Logo image
Comparative Analysis of Adverse Events After Esophageal Balloon and Bougie Dilations in Children
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Comparative Analysis of Adverse Events After Esophageal Balloon and Bougie Dilations in Children

Jacob A. Mark, Bradley T. Anderson, Zhaoxing Pan, Calies Menard-Katcher and Robert E. Kramer
Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, v 68(5), pp 630-634
01 May 2019
PMID: 30562312
url
https://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2019/05000/Comparative_Analysis_of_Adverse_Events_After.7.aspxView
Published, Version of Record (VoR) Open

Abstract

Gastroenterology & Hepatology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Nutrition & Dietetics Pediatrics Science & Technology
Background: Pneumatic balloon and bougie dilation are widely used methods for pediatric esophageal dilation. There are no studies directly comparing the safety of these techniques in pediatric patients. This study compared adverse events (AEs) of balloon and bougie dilation in children at a single institution. Methods: AEs were identified by means of a prospective clinical registry of all procedure related AEs from 2012 to 2015 at a single institution. Identified AEs underwent retrospective review of procedural and clinical details. The category of each AE was recorded and severity was assigned using a 5-point scoring system. AEs were compared between balloon and bougie dilation for different severities. Results: There were 105 patients who underwent 246 dilation sessions. Balloon dilation was performed more commonly (n = 190, 77%) as compared to Maloney dilators (n = 56, 23%). Patients with balloon dilation were younger (3.0 vs 14.5 years, P = 0.0001) and more likely to have strictures fromcaustic ingestion (42% vs2%, P < 0.0001) or surgical anastomoses (34% vs 5% P < 0.0001). Bougie dilation was used more commonly in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (77% vs 7%, P < 0.0001)). In multivariate analysis, each year of increasing age was associated with a 12% increase in any AEs (P = 0.015), but no difference in clinically significant AEs (grade 2 or higher) was identified between dilation methods. Conclusions: Bougie and balloon dilation did not have significant differences in AE rates, but the patient populations differed between the 2 methods. The dilation method should depend on stricture characteristics and endoscopist expertise with each method.

Metrics

17 Record Views
12 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Nutrition & Dietetics
Pediatrics
Logo image