PURPOSE: To compare the long-term clinical effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided double and endoscopically guided single balloon dilations in esophageal achalasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two fluoroscopically guided balloon dilations were performed in 21 patients (group A) and 48 endoscopically guided balloon dilations were performed in 37 patients (group B). The double balloon dilation technique (10 + 20-mm, 15 + 20-mm or 20 + 20-mm in diameter), with preceding single balloon dilation (10, 15, or 20-mm in diameter), was used in group A, whereas the single balloon dilation technique (30, 35, or 40-mm in diameter) with gradually increased internal pressure was used in group B. Technical success, clinical success, complications, and primary/secondary patency rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful without esophageal perforation. Clinical success was achieved in 97% (31/32) and 92% (44/48) of balloon dilations in groups A and B, respectively. The symptomatic improvement in dysphagia was significantly higher in group A than in group B. Incidence of complications was the same (18.8%) in both groups. Group A showed significantly longer primary and secondary patency periods than did group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopically guided double balloon dilation has greater long-term effectiveness than endoscopically guided single balloon dilation in the treatment of esophageal achalasia.
PURPOSE: To compare the long-term clinical effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided double and endoscopically guided single balloon dilations in esophageal achalasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two fluoroscopically guided balloon dilations were performed in 21 patients (group A) and 48 endoscopically guided balloon dilations were performed in 37 patients (group B). The double balloon dilation technique (10 + 20-mm, 15 + 20-mm or 20 + 20-mm in diameter), with preceding single balloon dilation (10, 15, or 20-mm in diameter), was used in group A, whereas the single balloon dilation technique (30, 35, or 40-mm in diameter) with gradually increased internal pressure was used in group B. Technical success, clinical success, complications, and primary/secondary patency rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful without esophageal perforation. Clinical success was achieved in 97% (31/32) and 92% (44/48) of balloon dilations in groups A and B, respectively. The symptomatic improvement in dysphagia was significantly higher in group A than in group B. Incidence of complications was the same (18.8%) in both groups. Group A showed significantly longer primary and secondary patency periods than did group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopically guided double balloon dilation has greater long-term effectiveness than endoscopically guided single balloon dilation in the treatment of esophageal achalasia.