Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science
Full text links

Actions

Share

Clinical Trial
.1999 Jul;50(1):13-7.
doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70337-8.

A randomized prospective study comparing rigid to balloon dilators for benign esophageal strictures and rings

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A randomized prospective study comparing rigid to balloon dilators for benign esophageal strictures and rings

J S Scolapio et al. Gastrointest Endosc.1999 Jul.

Abstract

Background: The optimum choice of dilator (rigid vs. balloon) for benign esophageal strictures has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to compare the immediate relief of dysphagia and the incidence of repeat dilatation within the first year with the use of either a rigid (Savary) dilator or balloon dilator for benign lower esophageal strictures.

Methods: Patients with dysphagia found to have benign esophageal strictures during endoscopy were randomized to undergo dilation with a rigid (Savary) or a balloon dilator (Microvasive or Bard). The 1-year incidence of repeat dilatation was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 251 subjects were stratified at entry according to the type of stricture (peptic vs. Schatzki ring) and severity of stricture (mild vs. moderate/severe) and then randomized to either a Savary (n = 88), Microvasive (n = 81), or Bard (n = 82) dilator. There were no significant differences between the rigid dilator or the two balloons with regard to immediate relief of dysphagia or the need for repeat dilatation at one year. Patients with moderate/severe strictures required repeat dilatation at one year twice as often as those with mild strictures. There were no significant complications reported in these patients.

Conclusions: Both rigid and balloon dilators are equally effective and safe in the treatment of benign lower esophageal strictures caused by acid reflux and Schatzki rings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Elsevier Science full text link Elsevier Science
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp