A case of esophageal stricture after corrosive esophagitis successfully treated by frequent endoscopic balloon dilation

A 14-year-old girl was admitted to our hospital for treatment of abdominal pain after an attempt to commit suicide by swallowing a caustic soda solution. Severe esophageal stricture following corrosive esophagitis occurred 2 weeks after admission. First, we tried to dilate the stenotic esophagus by using an esophageal bougie, but it was not effective and was also painful, and the treatment was stopped. Next, we tried endoscopic balloon dilation. This procedure was less painful and more effective for dilating the stenotic esophagus than was the bougie. At first, we used a pneumatic balloon and injected a steroid locally under the mucosal layer after dilation. The same procedure was continued in the outpatient clinic, but each interval of the procedures, about 3 weeks, was not changed for about 1 year. After 1 year of consecutive trials of frequent dilatation using a pneumatic balloon, the type of balloon was changed to a hydrostatic type. Three months after changing the type of balloon, treatment with tranilast, which was expected to be effective for prevention of restenosis, was started instead of steroid injection to the stenotic portion. After starting tranilast treatment, the interval of dilation became longer and the stricture itself gradually became dilated. Twenty-one months later, the interval of dilation was 3–4 months and oral intake had improved greatly. We therefore concluded that frequent endoscopic balloon dilation is effective for dilating stenosis after corrosive esophagitis. In addition, this case suggests that treatment with tranilast could be effective for preventing esophageal restenosis after balloon dilation.     

Endoscopic balloon dilatation of benign esophageal strictures in childhood: a 15‐year experience

The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) in childhood benign esophageal strictures. The medical records of 38 patients who underwent EBD from 1999 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic features, diagnoses, features of strictures, frequency and number of EBD, complications, outcome, and recurrence data were recorded. Median age was 1.5 years (0–14), and female/male ratio was 17/21 (n = 38). Primary diagnoses were corrosive esophageal stricture (n = 19) and esophageal atresia (n = 19). The length of strictures were less than 5 cm in 78.9% (n = 30). No complication was seen in 86.8% (n = 33). Perforation was seen in 10.5% (n = 4), and recurrent fistula was seen in 2.7% (n = 1). Total treatment lasted for 1 year (1–11). Dysphagia was relieved in 60.5% (n = 23). Recurrence was seen in 31.6% (n = 12). Treatment effectiveness was higher, and complication rates were lower in strictures shorter than 5 cm compared with longer ones (70% vs. 25%, P < 0.05, and 3.4% vs. 37.5%, P < 0.05). Although there was no statistical difference, treatment effectiveness rates were lower and complication and recurrence rates were higher in corrosive strictures compared with anastomotic ones (P > 0.05). EBD is a safe and efficient treatment choice in esophageal strictures, especially in strictures shorter than 5 cm and anastomotic strictures.     

Anastomotic dilatation after repair of esophageal atresia with distal fistula. Comparison of results after routine versus selective dilatation

After repair of esophageal atresia with distal fistula (EADF), anastomotic dilatations are often required. We abandoned routine dilatations (RD), in 2002, for selective dilatations (SD) only when the symptoms arose. We compared the number of dilatations and long-term results after RD and SD. Eighty-one successive EADF patients from 1989 to 2007 (RD 46, SD 35), with primary anastomosis, native esophagus, and peroral feeding, were included. Spitz classification, birth weight, gestational age, incidence of gastroesphageal reflux, tracheomalacia, and postoperative complications did not differ statistically significantly between the groups whereas the total incidence of associated anomalies in RD group was higher than in SD ( P  < 0.05) In RD group, anastomotic dilatations were begun 3 weeks postoperatively and repeated until the anastomotic diameter was 10 mm. In SD group, dilatations were performed only in symptomatic patients. The number of dilatations, dilatation-related complications, nutritional status, and outcome up to 3 years after repair were compared. The median number of dilatations was seven (2–23) in RD and two (0–16) in SD group ( P  < 0.01). Sixteen (46%) patients in SD group had no dilatations during the first 6 months. The incidence of dysphagia, bolus obstructions, and development of nutritional status were similar between the groups. The incidence of complications/dilatation was 0.6% in RD and 1.0% in SD group. One patient in RD group underwent resection for a recalcitrant anastomotic stricture. After repair, EADF policy of SD resulted in significantly less dilatations than RD with equal long-term results.     

Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy

AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2012 comparing EPBD with EST for CBD stone removal were evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate short-term and long-term com-plications of these two treatments. The fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analysis the data. Results were obtained by analyz-ing the relative risk, odds ratio, and 95%CI for a given comparison using RevMan 5.1. Statistical significance was defined asP < 0.05. Risk of bias was evaluated us-ing a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of the 1975 patients analyzed, 980 of them were treated with EPBD and 995 were treated with EST. Of the patient population, patients in the EPBDgroup were younger (OR=-1.16, 95%CI:-1.49 to 0.84, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the incidence of duodenal diverticulum, CBD diameter or the total follow-up time between EST and EPBD groups. Com-pared with EST, the total stone clearance in the EPBD group decreased (OR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.42 to 0.96,P=0.03), the use of stone extraction baskets significantly increased (OR=1.91, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.59, P<0.01), and the incidence of pancreatitis significantly increased (OR=2.79, 95%CI: 1.74 to 4.45, P<0.0001). The incidence of bleeding (OR=0.12, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P<0.01) and cholecystitis (OR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.84, P=0.02) significantly decreased. The stone re-currence rate also was significantly reduced in EPBD (OR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P=0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups with the incidence of stone removal at first attempt, hours of operation, total short-term complications and infection, perforation, or acute cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pancreatitis was higher, the overall stone     

Nasobiliary drainage after endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation may prevent postoperative pancreatitis

AIM:To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage(ENBD)catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct(CBD)stones.METHODS:Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups,according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones.Group 1(ENBD group)was then subdividedinto three groups:G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD),G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST),and G1c patients received neither.Group 2(non-ENBD group)patients were also subdivided into three groups(G2a,G2b,and G2c),similar to Group 1.The maximum CBD diameter,the time for C-reactive protein(CRP)to normalize,levels of serum amylase,total serum bilirubin(TB)and alanine aminotransferase(ALT),and postoperative hospitalization duration(PHD)were measured.RESULTS:A total of 218 patients(139 males,79females),with an average age of 60.1±10.8 years,were enrolled in this study.One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1,and 105patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2.The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups.There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared.Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD,and41 received an ENBD tube(G1a)and 36 did not(G2a).Seventy-three patients underwent EST,and 34 patients received an ENBD tube(G1b)and 39 did not(G2b).The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST;of these patients,38 received an ENBD tube(G1c)and 30 did not(G2c).For each of the three pairs of subgroups(G1a vs G2a,G1b vs G2b,G1c vs G2c),there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP,TB and ALT.In the EPBD group,the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis,hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a(post-ERCP pancreatitis:6/36vs 0/41,P=0.0217;hyperamylasemia:11/36 vs 4/41,P=0.0215;overall patient complications:18/36 vs 7/41,P=0.0029).CONCLUSION:After successful CBD stone clearance,ENBD is only beneficial when an EPBD procedure hasbeen performed.     

改良内镜下乳头气囊扩张术应用的可行性研究

目的探讨改良内镜下乳头气囊扩张术（EPBD）治疗胆管结石的可行性。方法对226例肝外胆管结石的患者应用肠道型柱状气囊行乳头扩张并在此基础上展开治疗，并比较2299例内镜乳头切开术（EST）的治疗效果及术后并发症情况。结果226例患者均顺利完成取石或碎石取石术，术后无胆道感染、穿孔等并发症，发生轻型急性胰腺炎4．7％（10例），与EST（5．2％）比较，差异无统计学意义，术后消化道出血0．47％（1例），与EST（1．2％）比较，差异有统计学意义。结论对EST困难或易发生并发症者用肠道型柱状气囊行EPBD术，能有效地钝性切割乳头，并在此基础上展开较大结石的取石或碎石取石术，同时并发症明显减少。EPBD是内镜下处理胆管结石安全有效的方法之一。     

Prevention of esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have recently been accepted as less invasive methods for treating patients with early esophageal cancers such as squamous cell carcinoma and dysplasia of Barrett’s esophagus. However, the large defects in the esophageal mucosa often cause severe esophageal strictures, which dramatically reduce the patient’s quality of life. Although preventive endoscopic balloon dilatation can reduce dysphagia and the frequency of dilatation, other approaches are necessary to prevent esophageal strictures after ESD. This review describes several strategies for preventing esophageal strictures after ESD, with a particular focus on anti-inflammatory and tissue engineering approaches. The local injection of triamcinolone acetonide and other systemic steroid therapies are frequently used to prevent esophageal strictures after ESD. Tissue engineering approaches for preventing esophageal strictures have recently been applied in basic research studies. Scaffolds with temporary stents have been applied in five cases, and this technique has been shown to be safe and is anticipated to prevent esophageal strictures. Fabricated autologous oral mucosal epithelial cell sheets to cover the defective mucosa similarly to how commercially available skin products fabricated from epidermal cells are used for skin defects or in cases of intractable ulcers. Fabricated autologous oral-mucosal-epithelial cell sheets have already been shown to be safe.     

Esophageal intramural pseudodiverticulosis improved by endoscopic dilatation

A 52-year-old woman presented to our hospital with dysphagia. The initial endoscopic examination revealed plaques on the esophageal mucosa that were consistent with candidiasis, as well as narrowing of the distal one-third of the esophagus. After 7 days of administration of antimycotic drugs, endoscopy and esophagography showed multiple small saccular diverticula in the lower esophagus. Dysphagia continued despite resolution of candidiasis. Based on a diagnosis of esophageal intramural pseudodiverticulosis, we performed endoscopic balloon dilatation of the stenosis, which resulted in the disappearance of clinical symptoms.     

Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

Endoscopic treatment for bile duct stones is low-invasive and currently considered as the first choice of the treatment. For the treatment of bile duct stones, papillary treatment is necessary, and the treatments used at the time are broadly classified into two types; endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation where bile duct closing part is dilated with a balloon and endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) where bile duct closing part is incised. Both procedures have advantages and disadvantages. Golden standard is EST, however, there are patients with difficulty for EST, thus we must select the procedure based on understanding of the characteristics of the procedure, and patient backgrounds.     

Endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation (EPBID) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of common bile duct stones. METHODS: From March 2011 to May 2012, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was performed in 560 patients, 262 with common bile duct stones. A total of 206 patients with common bile duct stones were enrolled in the study and randomized to receive either EPBID with a 10-12 mm dilated balloon or EST (103 patients in each group). For both groups a conventional reticular basket or balloon was used to remove the stones. After the procedure, routine endoscopic nasobiliary drainage was performed. RESULTS: First-time stone removal was successfully performed in 94 patients in the EPBID group (91.3%) and 75 patients in the EST group (72.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of operation time between the two groups. The overall incidence of early complications in the EPBID and EST groups was 2.9% and 13.6%, respectively, with no deaths reported during the course of the study and follow-up. Multiple regression analysis showed that the success rate of stone removal was associated with stone removal method [odds ratio (OR): 5.35; 95%CI: 2.24-12.77; P=0.00], the transverse diameter of the stone (OR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.19-5.80; P=0.02) and the presence or absence of diverticulum (OR: 2.35; 95%CI: 1.03-5.37; P=0.04). Postoperative pancreatitis was associated with the EST method of stone removal (OR: 5.00; 95%CI: 1.23-20.28; P=0.02) and whether or not pancreatography was performed (OR: 0.10; 95%CI: 0.03-0.35; P=0.00). CONCLUSION: The EPBID group had a higher success rate of stone removal with a lower incidence of pancreatitis compared with the EST group.     

单纯经内镜乳头大球囊扩张治疗胆总管大结石的疗效及预后研究

目的 评估单纯经内镜乳头大球囊扩张（EPLBD）治疗胆总管大结石的疗效及预后。方法 山西省人民医院2016年8月至2017年11月收治的153例胆总管大结石（结石直径>1.0 cm）患者按随机数字表法随机分为两组：EPLBD组（n=83例）和经内镜乳头小切开联合大球囊扩张（ESLBD）组（n=70例）,比较两组患者的取石成功率,术中碎石率,术后近期并发症发生率及远期结石复发率。结果 EPLBD组和ESLBD组在总的、一次性结石取尽率方面差异无统计学意义[95.2%（79/83）比97.1%（68/70）,χ2=0.388,P=0.533;92.8%（77/83）比90.0%（63/70）,χ2=0.375,P=0.540]。EPLBD组碎石使用率与ESLBD组比较差异无统计学意义[25.3%（21/83）比35.7%（25/70）,χ2=1.958,P=0.162]。两组近期并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义[43.4%（36/83）比40.0%（28/70）,χ2=0.178,P=0.673];两组均无术后穿孔病例。EPLBD组随访时间（22.7±4.3）个月,ESLBD组为（20.8±6.3）个月,两组胆总管结石累积复发率差异有统计学意义[2.4%（2/83）比15.7%（11/70）,P=0.003]。结论 EPLBD治疗胆总管大结石在取石成功率、碎石使用率、近期并发症发生率方面与ESLBD相当,远期结石复发率低于后者。单纯EPLBD治疗胆总管大结石安全有效。     

EST术联合EPBD术治疗非扩张性肝外胆管结石患者临床研究*

目的 探讨采用十二指肠镜下乳头括约肌切开（EST）联合十二指肠镜下乳头气囊扩张（EPBD）术治疗非扩张性肝外胆管结石患者的临床效果。方法 回顾性分析我院诊治的124例非扩张性肝外胆管结石患者的临床资料,联合组采用EST术联合EPBD术（n=49）、观察组采用单纯EST术（n=31）和对照组采用胆总管切开T管引流术（n=44）治疗。结果 术后48 h时,联合组血清淀粉酶水平为（107.1±34.6） U/L,超敏C-反应蛋白水平为（37.2±8.9） mg/L,观察组分别为（113.9±35.2） U/L和（38.1±9.4） mg/L,均显著低于对照组[分别为（221.5±54.8） U/L和（73.2±16.2） mg/L,P<0.05];联合组手术时间为（95.2±14.8） min,观察组为（113.6±12.7） min,均显著长于对照组[（84.8±12.1）,P<0.05];联合组胰腺炎和反流性胆管炎发生率分别为2.0%和4.1%,显著低于观察组的19.4%和22.6%或对照组的18.2%和22.7%（P<0.05）。结论 采用EST联合EPBD术治疗非扩张性肝外胆管结石患者操作易行,效果好,术后恢复快,近远期并发症发生率低,有较高的临床应用价值。     

内镜下球囊扩张术治疗结直肠吻合口良性狭窄的临床回顾性分析

目的评价内镜下球囊扩张术（EBD）治疗结直肠吻合口良性狭窄的安全性及疗效。方法2011年至2015年,复旦大学附属中山医院内镜中心行EBD治疗的36例结直肠吻合口良性狭窄病例纳入回顾性分析,统计扩张治疗次数、并发症发生情况、短期效果及长期狭窄复发情况。结果36例患者在外科手术后2～49个月（中位时间6个月）出现吻合口狭窄,吻合口距肛缘3～24 cm（中位距离6 cm）。10例(27.8%)为1级狭窄,15例(41.7%)为2级狭窄,11例(30.5%)为3级狭窄。36例共行80次EBD,平均每例2.22次,其中行1～2次25例（69.4%）、3次及以上11例（30.6%）。EBD操作过程中,14例次(17.5%)出现吻合口少量渗血,无术中及术后穿孔发生。术后所有患者梗阻症状得到解除,吻合口直径大于20 mm,EBD治疗取得成功。术后随访22～76个月（中位时间44个月）,其中4例(11.1%)在EBD治疗成功后再次出现吻合口良性狭窄,出现时间分别为末次扩张术后的7、11、18、63个月,均经再次EBD治疗后好转。结论EBD在治疗结直肠吻合口良性狭窄方面安全有效,能取得较为理想的短期和长期结局。     

体外自助式扩张球囊预防食管大面积病变内镜黏膜下剥离术后狭窄的长期疗效分析

目的 评估体外自助式扩张球囊预防食管大面积病变内镜黏膜下剥离术（endoscopic submucosal dissection,ESD）后食管狭窄的长期有效性和安全性。方法 前瞻性纳入2018年1月—2019年12月在解放军总医院第一医学中心行ESD且术后黏膜缺损≥5/6食管环周、长度30～100 mm的早期食管癌或癌前病变患者,术后使用体外自助式扩张球囊预防食管狭窄。ESD术后食管黏膜缺损分为2级:1级为≥5/6环周但未累及全环周;2级累及全环周。观察术后狭窄发生率,狭窄出现时间,内镜下球囊扩张（endoscopic balloon dilations,EBD）或放射状切开（radial incision and cuttings,RIC）治疗狭窄的次数,以及其他不良事件发生率。结果 共27例患者纳入研究,随访14～38个月,其中术后黏膜缺损范围1级的患者3例,2级24例。术后黏膜缺损长度（73.7±18.4）mm,球囊放置时间（92.0±20.0）d;总狭窄发生率为18.5%（5/27）,其中术后黏膜缺损2级的患者狭窄发生率为16.7%（4/24）。球囊取出到发生狭窄的中位时间为17 d,其中2例狭窄患者分别进行了3次EBD治疗,其余3例患者分别接受了2次、1次和2次RIC治疗。所有患者在佩戴球囊过程中未出现穿孔和迟发性出血。结论 对于ESD术后黏膜缺损≥5/6食管环周且长度≤100 mm的食管大面积病变患者,体外自助式扩张球囊是一种安全有效的预防术后狭窄的方法。     

乳头括约肌小切开联合内镜下乳头球囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石患者疗效对比分析*

目的 探讨不同方案治疗胆总管结石患者的临床疗效。方法 2010年2月~2016年3 月我院诊治的122例胆总管结石患者,采用随机数字表法分为联合组61例和对照组61例,分别采用乳头括约肌小切开联合内镜下柱状球囊扩张术或者内镜下括约肌切开术治疗,比较两组疗效和并发症发生情况。结果 在61例联合组患者中,57例（93.4%）,在61例对照组患者中, 56例（91.8%）患者成功取石（P>0.05）;两组近期并发症发生率无显著性相差（P>0.05）,术后6个月,两组患者结石复发率和反流性胆管炎发生率也无显著性差异（P>0.05）。结论 采用乳头括约肌小切开联合柱状球囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石患者,对于较大的结石取石更有效,更方便。     

Clinical experience of using a novel self‐help inflatable balloon to prevent esophageal stricture after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is gradually becoming a first‐line treatment for superficial esophageal neoplasms (SEN), strictures occur in almost 100% of cases after circumferential ESD. A standard method to prevent stricture has not been established. Thus, we propose a novel self‐help inflatable balloon to prevent stricture. The new balloon was used by the patients themselves at home (4–5 times a day, duration of each procedure was approximately 15–20 min), and was removed when the defects were almost healed. From January 2018 to September 2018, eight patients who received circumferential ESD for SEN and underwent a novel self‐help inflatable balloon to prevent stricture were enrolled. Median size of the mucosal defects was 76.3 mm (range: 50–90 mm). Median time for removing the self‐help inflatable balloon was 94.6 days (range, 71–119 days). Only one (12.5%) patient experienced stricture, and three endoscopic balloon dilation sessions were carried out for this patient. All patients tolerated the balloon well, and none experienced perforation or delayed bleeding. The self‐help inflatable balloon seems to show a high preventive effect against stricture in patients whose mucosal defect was no longer than 100 mm in length after esophageal circumferential ESD. This method is economic, feasible, and safe.     

Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a safe method in the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: Endoscopic sphincterotomy is a widely accepted treatment for patients with common bile duct stones. Despite improvement in this technique, endoscopic sphincterotomy is still associated with some biliary complications. Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a less traumatic and sphincter preserving method for removal of common bile duct stones. However, the results of controlled studies in comparison with these two methods are contradictory. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy in Chinese patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 104 patients with common bile duct stones on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to endoscopic balloon dilatation or endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopic balloon dilatation was performed by using a balloon dilator to dilate the sphincter for 5 min. The common bile duct stones were then removed by a Dormia basket after endoscopic balloon dilatation or endoscopic sphincterotomy. Mechanical lithotripsy was performed if the stones were difficult to remove by Dormia basket. After discharge, patients were regularly followed up for biliary complications. RESULTS: The successful bile duct stone clearance rate was 94.1% in endoscopic balloon dilatation group and 100% in endoscopic sphincterotomy group. Post-procedural significant haemorrhage was higher in endoscopic sphincterotomy group than in endoscopic balloon dilatation group (14/53 versus 1/48, P < 0.001). The bleeding patient from endoscopic balloon dilatation group was a case of uremia and bleeding occurred 48 h after endoscopic balloon dilatation. All the patients with post-procedural haemorrhage were controlled endoscopically. The post-procedural serum amylase level showed no significant difference in both groups and none of them developed clinical pancreatitis. After a mean 16 months follow-up, three patients (6.3%) in endoscopic balloon dilatation group and four patients (7.5%) in endoscopic sphincterotomy group developed recurrent common bile duct stones. The recurrent common bile duct stones were multiple and muddy in consistency. They were successfully removed endoscopically. CONCLUSION: Both endoscopic balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy are safe and effective techniques for the treatment of common bile duct stones. Endoscopic balloon dilatation can be safely applied in patients with coagulopathy and does not increase the incidence of pancreatitis or bleeding.     

激素预防食管早癌内镜黏膜下剥离术后食管狭窄效果的Meta分析

目的探讨激素预防食管早癌内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)术后食管狭窄的效果。 方法检索截止2017年11月发表在CBM、Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library数据库中有关激素预防食管早癌ESD术后食管狭窄效果的相关研究,采用RevMan5.3软件对数据进行Meta分析。 结果共有12项研究535例患者纳入分析。Meta分析结果显示,局部注射激素可降低食管早癌ESD术后食管狭窄发生率(RR＝0.41,95%CI：0.27～0.63,P<0.0001),口服激素可降低非全环周ESD术后食管狭窄发生率(RR＝0.25,95%CI：0.11～0.54,P＝0.000 4),而对于降低全环周ESD术后食管狭窄发生率无明显效果(RR＝0.54,95%CI：0.16～1.84,P＝0.33)。口服激素(RR＝－10.73,95% CI：－15.47～－5.98,P<0.0001)和局部注射激素(RR＝－3.22,95% CI：－5.11～－1.34,P＝0.0008)均可减少食管狭窄后EBD扩张次数。 结论激素对于预防食管早癌ESD术后的食管狭窄是安全有效的;口服激素可以降低非全环周ESD术后食管狭窄的发生率,但对于预防全环周ESD术后食管狭窄无明显效果;口服激素和局部注射激素均可以减少ESD术后食管狭窄的EBD扩张次数,并且口服激素减少的效果优于局部注射激素。