A protocolized approach to endoscopic hydrostatic versus pneumatic balloon dilation therapy for gastric sleeve stenosis: a multicenter study and meta-analysis

Veeravich Jaruvongvanich, Reem Matar, Azizullah Beran, Daniel B. Maselli, Andrew C. Storm, Victoria Gómez, Eric J. Vargas, Todd A. Kellogg, Travis J. McKenzie, Rahul Pannala, Manoel Galvao Neto, Andre Texeira, Barham K. Abu Dayyeh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Background: Gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is reported in .7% to 4% of cases after sleeve gastrectomy. Two endoscopic balloon dilation techniques are available with no clear consensus on the therapeutic approach. Objectives: To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between hydrostatic and pneumatic balloon dilations for GSS. Setting: Academic referral centers, United States and a meta-analysis. Methods: Consecutive patients who presented with GSS and underwent endoscopic hydrostatic and/or pneumatic balloon dilations at 3 tertiary care hospitals were included. Clinical success was defined as an improvement of symptoms that allowed the patient to avoid further interventions. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies for meta-analysis. Results: Of 46 patients, 13 had pneumatic dilation only, 26 had hydrostatic dilation only, and 7 had pneumatic dilation after failed hydrostatic dilation. Clinical success was not significantly different among the 3 groups with the success rates of 30.8%, 57.6%, and 57.1% (P = .25) after single dilation and 61.5%, 63.6%, and 71.4% (P = .90) after serial dilations in the pneumatic group, hydrostatic group, and pneumatic after failed hydrostatic group, respectively. Patients who failed hydrostatic balloon dilation (n = 7) had a success rate of 71.4% with subsequent pneumatic dilation. Two serious adverse events were observed in the pneumatic group, whereas none were observed in the hydrostatic group. A meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 360 patients demonstrated higher clinical success with single pneumatic balloon dilation compared with hydrostatic balloon dilation (62.2% versus 36.4%; P = .007) with higher adverse events (3 versus 0 events). Conclusions: Hydrostatic balloon dilation should be considered as an initial modality for GSS given its acceptable success rate and high safety profile. In those who fail hydrostatic balloon dilation, a subsequent step-up approach to pneumatic balloon dilation or revisional surgery should be attempted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1543-1553
Number of pages11
JournalSurgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 2020


  • Gastric sleeve stenosis
  • Hydrostatic balloon dilation
  • Pneumatic balloon dilation
  • Sleeve gastrectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'A protocolized approach to endoscopic hydrostatic versus pneumatic balloon dilation therapy for gastric sleeve stenosis: a multicenter study and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this