Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. The use of bougies and balloons to dilate benign esophageal strictures (BES) is a consolidated procedure. However, the amount of evidence available in scientific literature supporting which is the best technique is very low, despite the great prevalence and importance of such pathology....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Iatagan R. Josino, Antônio C. Madruga-Neto, Igor B. Ribeiro, Hugo G. Guedes, Vitor O. Brunaldi, Diogo T. H. de Moura, Wanderley M. Bernardo, Eduardo G. H. de Moura
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2018-01-01
Series:Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/5874870
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832557106351308800
author Iatagan R. Josino
Antônio C. Madruga-Neto
Igor B. Ribeiro
Hugo G. Guedes
Vitor O. Brunaldi
Diogo T. H. de Moura
Wanderley M. Bernardo
Eduardo G. H. de Moura
author_facet Iatagan R. Josino
Antônio C. Madruga-Neto
Igor B. Ribeiro
Hugo G. Guedes
Vitor O. Brunaldi
Diogo T. H. de Moura
Wanderley M. Bernardo
Eduardo G. H. de Moura
author_sort Iatagan R. Josino
collection DOAJ
description Background. The use of bougies and balloons to dilate benign esophageal strictures (BES) is a consolidated procedure. However, the amount of evidence available in scientific literature supporting which is the best technique is very low, despite the great prevalence and importance of such pathology. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims at comparing both techniques, providing good quality of evidence. Methods. We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from insertion to November 2017, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and grey literature. After the data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed. The main outcomes were symptomatic relief and recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were bleeding, perforation, and postprocedure pain. Results. We included 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), totalizing 461 patients. Among them, 151 were treated with bougie dilation and 225 underwent balloon dilation. Regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates, there were no differences between the methods. Concerning postprocedure pain, patients submitted to balloon dilation had less intense pain (RD 0.27, 95% IC −0.42 to −0.07, P=0.007). Conclusion. We conclude that there is no difference between bougie and balloon dilation of BESs regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence rate at 12 months, bleeding, and perforation. Patients undergoing balloon dilation present less severe postprocedure pain.
format Article
id doaj-art-7796cbc392f744cbbf87d1a34fd641de
institution Kabale University
issn 1687-6121
1687-630X
language English
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Gastroenterology Research and Practice
spelling doaj-art-7796cbc392f744cbbf87d1a34fd641de2025-02-03T05:43:32ZengWileyGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-61211687-630X2018-01-01201810.1155/2018/58748705874870Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisIatagan R. Josino0Antônio C. Madruga-Neto1Igor B. Ribeiro2Hugo G. Guedes3Vitor O. Brunaldi4Diogo T. H. de Moura5Wanderley M. Bernardo6Eduardo G. H. de Moura7Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, University of São Paulo Medical School, Dr. Arnaldo Av 455, São Paulo 01246-903, BrazilBackground. The use of bougies and balloons to dilate benign esophageal strictures (BES) is a consolidated procedure. However, the amount of evidence available in scientific literature supporting which is the best technique is very low, despite the great prevalence and importance of such pathology. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims at comparing both techniques, providing good quality of evidence. Methods. We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from insertion to November 2017, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and grey literature. After the data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed. The main outcomes were symptomatic relief and recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were bleeding, perforation, and postprocedure pain. Results. We included 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), totalizing 461 patients. Among them, 151 were treated with bougie dilation and 225 underwent balloon dilation. Regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates, there were no differences between the methods. Concerning postprocedure pain, patients submitted to balloon dilation had less intense pain (RD 0.27, 95% IC −0.42 to −0.07, P=0.007). Conclusion. We conclude that there is no difference between bougie and balloon dilation of BESs regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence rate at 12 months, bleeding, and perforation. Patients undergoing balloon dilation present less severe postprocedure pain.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/5874870
spellingShingle Iatagan R. Josino
Antônio C. Madruga-Neto
Igor B. Ribeiro
Hugo G. Guedes
Vitor O. Brunaldi
Diogo T. H. de Moura
Wanderley M. Bernardo
Eduardo G. H. de Moura
Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
title Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort endoscopic dilation with bougies versus balloon dilation in esophageal benign strictures systematic review and meta analysis
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/5874870
work_keys_str_mv AT iataganrjosino endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT antoniocmadruganeto endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT igorbribeiro endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hugogguedes endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vitorobrunaldi endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT diogothdemoura endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wanderleymbernardo endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT eduardoghdemoura endoscopicdilationwithbougiesversusballoondilationinesophagealbenignstricturessystematicreviewandmetaanalysis