Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Esophageal Dilatation in Pediatric Patients with Esophageal Strictures
Table 3
Outcome of endoscopic dilatations in children with esophageal strictures in relation to the type and location of stricture, dilatation technique, and gastroenterologist who performed the procedure.
Variables
Patients (56.5)
Dilatations (100)
value
Success rate
value
Complication rate (96.2)
value
Complete (69.2)
Satisfactory (26.9)
Inadequate (3.9)
Type of stricture
Anastomotic
16 (61.5)
39 (44.3)
0.517
6.0 (33.3)
3.0 (42.9)
1.0 (100)
0.395
15 (60)
0.615
Nonanastomotic
10 (38.5)
49 (55.7)
12 (66.7)
4.0 (57.1)
0.0 (0.0)
10 (40)
Location of stricture
Upper
18 (69.2)
63 (71.6)
0.749
12 (66.7)
5.0 (71.4)
1.0 (100)
0.429
17 (68)
0.794
Middle
7.0 (27)
23 (26.1)
6.0 (33.3)
1.0 (14.3)
0.0 (0.0)
7.0 (28)
Lower
1.0 (3.8)
2.0 (2.3)
0.0 (0.0)
1.0 (14.3)
0.0 (0.0)
1.0 (4.0)
Dilatation technique
Savary dilators
21 (80.8)
76 (86.4)
0.663
15 (83.3)
5.0 (71.4)
0.0 (0.0)
0.484
20 (80)
0.884
Balloon dilators
3.0 (11.5)
8.0 (9.1)
1.0 (5.6)
2.0 (28.6)
1.0 (100)
3.0 (12)
Both (Savary and balloon)
2.0 (7.7)
4.0 (4.5)
2.0 (11.1)
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
2.0 (8.0)
Gastroenterologist
1 (1995–2010)
9.0 (34.6)
29 (32.9)
0.634
9.0 (50)
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
0.047
8.0 (32)
0.346
2 (2011–2019)
17 (65.4)
59 (67.1)
9.0 (50)
7.0 (100)
1.0 (100)
17 (68)
Values presented as number (%). Mann–Whitney -test and Kruskal Wallis test were used to compare continuous variables with categorical variables. Pearson chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the categorical variables. Boldface indicates a statistically significant difference with .
