Cox J G, Winter R K, Maslin S C, Dakkak M, Jones R, Buckton G K, Hoare R C, Dyet J F, Bennett J R
Department of Gastroenterology, Hull Royal Infirmary, UK.
Dig Dis Sci. 1994 Apr;39(4):776-81. doi: 10.1007/BF02087423.
Ninety-three adult patients with benign esophageal stricture were randomized to receive balloon or bougie dilatation. Eighty-five patients were eligible for analysis and were followed prospectively for a year. Twenty-four patients required repeat dilatation within a year, but 50 patients completed a year's follow-up without further dilatation. The bougie group initially had a better symptomatic result, experiencing significantly less dysphagia at five months, although this difference had disappeared at one year. Eighteen patients in the balloon group required redilatation for symptoms compared with six in the bougie group. The bougie group had a significantly greater increase in their stricture diameter, and this was still present at one year after dilatation. There was no significant difference in safety or patient acceptability. Balloons are probably more costly to use than bougies. Bougie dilatation is to be preferred to balloon dilatation in adults except in special circumstances.
93例成年良性食管狭窄患者被随机分为接受球囊扩张或探条扩张两组。85例患者符合分析条件,并进行了为期一年的前瞻性随访。24例患者在一年内需要重复扩张,但50例患者在无进一步扩张的情况下完成了一年的随访。探条组最初的症状改善效果较好,在五个月时吞咽困难明显较少,尽管这种差异在一年时已消失。球囊组有18例患者因症状需要再次扩张,而探条组为6例。探条组狭窄直径的增加明显更大,且在扩张后一年仍存在。在安全性或患者可接受性方面无显著差异。使用球囊可能比探条成本更高。除特殊情况外,成人首选探条扩张而非球囊扩张。