UEG's educational platform for gastroenterology education bringing recordings, courses, guidelines, and more together in one place.

UEG Week Berlin 2025 Recordings Gut Guide online What's new on Gutflix

Trending on Gutflix

Rate for better recommendations!

Your feedback helps us show you more of what you like and less of what you dislike!

More of this!

We will show you more similar content.

Not for me!

We won't suggest this again.

Bookmark!

Save this content for later!

New to myUEG? Create an account! Log In with myUEG account

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

COMPARISON OF ENDOSCOPIC RADIAL INCISION TECHNIQUE VS. ENDOSCOPIC BALLOON DILATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF REFRACTORY ESOPHAGEAL ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURES

deliang li 1, Dan Liu 1, Bingrong Liu 1

Affiliations

1 The First Affilaited Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

Summary

AI Generated

A retrospective study of 109 patients found that endoscopy radial incision was more effective than endoscopic balloon dilation for treating refractory esophageal anastomotic strictures, with superior symptom relief at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year follow-up.

The study compared endoscopy radial incision (ERI) to endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) in 109 patients with refractory esophageal anastomotic stricture treated between January 2020 and June 2024, with 46 patients in the ERI group and 63 in the EBD group.
Both techniques achieved 100% effective symptom relief at 1 week, but ERI showed superior long-term outcomes with effective relief rates of 76.1% at 3 months, 47.8% at 6 months, and 41.3% at 1 year, compared to EBD rates of 39.7%, 28.6%, and 20.6% respectively.
No adverse events such as bleeding or perforation occurred in either group during or after the procedures, and the average operation time for ERI was 10.15±5.23 minutes with an average of 2.26±0.76 incisions.
The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics with no significant differences in preoperative dysphagia scores or anastomotic diameters.
This material would be most relevant to gastroenterologists managing post-surgical esophageal strictures.

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

This summary was generated by an AI large language model based on the content transcript. It is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for clinical judgment. Always rely on your professional expertise and the full clinical context when making clinical decisions.

Abstract

Introduction

Esophageal anastomotic stricture is a common complication after esophagogastric anastomosis, primarily characterized by inability to eat or difficulty swallowing.

Aims & Methods

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopy radial incision (ERI) technique versus endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) in treating refractory esophageal anastomotic strictures. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for esophageal anastomotic stricture from January 2020 to June 2024. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were collected and analyzed, including preoperative stricture duration, preoperative treatment history, pre-and postoperative swallowing difficulty symptoms (Barthe score), improvement in anastomotic diameter, and occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, to assess efficacy and safety.

Results

A total of 109 patients were included in the study, with 46 in the ERI group and 63 in the EBD group. All patients successfully completed the endoscopic procedures. The average operation time for the ERI group was 10.15±5.23 minutes, with an average of 2.26±0.76 incisions made. No adverse events such as bleeding or perforation occurred in either group during or after the procedure. There were no significant differences in preoperative dysphagia score (3.58±0.76 vs. 3.22±0.63) or anastomotic diameters (0.30±0.02 vs. 0.29±0.03) between the two groups. On postoperative 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, the effective symptom relief rates for the ERI group were 100%, 76.1%, 47.8%, and 41.3%, respectively, while the effective symptom relief rates for the EBD group were 100%, 39.7%, 28.6%, and 20.6%.

Conclusion

The ERI technique is a safe and feasible method for treating refractory esophageal anastomotic strictures, with superior efficacy compared to EBD.

Conference

UEG Week Berlin 2025

Topics

Oesophagus

Submission format

Abstract

Session

Oesophageal endoscopy and motility (Posters)

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2025; 13 (Supplement 8)

Published

2025

More Like This:

RISK FACTORS OF METACHRONOUS COLORECTAL CANCER IN LYNCH SYNDROME

Oswaldo Ortiz

PREVALENCE AND CLINICAL IMPACT OF ABNORMAL HEPATOBILIARY BIOCHEMISTRY IN NEWLY DIAGNOSED INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE – A PROSPECTIVE POPULATION-BASED INCEPTION COHORT STUDY

Johan Burisch

IBD IN VITRO MODEL REVEALS PITX2 AS A KEY REGULATOR OF EPITHELIAL CELL SURVIVAL AND PROLIFERATION IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS

Kiichiro Tsuchiya

DOUBLE-BLIND PLACEBO-CONTROLLED CROSS-OVER MRI STUDY EVALUATING THE ACUTE EFFECT OF CODEINE AND NALOXEGOL ON GASTRIC CONTENT VOLUMES AND MOTILITY IN HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS

Jan Tack

AI FOR ENDOSCOPIC DECISION SUPPORT: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN EMERGENCY AND ROUTINE CASES

Mouna Tamzaourte

IMPACT OF MEDICATIONS ON PRESENTATION, INCLUDING ADVANCED ULCERATIVE COLITIS THERAPY, ON PATIENT OUTCOMES IN ACUTE SEVERE ULCERATIVE COLITIS

Carmen Tung

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

RISK FACTORS OF METACHRONOUS COLORECTAL CANCER IN LYNCH SYNDROME

Joaquín Castillo Iturra 1, Ariadna Sánchez 1, Victorine Roos 2, Núria Dueñas 3, Marta Pineda 4, Teresa Ramon y Cajal 5, Gemma Llort 6, Virginia Piñol 7, INMACULADA SALCES FRANCO 8, Luis Bujanda Fernández de Piérola 9, Marta Benavides Garzón 10, Ángeles Eloisa Pizarro Moreno 10, Carmen Poves 11, Daniel Rodríguez-Alcalde 12, Maite Herraiz Bayod 13, Ana Cristina Alvarez Urturi 14, Andrés Dacal Rivas 15, Esteban Saperas Franch 16, Oswaldo Ortiz 1, Teresa Ocaña 1, Maria Daca Alvarez 1, Liseth Rivero Sánchez 1, Sabela Carballal 1, Elena Aguirre 17, Xavier Bessa Caserras 14, Joaquín Cubiella 18, Rodrigo Jover 19, Francisco Rodriguez-Moranta 20, Judith Balmana 21, Joan Brunet 4, Antoni Castells 1, Gabriel Capellà 4, Evelien Dekker 2, Maria Pellisé Urquiza 1, Leticia Moreira Ruiz 1, Francesc Balaguer 1

Affiliations

1 Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

2 Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Geleen, Netherlands

3 Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ONCOBELL program, IDIBELL, Hospital Duran i Reynals, L’Hospitalet, Spain|||University of Girona, Hospital Dr Josep Trueta, Girona, Spain

4 Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ONCOBELL program, IDIBELL, Hospital Duran i Reynals, L’Hospitalet, Spain

5 Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain

6 Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Conscorci Sanitari de Terrasa, Sabadell-Terrasa, Spain

7 University of Girona, Hospital Dr Josep Trueta, Girona, Spain

8 Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

9 Instituto Biodonostia, San Sebastián, Spain

10 Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Sevilla, Spain

11 Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain

12 Hospital Universitario de Móstoles, Móstoles, Spain

13 Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

14 Hospital Del Mar, Barcelona, Spain

15 Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain

16 Hospital Universitari General de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

17 Hospital Quirónsalud Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

18 Complejo Hospitalario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain

19 Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain

20 Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet, Spain

21 Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain