Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2017
Laparoscopic treatment of gastroparesis: a single center experience.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Wakamatsu Kotaro, Perez Quirante Federico, Montorfano Lisandro, Lo Menzo Emanuele, Seto Yasuyuki, Rosenthal Raul J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis (GP) is a chronic disorder of gastric motility with delayed gastric emptying. Gastric electrical stimulator (GES) implantation and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are surgical options for medically refractory GP.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate operational outcomes and symptom improvement of patients with diabetic (DM) and idiopathic (IP) GP.
SETTING: University Hospital, United States.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent surgical treatment of GP from February 2003 to December 2014. Subgroup analysis was performed based on etiology of GP (DM versus IP) and procedure received (GES versus RYGB). Postoperative outcomes and postoperative symptom improvements were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Of 93 patients, 47 (50.5%) had IP and 46 (49.5%) had DM. The majority underwent GES implantation (83.8%, n = 78), and 15 patients (16%) underwent RYGB. There were significant differences in hospital stay (2 versus 3 days) and reoperation rate (30% versus 7%) between IP and DM. Operation time, complication rate, and 30-day readmission rate were similar in both groups. DM patients significantly improved GP-related complaints compared with preoperatively. IP patients also improved nausea and vomiting and had no change in abdominal pain between pre- and postoperative period. GES showed significant improvement of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. RYGB showed improvement of nausea, but not vomiting or abdominal pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is a feasible intervention for GP for both DM and IP patients; however, based on the data presented in this manuscript and the current literature, the use of gastric bypass as an effective treatment modality for patients with intractable GP remains highly controversial. Care must be taken for IP patients in the postoperative period due to high incidence of reoperation. Although both procedures offer some degree of symptomatic improvement, GES seems to provide improvement of more GP symptoms. However, there is no significant difference in the need for postoperative medications regardless of the procedure used.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate operational outcomes and symptom improvement of patients with diabetic (DM) and idiopathic (IP) GP.
SETTING: University Hospital, United States.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent surgical treatment of GP from February 2003 to December 2014. Subgroup analysis was performed based on etiology of GP (DM versus IP) and procedure received (GES versus RYGB). Postoperative outcomes and postoperative symptom improvements were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Of 93 patients, 47 (50.5%) had IP and 46 (49.5%) had DM. The majority underwent GES implantation (83.8%, n = 78), and 15 patients (16%) underwent RYGB. There were significant differences in hospital stay (2 versus 3 days) and reoperation rate (30% versus 7%) between IP and DM. Operation time, complication rate, and 30-day readmission rate were similar in both groups. DM patients significantly improved GP-related complaints compared with preoperatively. IP patients also improved nausea and vomiting and had no change in abdominal pain between pre- and postoperative period. GES showed significant improvement of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. RYGB showed improvement of nausea, but not vomiting or abdominal pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is a feasible intervention for GP for both DM and IP patients; however, based on the data presented in this manuscript and the current literature, the use of gastric bypass as an effective treatment modality for patients with intractable GP remains highly controversial. Care must be taken for IP patients in the postoperative period due to high incidence of reoperation. Although both procedures offer some degree of symptomatic improvement, GES seems to provide improvement of more GP symptoms. However, there is no significant difference in the need for postoperative medications regardless of the procedure used.