Table 2.
Summary of dilation protocols and efficacy
| Author (y) | Number of patients per dilation session | Treatment protocola | Time in‐between (wk) | Remission rates | Total FU (mo) | Prespecified protocol | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 6 mo (%) | 12 mo (%) | End of studyb (%) | |||||
| Chuah (2008)17 | 33 | ‐ | ‐ | 30 | ‐ | 91 | 81 | ‐ | 12 | Yes |
| Tanaka (2010)18 | 55 | ‐ | ‐ | 30 | ‐ | 75 | 73 | 73 | 74 | Yes |
| Ghoshal (2001)19 | 10 | 4 | ‐ | 30 − 30 | NS | 80 | 80 | ‐ | 12 | No |
| Maris (2010)20 | 82 | 14 | 2 | 30 − 30 − 30 | 4 − 80 | 83 | 78 | ‐ | 12 | No |
| Dobrucali (2004)22 | 42 | 18 | 4 | 30 − 35 − 35 | 6 − 8 | 88 | 67 | 54 | 60 | No |
| Smeets (2015)23 | 26 | 26 | ‐ | 30 + 35 | 1 | 73 | 73 | ‐ | 12 | Yes |
| Vaezi (1999)21 | 24 | 7 | ‐ | 30 − 35 | 14 | 75 | 70 | ‐ | 12 | No |
| Allescher (2001)6 | 13 | 9 | ‐ | 35 − 40 | 4 − 200 | 69 | 62 | 45 | 48 | No |
| Mikaeli (2004)5, c |
A: 62 B: 200 |
A: 18 B: 56 |
A: 3 B: 8 |
A: 35 − 40 − 40 B: 30 − 35 − 40 |
4 − 192 |
A: 92 B: 95 |
A: 88 B: 90 |
A: 70 B: 89 |
60 | No |
| Moonen (2016)24 | 96 | 96 | 24 | 30 + 35 − 40 | 4 | 90 | 90 | 82 | 120 | No |
‐, Not applicable; FU, follow‐up; mo, months; NS, not specified; wk, weeks.
a
+ = predefined scheme of two dilations; − = a next dilation only in case of symptom recurrence.
b
End of study = remission rate at total follow‐up duration in months.
c
Two different dilation protocols were used, which are separately represented.