Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus endoscopic balloon dilation for the management of benign colorectal anastomotic strictures.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kankotia Ravi J, Kwon Richard S, Philips George M, Regenbogen Scott E, Zacur George M, Wamsteker Erik-Jan, Schulman Allison R, Machicado Jorge D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Limited data exist evaluating lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) with endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) for the treatment of benign colorectal anastomotic strictures (BCASs). This study compares outcomes of both interventions.
METHODS: Patients with left-sided BCAS treated with LAMSs versus EBD were identified retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite of crossover to another intervention to achieve clinical success or recurrence requiring reintervention.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (11 LAMS and 18 EBD) were identified with longer follow-up in the EBD group (734 vs 142 days; P = .003). No significant differences were found in the composite outcome, technical success, clinical success, or components of composite outcome. With LAMS, there was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer procedures (2.4 vs 3.3; P = .06) and adverse events (0% vs 16.7%; P = .26).
CONCLUSIONS: LAMS appears to be as effective as EBD for the treatment of BCAS but may require fewer procedures and may be safer than EBD.
METHODS: Patients with left-sided BCAS treated with LAMSs versus EBD were identified retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite of crossover to another intervention to achieve clinical success or recurrence requiring reintervention.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (11 LAMS and 18 EBD) were identified with longer follow-up in the EBD group (734 vs 142 days; P = .003). No significant differences were found in the composite outcome, technical success, clinical success, or components of composite outcome. With LAMS, there was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer procedures (2.4 vs 3.3; P = .06) and adverse events (0% vs 16.7%; P = .26).
CONCLUSIONS: LAMS appears to be as effective as EBD for the treatment of BCAS but may require fewer procedures and may be safer than EBD.