High Technical Success Rate of Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation Reduces Surgical Requirement for Patients With Stricturing Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) is an alternative therapy to avoid or delay surgery in stricturing Crohn’s disease (CD); however, certain factors determining outcomes remain poorly defined, and conflicting evidence exists in current studies. In one of the largest cohorts to date, we assess outcomes following EBD for stricturing CD for both anastomotic and de novo strictures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of CD patients undergoing EBD was conducted at 12 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. Local databases were used to identify cases from February 1999 to November 2019. Data from patient endoscopy reports and medical records were used to determine patient medical details and EBD outcomes. Multivariable analysis was undertaken to identify factors associated with technical and long‐term success. Results: A total of 273 patients with stricturing CD were identified (48% female; 49.6% Montreal L3 disease). Of 695 EBD procedures (355 anastomotic, 340 de novo strictures), the majority (80.1% of strictures with identified length) was performed on short strictures (< 4 cm). Technical success, defined as the ability to traverse the stricture with a colonoscope after dilation, was achieved in 577 (83%) of endoscopic procedures, with success more likely with de novo strictures compared with anastomotic strictures (aOR: 3.21, P = 0.010). A significantly higher failure rate was noted with long strictures (aOR: 0.09, P < 0.001). A total of 74 patients (27%) required surgery within 5 years with stricture length, the only significant factor associated with increased surgery risk (aHR: 2.37, P < 0.01). Conclusion: EBD is a highly effective and safe procedure in both de novo and anastomotic strictures < 4 cm that can prevent or delay the need for surgical treatment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".