Surgical endoscopy · 2024
Transverse versus longitudinal mucosal incision during POEM for esophageal motility disorders: a randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание 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.
Shukla Jayendra, Mandavdhare Harshal S, Shah Jimil, Samanta Jayanta, Jafra Anudeep, Singh Harjeet, Gupta Pankaj, Dutta Usha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Longitudinal incision is the commonly used incision for entry into the submucosal space during peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal motility disorders. Transverse incision is another alternative for entry and retrospective data suggest it has less operative time and chance of gas-related events.
METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized trial conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Patients undergoing POEM for esophageal motility disorders were randomized into group A (longitudinal incision) and group B (transverse incision). The primary objective was to compare the time needed for entry into the submucosal space. The secondary objectives were to compare the time needed to close the incision, number of clips required to close the incision, and development of gas-related events. The sample size was calculated as for a non-inferiority design using Kelsey method.
RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized (30 in each group). On comparing the 2 types of incisions, there was no difference in entry time [3 (2, 5) vs 2 (1.75, 5) min, p = 0.399], closure time [7 (4, 13.5) vs 9 (6.75, 19) min, p = 0.155], and number of clips needed for closure [4 (4, 6) vs 5 (4, 7), p = 0.156]. Additionally, the gas-related events were comparable between the 2 groups (capnoperitoneum needing aspiration-5 vs 2, p = 0.228, and development of subcutaneous emphysema-3 vs 1, p = 0.301).
CONCLUSION: This randomized trial shows comparable entry time, closure time, number of clips needed to close the incision, and gas-related events between longitudinal and transverse incisions.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2021/08/035829.
METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized trial conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Patients undergoing POEM for esophageal motility disorders were randomized into group A (longitudinal incision) and group B (transverse incision). The primary objective was to compare the time needed for entry into the submucosal space. The secondary objectives were to compare the time needed to close the incision, number of clips required to close the incision, and development of gas-related events. The sample size was calculated as for a non-inferiority design using Kelsey method.
RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized (30 in each group). On comparing the 2 types of incisions, there was no difference in entry time [3 (2, 5) vs 2 (1.75, 5) min, p = 0.399], closure time [7 (4, 13.5) vs 9 (6.75, 19) min, p = 0.155], and number of clips needed for closure [4 (4, 6) vs 5 (4, 7), p = 0.156]. Additionally, the gas-related events were comparable between the 2 groups (capnoperitoneum needing aspiration-5 vs 2, p = 0.228, and development of subcutaneous emphysema-3 vs 1, p = 0.301).
CONCLUSION: This randomized trial shows comparable entry time, closure time, number of clips needed to close the incision, and gas-related events between longitudinal and transverse incisions.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2021/08/035829.