©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Gastroenterol. May 7, 2018; 24(17): 1859-1867
Published online May 7, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i17.1859
Published online May 7, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i17.1859
Table 3 Practical considerations
| Predictors favoring successful dilation[11,22-25] | Symptomatic predominantly fibrotic stricture |
| Short (≤ 5 cm) stricture | |
| Single straight stricture | |
| Stricture distal to the duodenum | |
| Anastomotic stricture more favorable than de novo stricture | |
| First dilation | |
| Lack of a superimposed process contributing to symptoms (e.g., SIBO or IBS) | |
| Risk factors for complications[22-25] | Predominantly inflammatory stricture without medical optimization |
| Stricture greater than 5 cm | |
| Multiple small bowel strictures | |
| Strictures caused by extrinsic compression (e.g., adhesions) | |
| Fistulization within 5 cm of the area to be dilated | |
| Adjacent perforation or intra-abdominal collection | |
| Complete small bowel obstruction | |
| Tortuous or tethered small bowel or significant stricture angulation | |
| Duodenal stricture | |
| 1Short term outcome[15,18] | 85%-95% (technical success), 70%-80% (clinical response) |
| 2Long term outcome[15,18] | 32% (year 1 post dilation), 80% (year 5 post dilation) |
| 3Complication rate[25,45] | 1%-4% |
- Citation: Bessissow T, Reinglas J, Aruljothy A, Lakatos PL, Van Assche G. Endoscopic management of Crohn’s strictures. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24(17): 1859-1867
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v24/i17/1859.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i17.1859