RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Strictures are common complications after ileal pouch surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic stricturotomy vs. endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) in the treatment of pouch inlet strictures. METHODS: All consecutive ulcerative colitis patients with the diagnosis of pouch inlet or afferent limb strictures treated in our Interventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Unit (i-IBD) from 2008 to 2017 were extracted. The primary outcomes were surgery-free survival and post-procedural complications. RESULTS: A total of 200 eligible patients were included in this study, with 40 (20.0%) patients treated with endoscopic stricturotomy and 160 (80.0%) patients treated with EBD. Symptom improvement was recorded in 11 (42.3%) patients treated with endoscopic stricturotomy and 16 (13.2%) treated with EBD. Subsequent surgery rate was comparable between the two groups (9 [22.5%] vs. 33 [20.6%], P = 0.80) during a median follow-up of 0.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.4-0.8) vs. 3.6 years (IQR 1.1-6.2) in patients receiving endoscopic stricturotomy and EBD, respectively. The overall surgery-free survival seems to be comparable as well (P = 0.12). None of the patients in the stricturotomy group developed pouch failure, while 9 patients (5.6%) had pouch failure in the balloon dilation group (P = 0.17). Procedural bleeding was seen in three occasions (4.7% per procedure) in patients receiving endoscopic stricturotomy and perforation was seen in three occasions (0.8% per procedure) in patients receiving EBD (P = 0.02). In multivariable analysis, an increased length of the stricture (hazard ratio [HR] 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.8) and concurrent pouchitis (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.0-5.7) were found to be risk factors for the requirement of surgery. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic stricturotomy and EBD were both effective in treating patients with pouch inlet or afferent limb strictures, EBD had a higher perforation risk while endoscopic stricturotomy had a higher bleeding risk.