverse events were documented in 5 of 49 patients (10.2% per procedure) undergoing ESt and 47 patients (31.9%) undergoing ICR (P = .003). Risk factors for decreased surgery-free survival on multivariate analysis included preprocedural corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-8.1), multiple strictures (HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.7-14.2), and increased disease-related hospitalizations (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.2-13.0). Conclusions: With the limitation of a shorter follow-up, ESt achieved comparable surgery-free survival with a decreased morbidity when compared with ICR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available