©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 7, 2017; 23(45): 8073-8081
Published online Dec 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i45.8073
Published online Dec 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i45.8073
Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the included studies
| Author | Year of publication | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
| Yamamoto et al[13] | 2004 | - Retrospective review of all DBEs | - NR |
| - Dilatation criteria NR | |||
| Pohl et al[16] | 2006 | - Known or suspected CD and proven or suspicious small bowel strictures | - Strictures > 5 cm or including significant angulation or severe active inflammation with ulcerations |
| - Dilatation criteria NR | |||
| Ohmiya et al[17] | 2009 | - Patients with SBO | - Acute obstruction with strangulation or suspected perforation |
| - The stricture was assumed to be restricted within narrow limits in the small bowel assessed by radiologic imaging | - A stricture with a deep open ulcer | ||
| - A second dilation session was only performed if obstructive symptoms recurred | |||
| Despott et al[18] | 2011 | - CD patients with small bowel stricture | - Strictures > 5 cm |
| - Dilatation criteria NR | |||
| Hayashi et al[19] | 2008 | - Retrospective case series of all patients who had undergone DBE | -NR |
| - In the case of a diaphragm-like stricture, all the strictures were dilated | |||
| Hirai et al[11] | 2014 | CD patients with: | - Stricture of the ileocolonic anastomosis |
| - Small bowel strictures causing obstructive symptoms | - Post-dilatation observation period < 6 mo | ||
| - Stricture length ≤ 5 cm | - Patients who did not meet dilatation criteria | ||
| - No associated fistula or abscess | |||
| - no deep ulcer | |||
| - No severe curvature of the stricture | |||
| Gill et al[20] | 2014 | - Retrospective review: All patients with suspected strictures in the small bowel undergoing DBE | - Patients with severely ulcerated or inflamed strictures |
| - Dilatation criteria NR | - Patients in whom the scope could not traverse the stricture | ||
| Irani et al[21] | 2012 | - Clinical and radiological evidence (CT or small bowel follow through) of small bowel obstruction | - Malignant strictures and masses found either at video capsule endoscopy or DBE |
| Nishimura et al[22] | 2011 | - Patients with ischemic enteritis and a segment of intestine that could not be passed by the enteroscope | - Deep ulcerations |
| - Dilation was indicated when there were symptoms of intestinal obstruction and evidence of caliber change by CT scan | |||
| Fukumoto et al[23] | 2007 | A stricture was defined by 1 or more of the following criteria: | -Asymptomatic patient (even when the endoscope did not pass through the stricture) |
| - DBE showed the internal diameter of the bowel lumen to be < 10 mm or the endoscope could not pass through the lesion | |||
| - The patient complained of obstructive symptoms | |||
| - Stricture was suggested or identified by other modalities. | |||
| Sunada et al[24] | 2016 | - Retrospective review of all DBEs | -NR |
| - Dilatation criteria NR | |||
| Kita et al[25] | 2006 | - Retrospective review of all DBEs | -NR |
| - Dilatation criteria NR | |||
| Kroner et al[2] | 2015 | - Retrospective review of consecutive patients who were found to have small bowel stricture at the time of DBE | - Malignant (appearance of) strictures |
| - Benign appearance of the stricture |
- Citation: Baars JE, Theyventhiran R, Aepli P, Saxena P, Kaffes AJ. Double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted dilatation avoids surgery for small bowel strictures: A systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(45): 8073-8081
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i45/8073.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i45.8073