Article

Hydrostatic balloon dilatation of Crohn's strictures

Department of Gastroenterology, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 5.48). 09/2003; 18(4):409-13. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01715.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the safety and long-term efficacy of per-endoscopic hydrostatic balloon dilatation in a retrospective series of patients with Crohn's disease.
Thirty-eight patients had balloon dilatation for intestinal symptomatic strictures which were located as follows: ileo-colonic (26) or colocolic (2) anastomosis, colon (4), ileum (3), proximal jejunum (1) and ileo-caecal valve (5); three patients had two strictures accessible to dilatation. The mean length of the strictures was 2.1 cm (s.d., 0.3 cm).
Thirty-two of the 38 patients were successfully dilated and followed for a median of 22.8 months (0.2-103 months) until surgery or last news. The probabilities of obstructive symptom recurrence were 36% at 1 year and 60% at 5 years. Twelve patients had a second dilatation, and three a third. The probabilities of surgery for stricture were 26% at 1 year and 43% at 5 years. Results were not influenced by age, sex, activity of the disease, passage of the stricture by the colonoscope or concomitant medical therapies. Complications occurred in 9.4% of the 53 dilatation sessions, with only one perforation.
Hydrostatic balloon dilatation is effective for Crohn's symptomatic strictures, and can avoid or postpone surgery, with an acceptable rate of complications.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Matthieu Allez, Sep 11, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
86 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stenosis is the most frequent complication during Crohn's disease. The lesion can be inflammatory, or due to a fibrosing or neoplastic process. The medical treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs is usually sufficient as first line treatment; fibrous lesions require endoscopic or surgical procedures while neoplastic lesions require surgery. A multidisciplinary approach (radiologic, medical, surgical and endoscopic) is needed. In a first part, we discuss the definition of stenosis and the modalities of imaging (particularly MRI) and of treatment (particularly with TNFalpha antagonists). Then we expose the strategy for the management of the most frequent clinical situations: occlusion, ileal inflammatory stenosis, stenosis of an ileocolonic anastomosis and chronic fibrous stenosis. The treatment decision takes into account the results of radiological assessment, CRP level and the effects of the previous treatments.
    Gastroentérologie Clinique et Biologique 10/2009; 33(10-11 Suppl):F75-81. · 1.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ileo-colonic strictures are common complication of Crohn's disease (CD), and may result in repeated endoscopic or surgical therapy with a risk of further complications, such as perforation or short bowel syndrome. Strictures develop as a consequence of tissue remodelling and fibrosis due to chronic inflammation. This study compares the outcome of CD patients undergoing primarily endoscopic treatment with those undergoing surgery at an university hospital. In this study we retrospectively included 88 CD patients with intestinal strictures (37 males, 51 females, mean age 40 years, range 19-65 years) of both our medical and our surgical department, who underwent either surgical or endoscopic therapy between January 2002 and January 2006 with prospective, controlled follow-up, extended till January 2010 (mean follow-up period: 5 years; range 4-8 years). The primary end-point was operation- and symptom-free time. Patients were primarily divided into four groups: only surgical therapy, only endoscopic therapy, endoscopy with subsequent surgery, and initial surgical therapy followed by endoscopic dilations. 53% of all patients remained surgery-free with mean follow-up of 49 months; a single endoscopic dilation was sufficient enough in 9 patients to achieve a surgery-free time of 51 months, other patients required up to 5 dilations. The average interval between first and second dilation was 6.5 months, between second and third 10.5 months. In the group of patients with only endoscopic therapy, surgery- and symptom-free time was shorter, as compared to the group of only surgical therapy. We found that stenoses in the surgical group with an average length of 6.5 cm were as expected longer, as compared to the endoscopic group (3 cm, ranging from 2-4 cm). The surgery-free time was 49 months (42-71 months, P = 0.723) with a symptom-free time of 12 months (4.5-46 months, P = 0.921). In the group of only surgically treated patients, 68.4% of the patients had only one stenosis, 18.4% had 2-3 stenoses and 13.2% more than 3 stenoses. In all patients the surgery- and symptoms- free time was 69 months (57-83 months, P = 0.850 and 0.908). The other two groups showed similar results. We found no significant effect of characteristic of stenosis (length, inflammation, the number of stenoses), injection of prednisolone, disease activity at the time of dilation and medication at the time of dilation on the long-term outcome. Importantly, the success of symptom free time correlated with the diameter of the balloon. Endoscopic dilation should be considered as a first-line therapy for short, accessible, fibrotic strictures. Careful patient selection and proper diagnostic imaging pre-procedure are essential requirements for safe and successful treatment. The balloon diameter seems to correlate positively with the long term outcome of dilation. However, at ever shorter intervals between endoscopic interventions, surgery should be discussed as an option for further treatment.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this guideline. In preparing this document, MEDLINE databases were used to search for publications pertaining to this topic between January 1990 and December 2013. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed, prospective trials, emphasis was given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. The reported evidence and recommendations on the basis of reviewed studies were based on consensus opinion of the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).(1) The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "We suggest...," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as " We recommend...." ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the documents are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this document. This document may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice and is solely intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This document is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from the recommendations and suggestions proposed in this document.
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 08/2014; 80(4). DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.018 · 4.90 Impact Factor