Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020
Blown-out myotomy: an adverse event of laparoscopic Heller myotomy and peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Triggs Joseph R, Krause Amanda J, Carlson Dustin A, Donnan Erica N, Campagna Ryan A J, Jain Anand S, Kahrilas Peter J, Hungness Eric S, Pandolfino John E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is highly effective, 10% to 20% of patients with achalasia remain symptomatic after treatment. In evaluating such patients, we have observed a pattern of failure associated with a pseudodiverticulum, or blown-out myotomy (BOM), in the distal esophagus. We aimed to assess risk factors and patient-reported outcomes associated with a BOM.
METHODS: We reviewed our manometry database for patients with achalasia previously treated with LHM or POEM. We included patients who had a post-treatment esophagram within 1 year of their follow-up manometry. A BOM was defined radiographically as a wide-mouthed outpouching (>50% increase in esophageal diameter) in the area of the myotomy.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with achalasia who underwent treatment were included; 23 (17.8%) had a BOM. Comparing patients with a BOM with those without, post-treatment Eckardt scores were significantly greater (5 vs 2, P = .002), type III achalasia was more common (39.1% vs 14.2%, P = .005), and LHM was more common than POEM (73.9% vs 26.1%, P = .013). The integrated relaxation pressure was also significantly greater in the BOM group (15.0 mm Hg vs 11.0 mm Hg, P = .025).
CONCLUSIONS: BOM is a common adverse event after myotomy for achalasia but is not seen after pneumatic dilation. Pretreatment type III achalasia, LHM as opposed to POEM, and a greater post-treatment integrated relaxation pressure were risk factors for developing a BOM. We speculate that esophageal wall strain in the area weakened by myotomy, whether from residual spastic contractility or continued esophageal outflow obstruction, may be the underlying mechanism of BOM development.
METHODS: We reviewed our manometry database for patients with achalasia previously treated with LHM or POEM. We included patients who had a post-treatment esophagram within 1 year of their follow-up manometry. A BOM was defined radiographically as a wide-mouthed outpouching (>50% increase in esophageal diameter) in the area of the myotomy.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with achalasia who underwent treatment were included; 23 (17.8%) had a BOM. Comparing patients with a BOM with those without, post-treatment Eckardt scores were significantly greater (5 vs 2, P = .002), type III achalasia was more common (39.1% vs 14.2%, P = .005), and LHM was more common than POEM (73.9% vs 26.1%, P = .013). The integrated relaxation pressure was also significantly greater in the BOM group (15.0 mm Hg vs 11.0 mm Hg, P = .025).
CONCLUSIONS: BOM is a common adverse event after myotomy for achalasia but is not seen after pneumatic dilation. Pretreatment type III achalasia, LHM as opposed to POEM, and a greater post-treatment integrated relaxation pressure were risk factors for developing a BOM. We speculate that esophageal wall strain in the area weakened by myotomy, whether from residual spastic contractility or continued esophageal outflow obstruction, may be the underlying mechanism of BOM development.