小球囊扩张与大球囊扩张对成人良性食管狭窄的治疗效果比较。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ping Liu, Changqing Guo, Gang Wu, Jianzhuang Ren, Xinwei Han, Yonghua Bi
{"title":"小球囊扩张与大球囊扩张对成人良性食管狭窄的治疗效果比较。","authors":"Ping Liu, Changqing Guo, Gang Wu, Jianzhuang Ren, Xinwei Han, Yonghua Bi","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>The optimal treatment for benign esophageal strictures (BES) is still unknown, small balloon dilation (6-24mm in diameter) and bougie dilator dilation (5-17mm in diameter) are usually used clinically, while large balloon dilation (25-30mm in diameter) is rarely used due to the potential risk of esophageal rupture and massive bleeding. According to the different choices of treatment, we grouped the patients into three groups and compared their safety and effectiveness to explore the optimal treatment of BES.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between July 2016 and March 2024, 104 consecutive patients with BES who underwent dilation of small balloon (Group S, n=30), bougie dilator (Group B, n=38) or large balloon (Group L, n=36) were retrospectively evaluated. Data were collected to analyze the technical success, safety and clinical outcome of the dilations as evaluated by dysphagia score, complications and recurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Technically success rates of Group S, Group B and Group L were 97.0%, 96.7% and 89.9%, respectively (P=0.0507). Recurrence of stricture and esophageal rupture were the reasons for technical failures in balloon and bougie dilation. Esophageal ruptures occurred in 11 dilations as follows: 4 (3.0%) in the Group S, 2 (1.7%) in the Group B and 5 (7.2%) in the Group L (P=0.1184). Among them, two patients with type III rupture had temporary removable esophageal stent placed, and rupture healed after stents removal. Two patients with type II rupture had the rupture clamped with titanium clips. A total of 55/104 patients (52.9%) were cured with no dysphagia after the end of follow-up as follows: 12 (40.0%) in the Group S, 18 (47.4%) in the Group B and 25 (69.4%) in the Group L (P=0.0385). Less No. of dilation sessions and shorter duration of treatment were required in the Group L than in the Group S or the Group B (P<0.05). Total hospitalization cost was higher in the Group S than in the Group B or the Group L (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both balloon dilation and bougie dilation are safe and effective for patients with benign esophageal strictures. Large balloon dilation seems to be preferable to small balloon dilation and bougie dilation regardless of the condition of adult BES, as they are associated with higher clinical effectiveness, less required dilation, and reduced duration of treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Small Balloon Dilation Versus Bougie Dilation Versus Large Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Benign Esophageal Strictures in Adult Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Ping Liu, Changqing Guo, Gang Wu, Jianzhuang Ren, Xinwei Han, Yonghua Bi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>The optimal treatment for benign esophageal strictures (BES) is still unknown, small balloon dilation (6-24mm in diameter) and bougie dilator dilation (5-17mm in diameter) are usually used clinically, while large balloon dilation (25-30mm in diameter) is rarely used due to the potential risk of esophageal rupture and massive bleeding. According to the different choices of treatment, we grouped the patients into three groups and compared their safety and effectiveness to explore the optimal treatment of BES.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between July 2016 and March 2024, 104 consecutive patients with BES who underwent dilation of small balloon (Group S, n=30), bougie dilator (Group B, n=38) or large balloon (Group L, n=36) were retrospectively evaluated. Data were collected to analyze the technical success, safety and clinical outcome of the dilations as evaluated by dysphagia score, complications and recurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Technically success rates of Group S, Group B and Group L were 97.0%, 96.7% and 89.9%, respectively (P=0.0507). Recurrence of stricture and esophageal rupture were the reasons for technical failures in balloon and bougie dilation. Esophageal ruptures occurred in 11 dilations as follows: 4 (3.0%) in the Group S, 2 (1.7%) in the Group B and 5 (7.2%) in the Group L (P=0.1184). Among them, two patients with type III rupture had temporary removable esophageal stent placed, and rupture healed after stents removal. Two patients with type II rupture had the rupture clamped with titanium clips. A total of 55/104 patients (52.9%) were cured with no dysphagia after the end of follow-up as follows: 12 (40.0%) in the Group S, 18 (47.4%) in the Group B and 25 (69.4%) in the Group L (P=0.0385). Less No. of dilation sessions and shorter duration of treatment were required in the Group L than in the Group S or the Group B (P<0.05). Total hospitalization cost was higher in the Group S than in the Group B or the Group L (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both balloon dilation and bougie dilation are safe and effective for patients with benign esophageal strictures. Large balloon dilation seems to be preferable to small balloon dilation and bougie dilation regardless of the condition of adult BES, as they are associated with higher clinical effectiveness, less required dilation, and reduced duration of treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.055\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由与目的:良性食管狭窄(BES)的最佳治疗方法尚不明确,临床上通常采用小球囊扩张(直径6-24mm)和膨胀扩张器扩张(直径5-17mm),而大球囊扩张(直径25-30mm)由于存在食管破裂和大出血的潜在风险,很少使用。根据治疗选择的不同,我们将患者分为三组,比较其安全性和有效性,探讨BES的最佳治疗方案。材料与方法:2016年7月至2024年3月,对104例连续行小球囊扩张术(S组,n=30)、膨胀扩张器(B组,n=38)或大球囊扩张术(L组,n=36)的BES患者进行回顾性分析。收集数据,通过吞咽困难评分、并发症和复发来评估扩张术的技术成功、安全性和临床结果。结果:S组、B组、L组技术成功率分别为97.0%、96.7%、89.9% (P=0.0507)。球囊扩张术失败的主要原因是狭窄复发和食管破裂。食管破裂11例,其中S组4例(3.0%),B组2例(1.7%),L组5例(7.2%)(P=0.1184)。其中2例III型破裂患者放置了临时可拆卸食管支架,取出支架后破裂愈合。2例II型破裂用钛夹夹住破裂口。随访结束后,55/104例患者(52.9%)治愈无吞咽困难,其中S组12例(40.0%),B组18例(47.4%),L组25例(69.4%)(P=0.0385)。没有少。L组比S组和B组需要更短的扩张次数和更短的治疗时间(p)结论:球囊扩张和肿胀扩张对于良性食管狭窄患者都是安全有效的。无论成人BES的情况如何,大球囊扩张似乎比小球囊扩张和肿胀扩张更可取,因为它们具有更高的临床疗效,所需的扩张更少,治疗时间更短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Small Balloon Dilation Versus Bougie Dilation Versus Large Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Benign Esophageal Strictures in Adult Patients.

