S853 Endoscopic Incisional Therapy for Benign Esophageal Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Benign esophageal strictures (BES) are a significant source of morbidity, particularly in patients who fail to respond to conventional endoscopic dilation. Endoscopic incisional therapy (EIT) is a minimally invasive alternative, but its effectiveness, durability, and safety profile remain incompletely characterized. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EIT in the treatment of BES. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved human subjects undergoing EIT for BES and reported relevant outcome data. Outcomes analyzed included technical success, clinical success at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months, recurrence, and adverse events. Pooled proportion estimates were calculated using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation and a random-effects model to account for study variability. Subgroup analyses were performed based on stricture type, comparing naïve versus refractory strictures. Results: Fourteen studies comprising 396 patients were included. The pooled technical success rate was 99.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.8%-99.8%; I² = 0%). Clinical success rates declined over time, with pooled proportions of: 88.7% at 1 month (95% CI 75.5%-97.2%; I² = 60.9%), 63.6% at 6 months (95% CI 48.6%-77.5%; I² = 84.2%), 52.0% at 12 months (95% CI 35.7%-68.1%; I² = 78.4%), and 61.6% at 24 months (95% CI 22.3%-93.5%; I² = 92.5%). Subgroup analysis by stricture type revealed greater efficacy of EIT in naïve strictures, with a pooled clinical success rate of 77.1% (95% CI 59.5%-90.8%; I² = 60.8%) at 12-24 months. In contrast, refractory strictures demonstrated a significantly lower success rate of 46.6% (95% CI 24.8%-69.0%; I² = 87.3%) over the same interval. Adverse events were uncommon and included a small perforation, minor bleeding, pain, and fever, most of which were managed conservatively without surgical intervention. No procedure-related mortality was reported. Conclusion: EIT appears to be a highly effective and relatively safe treatment modality for benign esophageal strictures. It demonstrates excellent short-term clinical outcomes and a favorable safety profile, although long-term efficacy may decline, particularly in patients with refractory strictures.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001130872.73980.41
Primary Topic
Esophageal and GI Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S853 Endoscopic Incisional Therapy for Benign Esophageal Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Andrew Ofosu, Daryl Ramai, John C. Fang, Kobina Essilfie‐Quaye et al.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Esophageal and GI Pathology
article

S853 Endoscopic Incisional Therapy for Benign Esophageal Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Andrew Ofosu, Daryl Ramai, John C. Fang, Kobina Essilfie‐Quaye, Yizhong Wu
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Benign esophageal strictures (BES) are a significant source of morbidity, particularly in patients who fail to respond to conventional endoscopic dilation. Endoscopic incisional therapy (EIT) is a minimally invasive alternative, but its effectiveness, durability, and safety profile remain incompletely characterized. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EIT in the treatment of BES. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved human subjects undergoing EIT for BES and reported relevant outcome data. Outcomes analyzed included technical success, clinical success at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months, recurrence, and adverse events. Pooled proportion estimates were calculated using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation and a random-effects model to account for study variability. Subgroup analyses were performed based on stricture type, comparing naïve versus refractory strictures. Results: Fourteen studies comprising 396 patients were included. The pooled technical success rate was 99.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 97.8%-99.8%; I² = 0%). Clinical success rates declined over time, with pooled proportions of: 88.7% at 1 month (95% CI 75.5%-97.2%; I² = 60.9%), 63.6% at 6 months (95% CI 48.6%-77.5%; I² = 84.2%), 52.0% at 12 months (95% CI 35.7%-68.1%; I² = 78.4%), and 61.6% at 24 months (95% CI 22.3%-93.5%; I² = 92.5%). Subgroup analysis by stricture type revealed greater efficacy of EIT in naïve strictures, with a pooled clinical success rate of 77.1% (95% CI 59.5%-90.8%; I² = 60.8%) at 12-24 months. In contrast, refractory strictures demonstrated a significantly lower success rate of 46.6% (95% CI 24.8%-69.0%; I² = 87.3%) over the same interval. Adverse events were uncommon and included a small perforation, minor bleeding, pain, and fever, most of which were managed conservatively without surgical intervention. No procedure-related mortality was reported. Conclusion: EIT appears to be a highly effective and relatively safe treatment modality for benign esophageal strictures. It demonstrates excellent short-term clinical outcomes and a favorable safety profile, although long-term efficacy may decline, particularly in patients with refractory strictures.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Esophageal and GI Pathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.