This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Salvage surgery after failure of endoscopic balloon dilatation versus surgery first for ileocolonic anastomotic stricture due to recurrent Crohn’s disease. BJS 2015; 102: 1418-1425.
Published: 27th August 2015
Authors: Y. Li, L. Stocchi, B. Shen, X. Liu, F. H. Remzi
Background
Both surgical resection and endoscopic balloon dilatation are treatment options for ileocolonic anastomotic stricture caused by recurrent Crohn's disease unresponsive to medications. Perioperative outcomes of salvage surgery owing to failed endoscopic balloon dilatation in comparison with performing surgery first for the same indication are unclear.
Method
An analysis of a prospectively maintained Crohn's disease database was carried out to compare perioperative outcomes of patients who had surgery for failure of endoscopic balloon dilatation with outcomes in patients who underwent resection first for ileocolonic anastomotic stricture caused by recurrent Crohn's disease between 1997 and 2013.
Results
Of 194 patients, 114 (58·8 per cent) underwent surgery without previous endoscopic balloon dilatation. The remaining 80 patients had salvage surgery after one or more endoscopic balloon dilatations during a median treatment span of 14·5 months. Patients in the salvage surgery group had a significantly shorter length of anastomotic stricture (
Conclusion
Salvage surgery after failure of endoscopic balloon dilatation is associated with increased adverse outcomes in comparison with surgery first. This should be discussed with patients being considered for endoscopic balloon dilatation for ileocolonic anastomotic stricture due to recurrent Crohn's disease.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Original article
Authors: S. Nougaret, F. Castan, H. Forges, H. A. Vargas, B. Gallix, S. Gourgou et al.
Original article
Authors: B. Garlipp, P. Gibbs, G. A. Van Hazel, R. Jeyarajah, R. C. G. Martin, C. J. Bruns et al.
Original article
Authors: R. Behman, A. B. Nathens, B. Haas, N. Look Hong, P. Pechlivanoglou, P. Karanicolas et al.
Original article
Authors: M. E. Stellingwerf, S. Sahami, D. C. Winter, S. T. Martin, G. R. D'Haens, G. Cullen et al.
Original article
Authors: D. Isacson, K. Smedh, M. Nikberg, A. Chabok
Original article
Authors: R. L. Venchiarutti, M. J. Solomon, C. E. Koh, J. M. Young, D. Steffens
Systematic review
Authors: S. J. Rottier, S. T. Dijk, A. A. W. Geloven, W. H. Schreurs, W. A. Draaisma, W. A. Enst et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: S. Pucciarelli, P. Del Bianco, U. Pace, F. Bianco, A. Restivo, I. Maretto et al.
Review
Authors: T. O. Sillo, A. D. Beggs, D. G. Morton, G. Middleton
Systematic review
Authors: É. J. Ryan, D. P. O'Sullivan, M. E. Kelly, A. Z. Syed, P. C. Neary, P. R. O'Connell et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: B. K. Bednarski, T. P. Nickerson, Y. N. You, C. A. Messick, B. Speer, V. Gottumukkala et al.
Original article
Authors: J. Erlandsson, D. Pettersson, B. Glimelius, T. Holm, A. Martling