Rationale and objectives: The optimal treatment for benign esophageal strictures (BES) is still unknown, small balloon dilation (6-24mm in diameter) and bougie dilator dilation (5-17mm in diameter) are usually used clinically, while large balloon dilation (25-30mm in diameter) is rarely used due to the potential risk of esophageal rupture and massive bleeding. According to the different choices of treatment, we grouped the patients into three groups and compared their safety and effectiveness to explore the optimal treatment of BES.

Materials and methods: Between July 2016 and March 2024, 104 consecutive patients with BES who underwent dilation of small balloon (Group S, n=30), bougie dilator (Group B, n=38) or large balloon (Group L, n=36) were retrospectively evaluated. Data were collected to analyze the technical success, safety and clinical outcome of the dilations as evaluated by dysphagia score, complications and recurrence.

Results: Technically success rates of Group S, Group B and Group L were 97.0%, 96.7% and 89.9%, respectively (P=0.0507). Recurrence of stricture and esophageal rupture were the reasons for technical failures in balloon and bougie dilation. Esophageal ruptures occurred in 11 dilations as follows: 4 (3.0%) in the Group S, 2 (1.7%) in the Group B and 5 (7.2%) in the Group L (P=0.1184). Among them, two patients with type III rupture had temporary removable esophageal stent placed, and rupture healed after stents removal. Two patients with type II rupture had the rupture clamped with titanium clips. A total of 55/104 patients (52.9%) were cured with no dysphagia after the end of follow-up as follows: 12 (40.0%) in the Group S, 18 (47.4%) in the Group B and 25 (69.4%) in the Group L (P=0.0385). Less No. of dilation sessions and shorter duration of treatment were required in the Group L than in the Group S or the Group B (P<0.05). Total hospitalization cost was higher in the Group S than in the Group B or the Group L (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Both balloon dilation and bougie dilation are safe and effective for patients with benign esophageal strictures. Large balloon dilation seems to be preferable to small balloon dilation and bougie dilation regardless of the condition of adult BES, as they are associated with higher clinical effectiveness, less required dilation, and reduced duration of treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Radiology
Academic Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
432
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信