Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Clin+Endosc 2016 ; 49 (3): 241-56 Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Esophageal Stricture Prevention after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection #MMPMID26949124
Jain D; Singhal S
Clin Endosc 2016[May]; 49 (3): 241-56 PMID26949124show ga
Advances in diagnostic modalities and improvement in surveillance programs for Barrett esophagus has resulted in an increase in the incidence of superficial esophageal cancers (SECs). SEC, due to their limited metastatic potential, are amenable to non-invasive treatment modalities. Endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are some of the new modalities that gastroenterologists have used over the last decade to diagnose and treat SEC. However, esophageal stricture (ES) is a very common complication and a major cause of morbidity post-ESD. In the past few years, there has been a tremendous effort to reduce the incidence of ES among patients undergoing ESD. Steroids have shown the most consistent results over time with minimal complications although the preferred mode of delivery is debatable, with both systemic and local therapy having pros and cons for specific subgroups of patients. Newer modalities such as esophageal stents, autologous cell sheet transplantation, polyglycolic acid, and tranilast have shown promising results but the depth of experience with these methods is still limited. We have summarized case reports, prospective single center studies, and randomized controlled trials describing the various methods intended to reduce the incidence of ES after ESD. Indications, techniques, outcomes, limitations, and reported complications are discussed.
free
free
free
Clin+Endosc 2016 ; 49 (3): 241-56
