4.5 Article

Comparable Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Colonoscopic Balloon Dilation of Crohn's Disease and Benign Non-Crohn's Disease Strictures

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 20, 期 10, 页码 1739-1746

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000145

关键词

balloon dilation; Crohn's disease; endoscopy; strictures

资金

  1. Ed and Joey Story Endowed Chair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The response of Crohn's disease (CD) stricture to endoscopic therapy compared with non-CD stricture is unknown. Our aim was to compare the short-and long-term outcomes of endoscopic management of those strictures. Methods: All eligible patients with benign non-CD strictures who underwent the endoscopic balloon dilation between January 2002 and September 2013 were included. Patients with CD strictures were randomly selected with a ratio (CD versus non-CD strictures) of 2:1. Results: A total of 90 patients were included, including 30 (33.3%) with non-CD strictures and 60 (66.7%) with CD strictures. Patients with CD strictures were younger than those with non-CD strictures at the time of disease diagnosis (25.8 +/- 11.1 versus 50.5 +/- 17.5; P < 0.001) and at the time of the first dilation (43.9 +/- 12.4 versus 55.8 +/- 13.9; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in characteristics of strictures and their endoscopic treatments between the CD and non-CD groups, except for the percentage of patients who were ever treated with intralesional corticosteroid injection (25.0% versus 6.7%, P = 0.046). Patients in the 2 groups had similar technical success rates (94.0% versus 93.9%, P = 1.00). Few patients in CD stricture group required emergency room visits due to obstructive symptoms from recurrence of disease (1.7% versus 16.7%, P = 0.02). There were on procedure-related complications in either of the 2 groups. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic balloon dilation in the treatment of CD and non-CD strictures seemed to be comparable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据