4.5 Article

Long-term outcome of endoscopic balloon dilation for small bowel strictures in patients with Crohn's disease

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 545-551

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/den.12236

关键词

balloon-assisted enteroscopy; Crohn's disease; endoscopic balloon dilation; small bowel stricture

资金

  1. Study Group on Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Japan of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is an alternative to surgery for small bowel strictures of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). However, little is known about the long-term efficacy of EBD. The aim of the present study was to clarify the long-term outcome of EBD for small bowel strictures in patients with CD. Methods: Subjects comprised 65 patients with CD who underwent EBD for small intestinal strictures and were followed up for at least 6 months. All subjects had obstructive symptoms as a result of small bowel strictures. Short-term success was defined as technical success and the disappearance of obstructive symptoms. The short-term success rate of EBD, its safety profile, the cumulative surgery-free rate and the cumulative redilation-free rate were investigated. Results: Short-term success rate was 80.0% (52/65). Complications were encountered in six of the 65 patients (9.2%). Seventeen patients (26.2%) underwent surgery during the observation period of this study. Cumulative surgery-free rate after initial EBD was 79% at 2 years and 73% at 3 years, respectively. EBD successful cases showed significantly higher surgery-free rates than unsuccessful cases (P < 0.0001). In 52 of the successful cases, the cumulative redilation-free rate after initial EBD was 64% at 2 years and 47% at 3 years, respectively. Conclusion: EBD for small bowel strictures secondary to CD provides not only short-term success but also long-term efficacy. However, the high redilation rate is one of the clinical problems of this procedure.

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