4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: endoscopic balloon dilatation for Crohn's disease strictures

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 1137-1148

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13388

关键词

-

资金

  1. Crohn's and Colitis UK [IBDHS13-1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEndoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) is recognised treatment for symptomatic Crohn's strictures. Several case series report its efficacy. A systematic analysis for overall efficacy can inform the design of future studies. AimTo examine symptomatic (SR) and technical response (TR) and adverse events (AE) of EBD. Stricture characteristics were also explored. MethodsA systematic search strategy of COCHRANE, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. All original studies reporting outcomes of EBD for Crohn's strictures were included. SR was defined as obstructive symptom-free outcome at the end of follow-up, TR as post-dilatation passage of the endoscope through a stricture, and adverse event as the presence of complication (perforation and/or bleeding). Pooled event rates across studies were expressed with summative statistics. ResultsTwenty-five studies included 1089 patients and 2664 dilatations. Pooled event rates for SR, TR, complications and perforations were 70.2% (95% CI: 60-78.8%), 90.6% (95% CI: 87.8-92.8%), 6.4% (95% CI: 5.0-8.2) and 3% (95% CI: 2.2-4.0%) respectively. Cumulative surgery rate at 5year follow-up was 75%. Pooled unweighted TR, SR, complication, perforation and surgery rates were 84%, 45%, 15%, 9% and 21% for de novo and 84%, 58%, 22%, 5% and 32% for anastomotic strictures. Outcomes between two stricture types were no different on subgroup meta-analysis. ConclusionsEfficacy and complication rates for endoscopic balloon dilatation were higher than previously reported. From the few studies with 5year follow-up the majority required surgery. Future studies are needed to determine whether endoscopic balloon dilatation has significant long-term benefits.

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

4.7
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