Endoscopic dilation with bougies versus balloons in caustic esophageal strictures: 17-year experience from a tertiary care center

Introduction Endoscopic dilation is the preferred management strategy for caustic esophageal strictures (CES). However, the differences in outcome for different dilators are not clear. We compared the outcome of CES using bougie and balloon dilators. Methods Between January 2000 and December 2016, the following data of all the patients with CES were collected: demographic parameters, substance ingestion, number of strictures, number of dilations required to achieve >= 14 mm dilation, post-dilation recurrence, and total dilations. Patients were divided into two groups for the type of dilator, i. e., bougie or balloon. The two groups were compared for baseline parameter, technical success, short- and long-term clinical success, refractory strictures, recurrence rates, and major complications. Results Of the 189 patients (mean age 32.17 +/- 12.12 years) studied, 119 (62.9%) were males. 122 (64.5%) patients under-went bougie dilation and 67 ( 35.5%) received balloon dilation. Technical success (90.1% vs. 68.7%, p < 0.001), short-term clinical success (65.6% vs. 46.3%, p value 0.01), and long-term clinical success (86.9% vs. 64.2%, p < 0.01) were higher for bougie dilators compared to balloon dilators. Twenty-four (12.7%) patients developed adverse events which were similar for two groups. On multivariate analysis, use of bougie dilators (aOR 4.868, 95% CI 1.027-23.079), short-term clinical success (aOR 5.785, 95% CI 1.203-27.825), and refractory strictures (aOR 0.151, 95% CI 0.033-0.690) were independent predictors of long-term clinical success. Conclusion Use of bougie dilators is associated with better clinical success in patients with CES compared to balloon dilators with similar rates of adverse events.

Automated summary

For the treatment of caustic esophageal strictures (CES), the use of bougie dilators was found to have higher rates of technical success, short-term clinical success, and long-term clinical success compared to balloon dilators. However, the rates of adverse events were similar between the two groups.