Annals of surgery · 2022
The Impact of Ineffective Esophageal Motility on Patients Undergoing Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation.
СтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Baison George N, Jackson Anee S, Wilshire Candice L, Bell Reginald C W, Lazzari Veronica, Bonavina Luigi, Ayazi Shahin, Jobe Blair A, Schoppmann Sebastian F, Dunn Colin P, Lipham John C, Dunst Christy M, Farivar Alexander S, Bograd Adam J, Louie Brian E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and characterize outcomes of MSA in patients with IEM.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MSA improves patients with gastroesophageal reflux and normal motility. However, many patients have IEM, which could impact the outcomes of MSA and discourage use.
METHODS: An international, multi-institutional case control study of IEM patients undergoing MSA matched to normal patients was performed. Primary outcomes were new onset dysphagia and need for postoperative interventions.
RESULTS: A total of 105 IEM patients underwent MSA with matching controls. At 1 year after MSA: GERD-Health Related Quality of Life was similar; DeMeester scores in IEM patients improved to 15.7 and 8.5 in controls ( P = 0.021); and normalization of the DeMeester score for IEM = 61.7% and controls = 73.1% ( P = 0.079).In IEM patients, 10/12 (83%) with preop dysphagia had resolution; 11/66 (17%) had new onset dysphagia and 55/66 (83%) never had dysphagia. Comparatively, in non-IEM patients, 22/24 (92%) had dysphagia resolve; 2/24 (8%) had persistent dysphagia; 7/69 (10%) had new onset dysphagia, and 62/69 (90%) never had dysphagia.Overall, 19 (18%) IEM patients were dilated after MSA, whereas 12 (11%) non-IEM patients underwent dilation ( P = 0.151). Nine (9%) patients in both groups had their device explanted.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IEM undergoing MSA demonstrate improved quality of life and reduction in acid exposure. Key differences in IEM patients include lower rates of objective GERD resolution, lower resolution of existing dysphagia, higher rates of new onset dysphagia and need for dilation. GERD patients with IEM should be counselled about these possibilities.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MSA improves patients with gastroesophageal reflux and normal motility. However, many patients have IEM, which could impact the outcomes of MSA and discourage use.
METHODS: An international, multi-institutional case control study of IEM patients undergoing MSA matched to normal patients was performed. Primary outcomes were new onset dysphagia and need for postoperative interventions.
RESULTS: A total of 105 IEM patients underwent MSA with matching controls. At 1 year after MSA: GERD-Health Related Quality of Life was similar; DeMeester scores in IEM patients improved to 15.7 and 8.5 in controls ( P = 0.021); and normalization of the DeMeester score for IEM = 61.7% and controls = 73.1% ( P = 0.079).In IEM patients, 10/12 (83%) with preop dysphagia had resolution; 11/66 (17%) had new onset dysphagia and 55/66 (83%) never had dysphagia. Comparatively, in non-IEM patients, 22/24 (92%) had dysphagia resolve; 2/24 (8%) had persistent dysphagia; 7/69 (10%) had new onset dysphagia, and 62/69 (90%) never had dysphagia.Overall, 19 (18%) IEM patients were dilated after MSA, whereas 12 (11%) non-IEM patients underwent dilation ( P = 0.151). Nine (9%) patients in both groups had their device explanted.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IEM undergoing MSA demonstrate improved quality of life and reduction in acid exposure. Key differences in IEM patients include lower rates of objective GERD resolution, lower resolution of existing dysphagia, higher rates of new onset dysphagia and need for dilation. GERD patients with IEM should be counselled about these possibilities.