Introduction
Esophageal and gastric anastomotic strictures can be challenging to treat. Minimally-invasive therapeutic endoscopic intervention has overtaken surgical re-intervention as first-line therapy. This literature review aims to assess the technique, efficacy, and adverse events of the many currently available options for endoscopic management.
Esophageal Anastomotic Strictures
Etiology
Esophageal anastomotic strictures (EAS) are most commonly a post-operative adverse event following esophagectomy and esophageal atresia repair. The most common indication for esophagectomy is treatment of malignancy, but rarely, it may be indicated for treatment of benign esophageal disease in cases of severe obstruction, perforation, or dysmotility. EAS remains a common problem. The reported rate of EAS following esophagectomy ranges between 5-46% with a large retrospective cohort study performed by Honkoop et al. demonstrating EAS development in 114 out of 269 (42%) patients.2,3
Esophageal atresia is a rare congenital anomaly affecting 1 in 3,500 births.4 There are four types (A-D) of esophageal atresia of which type C is seen in 80-85% of cases and presents anatomically with a closed off upper esophagus and aberrant connection of the lower esophagus to the trachea.5,6 Surgical repair is required, but post-operative EAS has been reported to develop in approximately one-third to one-half of patients.4,7,8
Risk Factors
Patient risk factors for EAS include pre-operative cardiovascular disease and diabetes.2,9 Mendelson et al. reported lower risk for EAS in patients who had previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy when esophagectomy was performed for malignancy.
Surgical risk factors have been more extensively studied with data supporting post-operative anastomotic leakage as a driver of tissue ischemia, inflammation and eventual stricture development.2,9 Anastomotic closure techniques, hand-sewn versus stapled, have also been analyzed without clear evidence to suggest one increases risk for EAS more than the other.11,12
Clinical Manifestations
Dysphagia is the most common clinical manifestation of EAS, described by patients as the inability to swallow, food becoming stuck in the throat, or regurgitation of food.13 Dysphagia can be graded using the Atkinson’s classification: grade 0 (ability to tolerate normal diet), grade 1 (ability to swallow some solids), grade 2 (ability to swallow semi-solids), grade 3 (ability to swallow liquids), and grade 4 (inability to swallow anything).14
Bougie and Endoscopic Balloon Dilation
Technique – Bougie Dilation
Bougie dilators are reusable push-type dilators available in various sizes with a fixed diameter exerting radial and longitudinal forces simultaneously as they pass through the stricture.15 Hurst and Maloney bougie dilators (Medovations, Milwaukee, Wisc, and Teleflex Medical, Research Triangle Park, NC) do not use a guidewire and are instead pushed blindly with gravity assistance from tungsten within the dilator.15 Savary-Gillard (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) and American Dilation System bougie dilators (ConMed, Utica, NY) utilize a guidewire placed endoscopically followed by passage of the bougie dilator over the wire, with or without fluoroscopic guidance.15 Available diameters range from 16-60 French (Hurst), 36-54 French (Maloney), and 15-60 French (Savary-Gillard and American Dilation System).15
Technique – Endoscopic Balloon Dilation
Balloon dilators are single-use, inflatable dilators of various diameters (6-20mm) designed to supply a radial force against the stricture.15 The most common technique utilizes a through-the-scope (TTS) balloon dilator passed over a guidewire to position the balloon within the stricture prior to inflation with injection of saline or contrast.15 Others are designed to be placed through the scope under endoscopic visualization without a guidewire, but these are rarely used in modern clinical practice.15
Efficacy
Results across multiple studies are similar for both bougie and endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) with initial clinical success rates ranging from 70-90% following a median of two to nine dilation sessions, emphasizing how refractory some of these strictures can be.2,14,16,17 van Halsema et al., in a retrospective cohort study of 179 patients, reported a stricture recurrence rate of 73.7%.18 Risk factors for recurrence include diabetes and strictures longer than 10mm.17 van Halsema et al. also showed significantly increased dilation-free days (92 vs. 41 days) and decreased recurrence rates (68.1% vs. 79.5%) with dilation >16mm diameter compared to 16mm.18 There were no significant differences in adverse events including perforation between the two groups.18
Adverse Events
van Halsema et al. reported an overall adverse event rate of 5.3% per patient and 1.0% per procedure.18 The most notable adverse events were perforation rates of 3.6% per patient and 0.6% per procedure with bleeding in <1% of patients.18
Adjunctive Triamcinolone Injection
Technique
Intralesional injection of triamcinolone acetonide has been studied in multiple randomized control trials as adjunctive therapy to dilation of EAS.19,20 Local steroid injection is thought to inhibit fibrotic healing and scar contracture following dilation.21 While widely employed, steroid dosages and injection techniques vary based on operator preference and institutional experience. A meta-analysis by Dasari et al. reported dosages ranging from 40-50mg with multiple intralesional injections using a 25-gauge needle.19,22
Efficacy
Hanaoka et al. performed a randomized control trial of 65 patients and observed a two-fold reduction in the median number of dilation sessions required to achieve clinical success with adjunctive steroid injection compared to dilation alone.19 The patients in the treatment arm also had a significantly higher six-month recurrence-free rate of 39% compared to 16% in the control arm (p-value < 0.01).19 Pereira-Lima et al., in a randomized control trial limited by a small sample size of only 19 patients, had previously reported similar findings with a significantly higher six-month recurrence-free rate of 62% in the treatment arm compared to 0% in the control arm (p-value <0.01).20
Adverse Events
Neither Hanaoka et al. nor Pereira-Lima et al. reported any adverse events in their 84 combined patients including bleeding, pain, perforation, or Candida esophagitis.19,20 However, in a more recent meta-analysis published in 2020, Dasari et al. reported a perforation rate of 1.4% and a Candida esophagitis rate of 5.5%.22
Self-Expandable Metal Stents
Technique
The first endoscopic stent type used to treat EAS was a self-expandable plastic stent (SEPS).23 SEPS required assembly, were cumbersome to place, had high migration rates, and, despite some good clinical outcomes, are essentially obsolete and have since been replaced by self-expandable metal stents (SEMS).23,24

Modern SEMS have strong radial force and are available as uncovered (UCSEMS), partially covered (PCSEMS), or fully covered (FCSEMS) devices. Commercially available stents in the United States include WallFlex stents (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, United States), Endomaxx and Alimaxx stents (Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah, United States), and Evolution stents (Cook Endoscopy, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States).25,26 These stents are available in various lengths (6-16cm) and diameters (12-23mm) and are designed to prevent migration via proximal and/or distal flared ends with various stent designs including fins and scaling to further reduce migation.25 Stents can be placed via endoscopy, fluoroscopy, or a combination thereof. (Figure 1)
Efficacy
Four retrospective cohort studies have shown clinical success rates ranging from 21-70%, but no individual study contained more than 50 patients with EAS.27,28,29,30 Wu et al. treated EAS with PCSEMS showing a 12-month stricture-free recurrence rate of 70% and a mean improvement of one point in dysphagia grade.27 Re-stenting was required in 12 out of 13 patients treated in the retrospective study performed by Suzuki et al. using various types of SEMS, reflecting that many of these strictures can be refractory.28 Bakken et al. and Eloubeidi et al. reported use of FCSEMS with stricture recurrence rates at approximately two months of 30% and 79%, respectively.29,30

Adverse Events
Stent migration remains a common adverse event occurring in approximately one-third of patients.31 Suzuki et al. reported a similar migration rate of 38.5% in EAS patients using various types of SEMS.28 The two studies that used only FCSEMS reported migration rates of 37.3% and 60%.29,30 No perforations were reported among the four studies, but there was one incident of food impaction within the stent at day 128.27,28,29,30
It should be stressed that sometimes migration is not a true adverse event and may reflect the fact that the stricture has resolved, thus allowing the stent to migrate. This concept was highlighted by Thomas et al. in a large retrospective cohort study of 369 patients with benign or malignant esophageal strictures treated with various FCSEMS.32 They observed total migration rates of 23-30% with clinically relevant migration rates of only 14-17%.32
Migration rates can be reduced using different anchoring techniques.31 These include endoscopic suturing (which is more technically challenging and expensive) with a reported 17% migration rate.33 Other techniques include deploying TTS or over-the-scope (OTS) clips with lower reported migration rates of 13% and 6.7-15%, respectively.31,34 An FDA-approved stent fixation device on the market since 2019, the Stentfix OTS Clip System (Ovesco, AG-Tuebingen Germany), was prospectively studied by Manta et al. who reported a migration rate of only 3.2% and no adverse events when used.31
Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents
Technique
Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) were originally approved by the FDA to drain pancreatic fluid collections but have since been widely used for the endoscopic treatment of a variety of other conditions, including EAS, in an off-label manner. LAMS are fully covered, short stents with wide proximal and distal flanges to reduce migration.35 The only commercially available LAMS in the United States is the AXIOS stent (Boston Scientific, Natick MA, United States) with a 10mm length, 6-15mm diameter, and flanges of 21 or 24mm diameter.35,37 A guidewire is placed across the stricture under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance, and the stent is deployed with or without pre-stent or in-stent dilation.35,37 (Figure 2) Stent dwell time has been commonly reported between 60-90 days, but is often individualized.38,39

Efficacy
LAMS have been used for short (<1cm) EAS with reported clinical success rates ranging from 50-100% among two case series and two retrospective cohort studies that combined reported on 17 patients.36,37,38,39 The largest of these, an international multicenter retrospective cohort study by Santos-Fernandez, included seven patients with EAS and showed a 30-day symptom resolution rate of >80% which dropped to <50% at 90 days.36 Larger studies specifically focused on use in EAS patients are needed.
Adverse Events
Out of the 17 patients, there were three (17.6%) stent migrations, two (11.8%) angulations, and development of a new proximal stricture made of granulation tissue in one case requiring balloon dilation to remove the stent.36,37,38,39 No study reported bleeding or perforation.36,37,38,39
Biodegradable Stents
Technique
Biodegradable stents (BDS) made of synthetic polymers such as polydioxanone are designed to apply a radial force for approximately six weeks then degrade via hydrolysis over an additional six to 24 weeks.40 This eliminates the need for a removal procedure, but the currently available BDS require assembly and supply a weaker radial force than traditional SEMS.40 The SX-ELLA BDS (ELLA-CS, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic) is the only commercially available BDS for esophageal use and is available in many lengths (60-135mm) and diameters (18-25mm).41 This device is not approved for use in the United States. Once assembled, BDS are loaded onto a delivery system, advanced over a guidewire, and deployed with endoscopic and/or fluoroscopic visualization using radiopaque markers on both ends.41
Efficacy
There are limited studies on BDS for treatment of EAS. Sanchez Munoz et al.’s case report described an ideal sequence of events with successful placement, initial stent degradation at four weeks, complete stent resorption at five months, and a patent anastomosis without symptoms at 20-month follow-up.42 Three prospective cohort studies with a combined 21 EAS patients reported clinical success rates of 25-60% with median dysphagia-free time of three to six months.43,44,45 However, several patients experienced stricture recurrence requiring up to three BDS replacements to maintain long-term patency.43,44,45
Adverse Events
Using BDS, Hirdes et al. reported bleeding, stent migration, and food impaction in 11% and pain in 7% of patients.43 van Boeckel et al. reported bleeding, pain, food impaction, and tissue overgrowth in 11% and stent migration in 22% of patients.44 van Hooft et al. reported food impaction in 10% and obstruction due to stent epithelialization in 20% of patients.45 Perforation was not reported in any of the studies.43,44,45
Endoscopic Incisional Therapy
Technique
Endoscopic incisional therapy (EIT) was first used to treat Schatzki rings and has been applied to refractory benign esophageal strictures as well.46 Radial incision and cutting (RIC) is one method using an insulation-tip (IT) knife (KD611L, IT2, Olympus, Japan) or a standard needle knife to make radial incisions around the circumference of the stricture, sometimes with removal of the fibrotic tissue in-between incisions.47,48,49,50 Radial incisions of operator-dependent length and depth are made perpendicular to the stricture.49,50
Efficacy
Clinical success of EIT ranges from 50-100% across multiple studies.46,47,48,49,50 Two retrospective cohort studies with a combined 104 patients showed 50-63% of patients remained asymptomatic at six months.46,47 In a case series of 20 patients, Hordijk et al. observed the 12 patients with strictures <1cm long remained asymptomatic at 12 months whereas 8 patients with strictures >1cm long experienced dysphagia recurrence.49
Jimoh et al. performed a meta-analysis showing EIT significantly reduced the odds (OR 0.32, p-value 0.03) of stricture recurrence in naïve EAS compared to EBD.51 Muto et al.’s retrospective cohort study showed similar results with significantly higher 6-month (65.3% vs. 19.8%, p-value <0.005) and 12-month (61.5% and 19.8%, p-value <0.005) recurrence-free rates in patients treated with EIT compared to EBD.47
Adverse Events
Chest pain (up to 26%) was a commonly reported adverse event among published studies.46,48 Bleeding was reported in 10% of patients.46 There were no reports of perforation.46,48,49,50
Gastric Anastomotic Strictures
Etiology
Gastric anastomotic strictures most commonly develop following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery but may also result following gastric resections for benign or malignant disease.52,53 Gastric anastomotic strictures account for half of RYGB post-operative adverse events affecting 3-28% of patients.52,53
Risk Factors
Patient risk factors for gastric anastomotic strictures include pre-operative gastroesophageal reflux disease. Risk for concomitant marginal ulcers increased in patients using tobacco, alcohol, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).55
Many studies have examined the impact of anastomotic closure techniques on the risk for developing gastric anastomotic strictures with conflicting results.52,, Jiang et al. performed a meta-analysis of 13,626 patients showing no significant difference in gastric anastomotic stricture rates between hand-sewn, circularly stapled, or linearly stapled anastomoses following laparoscopic RYGB.56 However, a more recent meta-analysis by Jin et al. reported patients were at higher risk for gastric anastomotic strictures if circular stapling was used compared to linear stapling.57
Clinical Manifestations
Patients often present with obstructive symptoms including nausea, vomiting, early satiety, reflux, and/or dysphagia.52, Carrodeguas et al. performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,291 patients noting mean symptom onset at 52 days (range 20-154 days) following surgery.58

Endoscopic Balloon Dilation
Technique
TTS EBD is the most utilized method for dilating gastric anastomotic strictures. Clinicians target a RYGB stoma diameter of 10-12mm.52 The same EBD techniques described previously apply to gastric anastomotic stricture dilation with the balloon dilator positioned with or without a guidewire prior to inflation against the stricture.15
Efficacy
Meta-analyses by Baumann et al. (N=896) and Campos et al. (N=760) showed clinical success rates of 97% and 98%, respectively.53,59 Baumann et al. noted only 38% of patients required multiple dilation sessions, and Campos et al. reported patients required a mean of 1.62 dilation sessions to achieve clinical success.53,59
Adverse Events
Perforation occurred in 1.8-2.3% of patients.53,59 Baumann et al. reported only one incidence of bleeding out of 896 patients.59
Self-Expandable Metal Stents
Technique
The main barrier to using SEMS to treat gastric anastomotic strictures is the ability to reach the stricture with the stent delivery system. Many of the previously described esophageal SEMS, especially the Endomaxx stents (Merit Medical, South Jordan, Utah, United States), can be used off-label if the stricture is within reach of the stent’s sheath.25 Cai et al. described successful use of longer FCSEMS Megastents (Taewoong Medical Industries, Kangseo-Gu Songjung-Dong, South Korea) available as 18 and 23cm to reach distal strictures.52 This stent is designed with flares to reduce migration rates.52 The Wallstent Enteral and Wallflex Duodenal stents (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, United States) are other options available in lengths 60-120cm and diameters 20-22mm.25
Efficacy
Limited data exist regarding treatment of gastric anastomotic strictures with SEMS.60,61,62 Randhawa et al. performed a prospective cohort study with six gastric anastomotic stricture patients showing an 83.3% clinical success rate.61 Bakken et al.’s retrospective cohort study with 12 gastric anastomotic stricture patients described a clinical success rate of 75% at the time of stent removal but a 77% recurrence rate.62
Adverse Events
Stent migration is a commonly experienced adverse event seen in up to 50% of patients.61,62 Previously described SEMS anchoring techniques may be used to reduce stent migration.61 Randhawa et al. observed a decrease in migration rate from 28.6% to 0% when more than one endoscopic suture was applied to the FCSEMS.61 Only one perforation was reported out of 19 patients.60,61,62
Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents
Technique
LAMS can be used in an off-label manner to treat gastric anastomotic strictures using the same technique described above for EAS.63 (Figure 3) While operator dependent, Skidmore et al. described a case series of 14 patients where pre-stent dilation was avoided with the goal of reducing stent migration.
Efficacy
Clinical success using LAMS ranges from 60-100% across many studies including a retrospective cohort study of 109 patients performed by Mahmoud et al. who reported 98.4% of patients were asymptomatic at 30 days.63,64,65,66,67,68 However, stricture recurrence requiring re-intervention occurred in approximately half of patients.68
Adverse Events
Stent migration occurred in 10-27.3% of patients.64,67,68 Chest pain was experienced by as many as 10-14% of patients.64,68 Mahmoud et al. reported bleeding in 3.9% of patients.68 Only one perforation was reported out of 154 total patients across all studies.64,65,66,67,68
Conclusion
Treatment of esophageal and gastric anastomotic strictures remains a significant challenge despite advancement in therapeutic endoscopic options. For esophageal anastomotic strictures, bougie and endoscopic balloon dilation remain first-line therapy despite high recurrence rates which are improved with adjunctive steroid injection. Other modalities include stent placement with SEMS, LAMS, or BDS, each with varying degrees of efficacy and adverse events, as well as endoscopic incisional therapy. Endoscopic management options for gastric anastomotic strictures are similar including endoscopic balloon dilation, if technically feasible based on stricture location, and stent placement with SEMS or LAMS.
References
1. Mormando J, Barbetta A, Molena D. Esophagectomy for benign
disease. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(3):2026-2033. doi:10.21037/
jtd.2018.01.165
2. Honkoop P, Siersema PD, Tilanus HW, Stassen LP, Hop WC, van
Blankenstein M. Benign anastomotic strictures after transhiatal esophagectomy
and cervical esophagogastrostomy: risk factors and
management. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111(6):1141-1148.
doi:10.1016/s0022-5223(96)70215-5
3. Gu YM, Yang YS, Shang QX, Wang WP, Yuan Y, Chen LQ. Risk factors
for benign anastomotic stricture post-oesophagectomy: single-centre
analysis of 702 oesophagectomies with squamous cell carcinoma.
Transl Cancer Res. 2019;8(3):828-835. doi:10.21037/tcr.2019.05.06
4. Baghdadi O, Yasuda J, Staffa S, et al. Predictors and Outcomes of
Fully Covered Stent Treatment for Anastomotic Esophageal Strictures
in Esophageal Atresia. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2022;74(2):221-
226. doi:10.1097/MPG.0000000000003330
5. Evanovich DM, Wang JT, Zendejas B, Jennings RW, Bajic D.
From the Ground Up: Esophageal Atresia Types, Disease Severity
Stratification and Survival Rates at a Single Institution. Front Surg.
2022;9:799052. Published 2022 Mar 9. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.799052
6. Lal DR, Gadepalli SK, Downard CD, et al. Perioperative management
and outcomes of esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal
fistula. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(8):1245-1251. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.
2016.11.046
7. Baird R, Laberge JM, Lévesque D. Anastomotic stricture after esophageal
atresia repair: a critical review of recent literature. Eur J Pediatr
Surg. 2013;23(3):204-213. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1347917
8. Tambucci R, Angelino G, De Angelis P, et al. Anastomotic Strictures after Esophageal Atresia Repair: Incidence, Investigations, and
Management, Including Treatment of Refractory and Recurrent Strictures.
Front Pediatr. 2017;5:120. Published 2017 May 29. doi:10.3389/
fped.2017.00120
9. Zhong Y, Sun R, Li W, et al. Risk factors for esophageal anastomotic
stricture after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer.
2024;24(1):872. Published 2024 Jul 19. doi:10.1186/s12885-024-
12625-8
10. Mendelson AH, Small AJ, Agarwalla A, Scott FI, Kochman ML. Esophageal
anastomotic strictures: outcomes of endoscopic dilation, risk
of recurrence and refractory stenosis, and effect of foreign body removal.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(2):263-271.e1. doi:10.1016/j.
cgh.2014.07.010
11. Deng XF, Liu QX, Zhou D, Min JX, Dai JG. Hand-sewn vs. linearly
stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: a metaanalysis.
World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(15):4757-4764. doi:10.3748/
wjg.v21.i15.4757
12. Castro PM, Ribeiro FP, Rocha Ade F, Mazzurana M, Alvarez GA.
Hand-sewn versus stapler esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal
ressection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Bras Cir Dig.
2014;27(3):216-221. doi:10.1590/s0102-67202014000300014
13. Wu P, Wang F, Wu X, et al. Comparison of esophageal stent placement
versus endoscopic incision method for treatment of refractory
esophageal anastomotic stricture. Ann Palliat Med. 2019;8(4):462-468.
doi:10.21037/apm.2019.09.07
14. Hordijk ML, van Hooft JE, Hansen BE, Fockens P, Kuipers EJ. A
randomized comparison of electrocautery incision with Savary bougienage
for relief of anastomotic gastroesophageal strictures. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2009;70(5):849-855. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.02.023
15. ASGE Technology Committee, Siddiqui UD, Banerjee S, et al. Tools
for endoscopic stricture dilation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(3):391-
404. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.170
16. Hordijk ML, Siersema PD, Tilanus HW, Kuipers EJ. Electrocautery
therapy for refractory anastomotic strictures of the esophagus. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2006;63(1):157-163. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.06.016
17. Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim HW, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Dilation
Therapy for Anastomotic Esophageal Stricture. Korean J Gastroenterol.
2017;69(2):102-108. doi:10.4166/kjg.2017.69.2.102
18. van Halsema EE, Noordzij IC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Fockens
P, Bergman JJ, van Hooft JE. Endoscopic dilation of benign esophageal
anastomotic strictures over 16 mm has a longer lasting effect. Surg Endosc.
2017;31(4):1871-1881. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5187-0
19. Hanaoka N, Ishihara R, Motoori M, et al. Endoscopic Balloon Dilation
Followed By Intralesional Steroid Injection for Anastomotic Strictures
After Esophagectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Gastroenterol.
2018;113(10):1468-1474. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0253-y
20. Pereira-Lima JC, Lemos Bonotto M, Hahn GD, et al. A prospective
randomized trial of intralesional triamcinolone injections after endoscopic
dilation for complex esophagogastric anastomotic strictures: steroid
injection after endoscopic dilation. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(5):1156-
1160. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3781-6
21. Kochhar R, Poornachandra KS. Intralesional steroid injection therapy
in the management of resistant gastrointestinal strictures. World J
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;2(2):61-68. doi:10.4253/wjge.v2.i2.61
22. Dasari CS, Jegadeesan R, Patel HK, et al. Intralesional steroids and
endoscopic dilation for anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy:
systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;52(9):721-726.
doi:10.1055/a-1172-5975
23. Evrard S, Le Moine O, Lazaraki G, Dormann A, El Nakadi I, Devière
J. Self-expanding plastic stents for benign esophageal lesions. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2004;60(6):894-900. doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02278-3
24. Holm AN, de la Mora Levy JG, Gostout CJ, Topazian MD, Baron
TH. Self-expanding plastic stents in treatment of benign esophageal
conditions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(1):20-25. doi:10.1016/j.
gie.2007.04.031
25. ASGE Technology Committee, Varadarajulu S, Banerjee S, et al.
Enteral stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(3):455-464. doi:10.1016/j.
gie.2011.04.011
26. Thomas S, Siddiqui AA, Taylor LJ, et al. Fully-covered esophageal
stent migration rates in benign and malignant disease: a multicenter
retrospective study. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7(6):E751-E756.
doi:10.1055/a-0890-3284
27. Wu P, Wang F, Wu X, et al. Comparison of esophageal stent placement
versus endoscopic incision method for treatment of refractory
esophageal anastomotic stricture. Ann Palliat Med. 2019;8(4):462-468.
doi:10.21037/apm.2019.09.07
28. Suzuki T, Siddiqui A, Taylor LJ, et al. Clinical Outcomes, Efficacy,
and Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Esophageal Stent Placement
for Benign Indications: A Large Multicenter Study. J Clin Gastroenterol.
2016;50(5):373-378. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000000500
29. Bakken JC, Wong Kee Song LM, de Groen PC, Baron TH. Use
of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent for the treatment of benign
esophageal diseases. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):712-720.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.028
30. Eloubeidi MA, Talreja JP, Lopes TL, Al-Awabdy BS, Shami VM,
Kahaleh M. Success and complications associated with placement of
fully covered removable self-expandable metal stents for benign esophageal
diseases (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(4):673-681.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.014
31. Manta R, Del Nero L, Todd B, et al. Newly designed OTS Clip for
preventing fully-covered self-expandable metal stent migration in the
gastrointestinal tract. Endosc Int Open. 2023;11(3):E284-E287. Published
2023 Mar 24. doi:10.1055/a-2032-4147
32. Thomas S, Siddiqui AA, Taylor LJ, et al. Fully-covered esophageal
stent migration rates in benign and malignant disease: a multicenter
retrospective study. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7(6):E751-E756.
doi:10.1055/a-0890-3284
33. Law R, Prabhu A, Fujii-Lau L, Shannon C, Singh S. Stent migration
following endoscopic suture fixation of esophageal self-expandable
metal stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc.
2018;32(2):675-681. doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5720-9
34. Vanbiervliet G, Filippi J, Karimdjee BS, et al. The role of clips in
preventing migration of fully covered metallic esophageal stents: a pilot
comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(1):53-59. doi:10.1007/
s00464-011-1827-6
35. Larson B, Adler DG. Lumen-apposing metal stents for gastrointestinal
luminal strictures: current use and future directions. Ann Gastroenterol.
2019;32(2):141-146. doi:10.20524/aog.2018.0337
36. Santos-Fernandez J, Paiji C, Shakhatreh M, et al. Lumen-apposing
metal stents for benign gastrointestinal tract strictures: An international
multicenter experience. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9(12):571-
578. doi:10.4253/wjge.v9.i12.571
37. Yang D, Nieto JM, Siddiqui A, et al. Lumen-apposing covered
self-expandable metal stents for short benign gastrointestinal
strictures: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2017;49(4):327-333.
doi:10.1055/s-0042-122779
38. Adler DG. Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents for the Treatment
of Refractory Benign Esophageal Strictures. Am J Gastroenterol.
2017;112(3):516-517. doi:10.1038/ajg.2016.566
39. Irani S, Jalaj S, Ross A, Larsen M, Grimm IS, Baron TH. Use of a
lumen-apposing metal stent to treat GI strictures (with videos). Gastrointest
Endosc. 2017;85(6):1285-1289. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.08.028
40. Ferreira-Silva J, Medas R, Girotra M, Barakat M, Tabibian JH, Rodrigues-
Pinto E. Futuristic Developments and Applications in Endoluminal
Stenting. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2022;2022:6774925. Published
2022 Jan 11. doi:10.1155/2022/6774925
41. Gkolfakis P, Siersema PD, Tziatzios G, Triantafyllou K, PapanS W A L L O W C R O H N S
T U A A Y R E E
ikolaou IS. Biodegradable esophageal stents for the treatment of refractory
benign esophageal strictures. Ann Gastroenterol. 2020;33(4):330-
337. doi:10.20524/aog.2020.0482
42. Sánchez Muñoz D, Ortiz-Moyano C, Gómez-Rodríguez B. Resolution
of a refractory anastomotic stricture with a novel biodegradable
esophageal stent. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(9):e63.
doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.023
43. Hirdes MM, Siersema PD, van Boeckel PG, Vleggaar FP. Single
and sequential biodegradable stent placement for refractory benign
esophageal strictures: a prospective follow-up study. Endoscopy.
2012;44(7):649-654. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1309818
44. van Boeckel PG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. A comparison of temporary
self-expanding plastic and biodegradable stents for refractory benign
esophageal strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(8):653-
659. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2011.04.006
45. van Hooft JE, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Rauws EA, Bergman
JJ, Busch OR, Fockens P. Endoscopic treatment of benign anastomotic
esophagogastric strictures with a biodegradable stent. Gastrointest Endosc.
2011;73(5):1043-1047. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.001
46. Wu P, Wang F, Wu X, et al. Comparison of esophageal stent placement
versus endoscopic incision method for treatment of refractory
esophageal anastomotic stricture. Ann Palliat Med. 2019;8(4):462-468.
doi:10.21037/apm.2019.09.07
47. Muto M, Ezoe Y, Yano T, et al. Usefulness of endoscopic radial
incision and cutting method for refractory esophagogastric anastomotic
stricture (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(5):965-972.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.012
48. Tan Y, Liu D. Endoscopic incision for the treatment of refractory esophageal
anastomotic strictures: outcomes of 13 cases with a minimum
follow-up of 12 months. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2016;108(4):196-200.
doi:10.17235/reed.2016.4023/2015
49. Hordijk ML, Siersema PD, Tilanus HW, Kuipers EJ. Electrocautery
therapy for refractory anastomotic strictures of the esophagus. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2006;63(1):157-163. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.06.016
50. Hordijk ML, van Hooft JE, Hansen BE, Fockens P, Kuipers EJ. A
randomized comparison of electrocautery incision with Savary bougienage
for relief of anastomotic gastroesophageal strictures. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2009;70(5):849-855. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.02.023
51. Jimoh Z, Jogiat U, Hajjar A, et al. Endoscopic incisional therapy
for benign anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy or gastrectomy:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(6):2995-
3003. doi:10.1007/s00464-024-10817-8
52. Cai JX, Schweitzer MA, Kumbhari V. Endoscopic Management of
Bariatric Surgery Complications. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech.
2016;26(2):93-101. doi:10.1097/SLE.0000000000000230
53. Campos JM, Mello FS, Ferraz AA, Brito JN, Nassif PA, Galvão-
Neto Mdos P. Endoscopic dilation of gastrojejunal anastomosis after
gastric bypass. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2012;25(4):283-289. doi:10.1590/
s0102-67202012000400014
54. Khrucharoen U, Weitzner ZN, Chen Y, Dutson EP. Incidence and
risk factors for early gastrojejunostomy anastomotic stricture requiring
endoscopic intervention following laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric
bypass: a MBSAQIP analysis. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(6):3833-3842.
doi:10.1007/s00464-021-08700-x
55. Fringeli Y, Worreth M, Langer I. Gastrojejunal Anastomosis Complications
and Their Management after Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric
Bypass. J Obes. 2015;2015:698425. doi:10.1155/2015/698425
56. Jiang HP, Lin LL, Jiang X, Qiao HQ. Meta-analysis of hand-sewn
versus mechanical gastrojejunal anastomosis during laparoscopic
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Int J Surg. 2016;32:150-
157. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.024
57. Jin T, Liu HD, Chen ZH, Hu JK, Yang K. Linear Stapler versus
Circular Stapler for Patients Undergoing Anastomosis for Laparoscopic
Gastric Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. J Invest Surg. 2022;35(7):1434-
1444. doi:10.1080/08941939.2022.2058126
58. Carrodeguas L, Szomstein S, Zundel N, Lo Menzo E, Rosenthal R.
Gastrojejunal anastomotic strictures following laparoscopic Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass surgery: analysis of 1291 patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis.
2006;2(2):92-97. doi:10.1016/j.soard.2005.10.014
59. Baumann AJ, Mramba LK, Hawkins RB, et al. Endoscopic Dilation
of Bariatric RNY Anastomotic Strictures: a Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2018;28(12):4053-4063. doi:10.1007/
s11695-018-3491-6
60. Singh A, Aggarwal M, Siddiki H. Treatment of refractory benign
gastroenteral strictures with fully covered metal stents. VideoGIE.
2021;6(7):308-310. Published 2021 Apr 28. doi:10.1016/j.
vgie.2021.03.004
61. Randhawa NK, Khalyfa A, Khan M, Ahsan N, Inamullah M, Ayub
K. Safety and Efficacy of Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stents
for Benign Upper Gastrointestinal Strictures Beyond the Esophagus.
Cureus. 2022;14(11):e31439. Published 2022 Nov 13. doi:10.7759/
cureus.31439
62. Bakken, Johan MD; Song, Louis Wong Kee MD; Baron, Todd MD.
Temporary Use of a Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stent for
Treatment of Bariatric Surgery Complications: 1380. American Journal
of Gastroenterology 105():p S511-S512, October 2010.
63. Hakim S, Khan Z, Shrivastava A, et al. Endoscopic Gastrointestinal
Anastomosis Using Lumen-apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) for
Benign or Malignant Etiologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021;55(7):e56-e65. doi:10.1097/
MCG.0000000000001453
64. Skidmore AP. Use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) in the
management of gastro jejunostomy stricture following Roux-en-Y Gastric
Bypass for obesity: a prospective series. BMC Surg. 2021;21(1):314.
Published 2021 Jul 17. doi:10.1186/s12893-021-01310-3
65. Amateau SK, Lim CH, McDonald NM, Arain M, Ikramuddin S,
Leslie DB. EUS-Guided Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Anastomosis with
Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent: Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy. Obes
Surg. 2018;28(5):1445-1451. doi:10.1007/s11695-018-3171-6
66. Mansoor MS, Tejada J, Parsa NA, Yoon E, Hida S. Off label use
of lumen-apposing metal stent for persistent gastro-jejunal anastomotic
stricture. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;10(6):117-120.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v10.i6.117
67. Samuels JM, Yachimski P, Gamboa A, Spann M, Ardila-Gatas J.
Use of lumen-apposing metal stents in treating gastrojejunal anastomotic
strictures in bariatric patients. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(7):5703-5707.
doi:10.1007/s00464-023-10117-7
68. Mahmoud T, Beran A, Bazerbachi F, et al. Lumen-apposing metal
stents for the treatment of benign gastrointestinal tract strictures: a single-
center experience and proposed treatment algorithm. Surg Endosc.
2023;37(3):2133-2142. doi:10.1007/s00464-022-09715-8