Comparison between traditional and small‐diameter tube‐assisted bronchoscopic balloon dilatation in the treatment of benign tracheal stenosis

Objective To compare the safety and efficacy between using a small‐diameter tube‐assisted bronchoscopic balloon dilatation (BBD) and the traditional BBD in the treatment of benign tracheal stenosis. Methods A retrospective study included 58 patients with benign tracheal stenosis from August 2009 to December 2014 was made. The patients who underwent traditional BBD were divided into group A, and who underwent a small‐diameter tube‐assisted BBD were divided into group B. The tracheal diameter, dyspnea index and blood gas analysis results were detected before and after BBD. Efficacy and complications were evaluated after BBD. Results There were significant differences in oxygen saturation (PaO2) during the operations comparing with before and after operations in group A (P = .005), while there was no significant difference in group B (P = .079). The tracheal diameter obviously increased (in group A, from 4.16 ± 1.43 mm to 12.47 ± 1.41 mm, P = .000; in group B: from 4.94 ± 1.59 mm to 12.61 ± 1.41 mm, P = .000). Dyspnea index obviously decreased (group A: from 3.21 ± 0.93 to 0.50 ± 0.59, P = .000; group B: from 3.24 ± 0.89 to 0.65 ± 0.69, P = .000). The immediately cure rate in both groups was 100%. Long‐term effect was significantly better in group B than that in group A (85.3% vs 59.1%, P = .021), at the end of the follow‐up period. Conclusions Small‐diameter tube‐assisted BBD obtains better safety and long‐term efficacy than the traditional BBD in the treatment of benign tracheal stenosis. However, close attention should be given to the risk of the adverse effects caused by carbon dioxide retention.