Stricture dilation <i>via</i> balloon-assisted endoscopy in Crohn’s disease: approach and intraprocedural outcomes with the single-balloon and double-balloon systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite recent emerging literature involving the utility of endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) of strictures via balloon-assisted endoscopy (BAE), specifically regarding the management of Crohn’s disease (CD), the optimal clinical approach with balloon systems has been largely neglected in academic literature. Objectives: This study assesses the intra-procedural success and safety of EBD via BAE for small bowel CD strictures while detailing our clinical approach and technique. Secondarily, we compare the single-balloon endoscope (SBE) and double-balloon endoscope (DBE) systems for EBD-related outcomes. Design: Retrospective consecutive patient cohort analysis. Methods: We retrospectively assessed a consecutive small bowel CD patient cohort undergoing BAE at the University of Alberta Hospital endoscopy unit from 2013 to 2020. The primary endpoint discerned the safety and immediate success rate of EBD during endoscopy, and comparisons of the dilation parameters and efficacy of SBE versus DBE were assessed as secondary outcomes. Results: During the study period, 87 patients (44 male) with a mean age of 56 ± 14.7 years underwent 179 endoscopic procedures (92 DBE and 87 SBE). Of 358 strictures encountered, 320 (89.4%) were successfully dilated and traversed. The mean maximum dilation diameter was 15.76 ± 2.10 mm. There were no perforations or major adverse events. Conclusion: EBD via BAE is a safe procedure in small bowel CD with a high intraprocedural success rate. Overall, SBE had a higher success rate in traversing strictures before and after dilation using our technique. This analysis is limited by the retrospective nature of our study and must be balanced against the inherent benefits of the DBE system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".