Table 4 Subanalysis of endoscopic outcomes matched for localization of esophageal stricture.

Characteristics and outcomes	Proximal esophageal stricture			Mid-esophageal stricture			Distal esophageal stricture
	Center 1*	Center 2*	P	Center 1*	Center 2*	P	Center 1*	Center 2*	P
*Center 1: University Hospital Frankfurt; Center 2: Sana Klinikum Offenbach.
Patients, n (%)	42 (21.6)	27 (61.3)		43 (22.2)	7 (3.6)		77 (39.6)	11 (25.0)
Predilation diameter, median (range)	8 (5–11)	7 (5–12)	0.002	9 (5–15)	7 (5–9)	0.05	8 (6–9)	9 (5–13)	0.05
Maximum dilator, median (range)	15 (10–18)	14 (9–16)	0.001	16 (11–18)	13 (10–16)	0.001	15 (11–18)	14 (11.16)	0.002
Difference in dilation diameter, median (range)	7 (3–15)	7 (2–11)	0.55	7 (5–9)	7 (3–9)	0.29	7 (3–12)	6 (3–9)	0.52
Dilator size of 15 mm was achieved, n (%)	27 (64.2)	13 (48.1)	0.2	38 (88.4)	4 (57.1)	0.04	38 (19.6)	5 (11.4)	0.002
Time span until dilator size of 15 mm was achieved (days), median (range)	106 (0–1003)	143 (14–750)	0.006	30 (0–195)	573 (18–2107)	0.02	128 (11–4015)	919 (14–4015)	0.004
No. of Savary dilations until dilator size of 15 mm was achieved, median (range)	4 (1–7)	9 (2–28)	0.001	3 (1–10)	7 (6–8)	0.01	3 (1–21)	9 (3–21)	0.002
Dilator size of 15 mm not achieved, n (%)	15 (35.7)	14 (51.9)		5 (11.6)	3 (42.9)		39 (20.1)	6 (13.6)
Time span until maximal dilator size was achieved (days), median (range)	125 (0–1420)	281 (0–3326)	0.04	4 (0–13)	104 (70–152)	0.03	131 (0–706)	232 (0–648)	0.11
No of Savary dilations until maximal dilator size was achieved, median (range)	4 (1–22)	4 (1–8)	0.5	2 (1–3)	10 (9–12)	0.03	4 (1–10)	5 (1–9)	0.22