4.5 Article

Long-term outcome of endoscopic pneumatic dilatation in Crohn's disease

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 35, Issue 12, Pages 893-897

Publisher

PACINI EDITORE
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2003.06.001

Keywords

endoscopic dilatation; hydrostatic balloon; stenosing Crohn's disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. To avoid multiple surgeries in stenosing Crohn's disease, pneumatic endoscopic dilatation has been introduced. The present study evaluated the long-term clinical outcome in Crohn's disease patients after endoscopic dilatation for ileal or neoileal strictures. Patients and methods. All Crohn's disease patients who underwent pneumatic dilatation of ileal or ileo-colonic strictures between January 1988 and December 2001 were invited to return for a clinical check-up in June 2002. Clinical, endoscopic and radiological reports were reviewed. Symptomatic relief from sub-occlusive symptoms without requiring surgery was considered as a positive outcome, whereas the requirement of surgery was regarded as an unfavourable outcome. Possible predictors of favourable outcome were analysed. Results. Endoscopic dilatation was technically successful in 34/43 (79%) Crohn's disease patients, with a mean number of dilatations per patient of 3 +/- 3.13. During a mean follow-up of 63.7 +/- 44.6 months, a positive long-term outcome was observed in 18 (52.9%) patients, whereas surgery was necessary in the remaining 16 cases. The risk of surgery was distinctly higher within 2 years post-dilatation than in the next 2 years (26.4% versus 8.3%, respectively; P = 0.078). No clear clinical, endoscopic or radiological predictive factors for a successful outcome were identified. Conclusions. Endoscopic pneumatic dilatation is an effective and safe procedure to be applied to patients with stenosing Crohn's disease, offering a very long-term benefit in a sub-group of patients. (C) 2003 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available