Outcomes of Endoscopic Balloon Dilation vs Surgical Resection for Primary Ileocolic Strictures in Patients With Crohn’s Disease

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid



Few studies have compared endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) with ileocolic resection (ICR) in the treatment of primary ileocolic strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD).


We performed a retrospective study to compare postprocedure morbidity and surgery-free survival among 258 patients with primary stricturing ileo(colic) CD (B2, L1, or L3) initially treated with primary EBD (n = 117) or ICR (n = 258) from 2000 through 2016. Patients with penetrating disease were excluded from the study. We performed multivariate analyses to evaluate factors associated with surgery-free survival.


Postprocedural complications occurred in 4.7% of patients treated with EBD and salvage surgery was required in 44.4% of patients. Factors associated with reduced surgery-free survival among patients who underwent EBD included increased stricture length (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3–3.3), ileocolonic vs ileal disease (hazard ratio, 10.9; 95% CI, 2.6–45.4), and decreased interval between EBD procedures (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1–1.4). There were no significant differences in sex, age, race, or CD duration between EBD and ICR groups. Patients treated with ICR were associated with more common postoperative adverse events (32.2%;P< .0001), but a reduced need for secondary surgery (21.7%;P< .0001) and significantly longer surgery-free survival (11.1 ± 0.6 vs 5.4 ± 0.6 y;P< .001).


In this retrospective study, we found that although EBD is initially successful with minimal adverse events, there is a high frequency of salvage surgery. Initial ICR is associated with a higher morbidity but a longer surgery-free interval. The risks and benefits should be balanced in selecting treatments for individual patients.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles