Stricture prevention after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection of the esophagus: Proactive <i>vs</i> reactive strategies
Calabrese G., Sferrazza S., Ramai D., Maida M.
Laboratory Study, published in World J Gastrointest Endosc (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- World J Gastrointest Endosc (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40125506
- PMCID
- PMC11923978
- DOI
- 10.4253/wjge.v17.i3.101428
Abstract (original English)
In this editorial, we explored currently available strategies for reducing the occurrence of esophageal strictures following circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection. This manuscript provided a comprehensive overview of the various strategies including recent insights from Wang et al . To this end, stenosis-related symptoms such as dysphagia and vomiting can severely affect a patient's quality of life. Therefore, we assess the efficacy of both reactive and proactive measures, ranging from traditional approaches like endoscopic balloon dilation and steroid administration to more advanced techniques, including tissue engineering and polyglycolic acid sheet placement. However, no single treatment has shown high efficacy, particularly for resections involving the entire circumference. Despite these shortcomings, the combination of different strategies may improve patient outcomes, although further large-scale studies are needed for validation.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.