The Laryngoscope · 2012
Laser versus stapler: outcomes in endoscopic repair of Zenker diverticulum.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Adam Stewart I, Paskhover Boris, Sasaki Clarence T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To analyze a single surgeon's experience with endoscopic CO(2) laser and stapler repair of Zenker diverticulum (ZD) by comparing dysphagia and regurgitation outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of 148 patient charts.
METHODS: Medical records of all patients receiving endoscopic repair of ZD with either CO(2) laser (61 patients) or stapler (67 patients) were reviewed. Additional data included demographics (age and sex), size (cm), preoperative and postoperative symptoms, need for revision, and complications. Symptoms of dysphagia were graded based on a modified Functional Oral Intake Scale 1 to 4 scale (1 = normal intake; 4 = severely limited/G-tube dependent). Regurgitation was also graded on a 1 to 4 scale (1 = no regurgitation; 4 = aspiration events).
RESULTS: We noted no difference in patient age or defect size (laser, 3.26 cm; stapler, 3.53 cm; P .135). Significant differences were noted in return trips to the operating room for failed procedures (laser, 0; stapler, 7; P = .009), length of stay (laser, 3.19 days; stapler, 1.29 days; P < .001), time to oral intake (laser, 3.01 days; stapler, 1.22 days; P < .001). Significant improvement occurred in laser and staple patient symptom scales following surgery (P < .001). Laser dysphagia and regurgitation scores showed greater improvement when compared to stapler scores (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic CO(2) laser and staple methods are effective in treating ZD. The laser can have greater efficacy and result in lower recurrence rates. Both methods are analyzed and compared.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of 148 patient charts.
METHODS: Medical records of all patients receiving endoscopic repair of ZD with either CO(2) laser (61 patients) or stapler (67 patients) were reviewed. Additional data included demographics (age and sex), size (cm), preoperative and postoperative symptoms, need for revision, and complications. Symptoms of dysphagia were graded based on a modified Functional Oral Intake Scale 1 to 4 scale (1 = normal intake; 4 = severely limited/G-tube dependent). Regurgitation was also graded on a 1 to 4 scale (1 = no regurgitation; 4 = aspiration events).
RESULTS: We noted no difference in patient age or defect size (laser, 3.26 cm; stapler, 3.53 cm; P .135). Significant differences were noted in return trips to the operating room for failed procedures (laser, 0; stapler, 7; P = .009), length of stay (laser, 3.19 days; stapler, 1.29 days; P < .001), time to oral intake (laser, 3.01 days; stapler, 1.22 days; P < .001). Significant improvement occurred in laser and staple patient symptom scales following surgery (P < .001). Laser dysphagia and regurgitation scores showed greater improvement when compared to stapler scores (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic CO(2) laser and staple methods are effective in treating ZD. The laser can have greater efficacy and result in lower recurrence rates. Both methods are analyzed and compared.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedCohort StudiesEndoscopyEsophagoscopyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaryngoscopyLaser TherapyLasers, GasLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PainPostoperative ComplicationsRecovery of FunctionReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSurgical StaplingSuturesTreatment OutcomeZenker Diverticulum