Treatment of benign esophageal stricture by Eder-Puestow or balloon dilators: a comparison between randomized and prospective nonrandomized trials

Abstract

To determine whether the natural history of strictures is affected by the type of dilator used to treat newly diagnosed peptic strictures, we designed a prospective randomized trial to compare the results after Eder-Puestow or Medi-Tech balloon dilation. We entered 31 patients into the trial. We also prospectively followed up all 92 nonrandomized patients who underwent their first dilation for a benign stricture during the same period as the prospective randomized trial. The nonrandomized patients also underwent dilation with either the Eder-Puestow or the balloon technique at the discretion of the gastroenterologist performing the endoscopy. We found no statistically significant differences in the immediate or long-term results of the two methods among the randomized, nonrandomized, and overall combined groups. All but 1 of the 123 patients had immediate relief of dysphagia. Within each group of patients, the probability of remaining free of dysphagia 1 year after the initial dilation was approximately 20%, and the probability of not requiring a second dilation was approximately 65% with either technique. Major (esophageal rupture) and minor (bleeding or chest pain) complications occurred in 1% and 5% of the patients and 0.4% and 3% of the total dilation procedures, respectively. The esophageal rupture and four of six minor complications occurred after repeated dilations. Five of the six minor complications occurred with use of the Eder-Puestow dilators. We conclude that Eder-Puestow and balloon dilations of benign esophageal strictures are associated with similar outcomes, but repeated dilations and the Eder-Puestow technique may be associated with an increased risk of complications.