Complications associated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and with esophageal dilation

Mandelstam, Paul; Sugawa, Choichi; Silvis, Stephen E.; Nebel, Otto T.; Rogers, Gerald

doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(76)73568-5

Cited by 177 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dilatation can be made both endoscopically and/or under fluoroscopic control. Overall success rates have been reported to be 67-98%, and complication rates have been 0-9% in prior studies (Tytgat, 1989;Mandelstam et al, 1976;Wesdorp et al, 1982; McLean and LeVeen, 1989;La Berg et al, 1985).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Direct visualization of the stricture and placement of the guidewire through the endoscope, together with fluoroscopic control of the balloon treatment, is ideal and greatly recommended as precautionary steps, although there are reports in the literature presenting very low figures of perforation after dilatation without such visual control (Mandelstam et al, 1976;Wesdorp et al, 1982). According to common experience, the minimum diameter of an esophageal stricture that should be achieved as a result of dilatation in order to accomplish relief of symptoms is 13 mm (Tytgat, 1989).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation of Benign EsophagealStricture—A Nonhazardous Procedure?

Ekberg

Borgström

Fork

et al. 1994

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Balloon dilatation of benign esophageal strictures has been widely used since its introduction. We have performed 224 dilatation procedures in 52 patients. Dilatation was done as an outpatient procedure. Strictures were due to reflux esophagitis in 25 patients, anastomatic stenosis in 6, achalasia in 5, complications of sclerotherapy in 5, corrosive lesions in 3, and long-standing nasogastric intubation in 2. The cause was unknown in 6 cases. The intention was to dilate all strictures up to 20 mm. Three major complications occurred, and one of these patients died. The risk of perforation seems to be higher after repeated procedures than during the first one.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation of Benign EsophagealStricture—A Nonhazardous Procedure?

Ekberg

Borgström

Fork

et al. 1994

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some previous studies have shown that the perforation rate associated with the dilation of benign esophageal strictures is between 0.1 and 0.3 percent. [21][22][23][24][25][26] Perforation rate is higher with complex strictures and radiation-induced strictures. 27,28 The perforation rate may be influenced not only by the nature of the stricture, but also by the experience of endoscopist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Etiological profile of benign esophageal stricture and its management with through-the-scope endoscopic balloon dilation in the western region of Nepal

Shrestha

2017

J Adv Intern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The limitation of the present study is that we only reveal a reduction of the bioaerosol burden without showing the clinical relevance of such a practice. A number of studies maintain the concept that endoscopic procedures don't place patients at any increased risk of infection and that infection is an infrequent complication of endoscopy (18)(19)(20)(21)(22). It was probably this concept of extreme rare infections following colonoscopies which decreased the enthusiasm of systematically evaluating the impact of aerosol burden in the endoscopy suites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air Suctioning During Colon Biopsy Acquisition Reduces Bacterial Contamination

Vavricka¹,

Imhof²,

Wildi³

et al. 2006

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Contamination of endoscopy suites with bacteria during procedures is of concern particularly through droplets during handling of biopsy specimens. It has been advocated that suctioning while removing the biopsy forceps could help to reduce potentially hazardous bioaerosols. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of air suctioning during removal of the biopsy forceps. Materials and Methods: Airborne bacteria were collected by an impactor air-sampler (MAS-100). Fifty liters of air were collected continuously for 30 seconds at a 30 cm distance from the colonoscope suction channel. Room air samples were taken in the endoscopy suite in the morning prior to the beginning of the endoscopy program, during colonoscopy with a sham biopsy in the descending colon with and without suctioning and at the end of the procedure day. Standard 90 mm Petri dishes containing a selective medium for gram-positive cocci (CNA blood agar) were used with the impaction sampler and colony forming units/m3 (cfu) were determined. Results: Measurements were performed at fifty consecutive colonoscopies. Prior to the beginning of the endoscopy program, the bioaerosol burden in the colonoscopy suite reached a mean of 4.2 cfu/m3. During colonoscopies performed without suctioning at biopsy the bioaerosol burden increased to 29.4 cfu/m3 whereas this burden increased only to 15.1 cfu/m3 when the suctioning was applied during removal of the biopsy forceps. The difference in bioaerosol burden between suctioning and no suctioning was highly significant (p < 0.0005). At the end of the procedure day the airborne bacteria count dropped to 15.6 cfu/m3. The analysis of the colonies on the CNA blood agar identified predominantly enterococci. Staphylococci spp. and other gram-positive bacteria were rarely isolated. Conclusion: The present study indicates that the bioaerosol burden during handling of biopsy specimens is not neglectable but can be reduced by the simple habit of applying suctioning during acquisition of biopsies. This practice might be an important infection-control measure during gastrointestinal endoscopies. Air Suctioning During Colon Abstract (Word count 245)Background and Aim: Contamination of endoscopy suites with bacteria during procedures is of concern. It has been advocated that suctioning while removing biopsy forceps could help to reduce hazardous bioaerosols. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of air suctioning during removal of biopsy forceps. Materials and Methods:During colonoscopy endoscopists were asked to remove the biopsy forceps with and without suction after having touched the sigmoid mucosa.Fifty litres of air were collected continuously for 30 seconds at 30 cm distance from the colonoscope suction channel. Airborne bacteria were collected by an impactor air-sampler (MAS-100). Standard 90 mm Petri dishes with CNA blood agar were used to culture gram positive cocci. Room measurements prior to the first endoscopy and after the last endoscopy of the day were ...

show abstract

Complications associated with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and with esophageal dilation

Cited by 177 publications

References 7 publications

Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation of Benign EsophagealStricture—A Nonhazardous Procedure?

Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation of Benign EsophagealStricture—A Nonhazardous Procedure?

Etiological profile of benign esophageal stricture and its management with through-the-scope endoscopic balloon dilation in the western region of Nepal

Air Suctioning During Colon Biopsy Acquisition Reduces Bacterial Contamination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About