4.3 Article

Endoscopic balloon dilatation of Crohn's strictures: a safe method to defer surgery in selective cases

期刊

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 87, 期 12, 页码 E240-E244

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ans.13500

关键词

complications; Crohn's disease; Crohn's stricture; endoscopic balloon dilatation; outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEndoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) provides a valuable alternative to surgery for strictures in Crohn's disease (CD). Data are lacking regarding the factors that improve the safety and effectiveness of EBD in CD. The aim of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of EBD and the clinical variables, which are predictive of successful treatment of CD strictures with EBD. MethodsThe records of all patients with CD in whom EBD was attempted between 2008 and 2013 were reviewed. Procedures were conducted at a single tertiary referral centre using a Boston Scientific CRE (R) TTS balloon. Technical success was defined as the ability to traverse the stricture with the endoscope and clinical success as the resolution of obstructive symptoms at review. ResultsForty-seven patients with a total of 58 strictures (19 primary and 39 anastomotic strictures) were treated with EBD with median follow-up of 37months. A total of 161 dilatation procedures were performed, with technical success reported in 139/158 (88%) cases and clinical success reported in 105/137 (76.7%) cases with complete data. Complications occurred in 7/161 dilatations (4.3% dilatations, 15% patients), three patients with perforation, one with acute bleeding and three admitted with abdominal pain. Eighteen of the 47 patients required surgery (38%). Strictures of <50mm (P=0.04) and those dilated to a diameter of 15mm (P=0.031) were less likely to require surgical resection. Conclusions EBD is safe for both primary and post-surgical strictures. Stricture length and diameter of dilatation are predictive of success. In selected patients, treatment with EBD may reduce or delay the need for surgery.

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

4.3
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