SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.25 issue6High Efficacy of Repeating Colonoscopy by an Advanced Endoscopist after an Incomplete ColonoscopyOptimizing the Risk Assessment in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of 5 Scores Predicting 7 Outcomes author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology

Print version ISSN 2341-4545

Abstract

MARTINS, Diana et al. Endoscopic Dilation of Pharyngoesophageal Strictures: There Are More Dimensions than a Diameter. GE Port J Gastroenterol [online]. 2018, vol.25, n.6, pp.291-298. ISSN 2341-4545.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000486608.

Background/Aims: Dysphagia due to benign pharyngoesophageal strictures (PES) often requires repeated dilations; however, a uniform definition for the therapeutic efficacy of this technique has not been yet established. We aimed to assess the overall efficacy of endoscopic dilation of pharyngoesophageal anastomotic or post-radiotherapy (post-RT) strictures. Methods: The data of 48 patients with post-RT (n = 29) or anastomotic PES (n = 19) submitted to endoscopic dilation during a 3-year period were retrospectively assessed. The Kochman criteria were used to determine refractoriness and recurrence. Patients were asked to answer a questionnaire determining prospectively the dilation program efficacy as (a) dysphagia improvement, (b) dysphagia resolution, (c) need for further dilations, or (d) percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) during the previous 6 months. Need for additional therapy was considered an inefficacy criterion. Results: The median number of dilations per patient was 4 (total of 296 dilations) with a median follow-up of 29 months. The mean predilation dysphagia Mellow-Pinkas score was 3 and the initial stenosis diameter was 7 mm. Fifteen and 29% of patients presented with the Kochman criteria for refractory and recurrent strictures, respectively. Moreover, 96 and 60% showed dysphagia improvement and resolution, respectively. Seventy-five-percent did not require dilations during 6 months, and 89% did not require PEG. From the patients’ perspective, overall efficacy was achieved in 58% of cases. Nine additional therapies were required. Number of dilations (OR 0.7), stricture diameter (OR 2.2), and nonrecurrence criteria (OR 14.2) appeared as significant predictors of overall efficacy, whereas refractory stenosis criteria did not. Conclusions: Endoscopic dilation seems to be effective for patients with dysphagia after RT or surgery, especially when assessed as patient perception of improvement. Narrow strictures, recurrent ones, and strictures requiring a higher number of dilations may predict worse outcomes. Key Message: Health professionals should establish well-defined efficacy criteria for dilations and base their decision beyond exclusively objective measurements.

Keywords : Benign esophageal strictures; Endoscopy; Dilation; Personal satisfaction; Treatment outcome.

        · abstract in Portuguese     · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License