Surgical endoscopy · 2026
Comparative safety and efficacy of endoscopic band ligation versus endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Wenjuan, Luo Liya, Shi Qing, Yang Zhengqi, Zhan Canyu, Liu Hanlin, Yang Hong, Ran Suye, Wen Min, Zou Sha, Liu Liju, Huang Linya, Liu Qi, Song Lingyu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term safety and efficacy of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (ERFA) versus endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 139 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for GERD. According to the treatment modality, patients were divided into an ERFA group (n = 50) and an EBL group (n = 89). Primary outcome measures included the DeMeester score, GerdQ score, symptom relief rate, and complication rate.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics (all P > 0.05). Key results include (1) Intraoperative blood loss was 1.04 ± 0.20 mL (ERFA) vs. 1.10 ± 0.75 mL (EBL). (2) Both groups showed reduced DeMeester scores: ERFA from 28.16 ± 20.01 to 6.77 ± 3.95 and EBL from 26.18 ± 13.39 to 6.26 ± 4.33 (both P < 0.001). (3) GERD-Q scores improved: ERFA from 11.84 ± 2.92 to 3.58 ± 2.75 and EBL from 12.13 ± 2.70 to 3.54 ± 3.05 (both P < 0.001). (4) Symptom relief was 48.0% (ERFA) vs. 58.4% (EBL). (5) Complications were low: 2 cases (4.0%) bleeding in ERFA; 3 cases (3.4%) bleeding; and 1 case (1.1%) perforation in EBL, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.677). (6) Complete drug discontinuation rates were 72.0% (ERFA) and 73.0% (EBL). (7) Mean LES pressure was 15.15 ± 5.99 mmHg (ERFA) vs. 14.81 ± 6.76 mmHg (EBL).
CONCLUSION: Both ERFA and EBL are safe and efficacious treatments for GERD. Three-year follow-up data indicate comparable efficacy between the two approaches in symptom control.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 139 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for GERD. According to the treatment modality, patients were divided into an ERFA group (n = 50) and an EBL group (n = 89). Primary outcome measures included the DeMeester score, GerdQ score, symptom relief rate, and complication rate.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics (all P > 0.05). Key results include (1) Intraoperative blood loss was 1.04 ± 0.20 mL (ERFA) vs. 1.10 ± 0.75 mL (EBL). (2) Both groups showed reduced DeMeester scores: ERFA from 28.16 ± 20.01 to 6.77 ± 3.95 and EBL from 26.18 ± 13.39 to 6.26 ± 4.33 (both P < 0.001). (3) GERD-Q scores improved: ERFA from 11.84 ± 2.92 to 3.58 ± 2.75 and EBL from 12.13 ± 2.70 to 3.54 ± 3.05 (both P < 0.001). (4) Symptom relief was 48.0% (ERFA) vs. 58.4% (EBL). (5) Complications were low: 2 cases (4.0%) bleeding in ERFA; 3 cases (3.4%) bleeding; and 1 case (1.1%) perforation in EBL, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.677). (6) Complete drug discontinuation rates were 72.0% (ERFA) and 73.0% (EBL). (7) Mean LES pressure was 15.15 ± 5.99 mmHg (ERFA) vs. 14.81 ± 6.76 mmHg (EBL).
CONCLUSION: Both ERFA and EBL are safe and efficacious treatments for GERD. Three-year follow-up data indicate comparable efficacy between the two approaches in symptom control.