Surgical endoscopy · 2018
Safety and efficacy of using a short tunnel versus a standard tunnel for peroral endoscopic myotomy for Ling type IIc and III achalasia: a retrospective study.
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.
Li Longsong, Chai Ningli, Linghu Enqiang, Li Zhenjuan, Du Chen, Zhang Wengang, Zou Jiale, Xiong Ying, Zhang Xiaobin, Tang Ping
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for patients with Ling type IIc and III achalasia is associated with a high rate of adverse events. Decreasing the lengths of the tunnel and myotomy may be an effective method for reducing this rate. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of using a short tunnel versus a standard tunnel for POEM.
METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study of 126 patients with Ling type IIc and III achalasia undergoing POEM from January 2013 to December 2016. These patients were divided into a short tunnel group (n = 63) and a standard tunnel group (n = 63). The clinical efficacy of the procedure, operative time, length of the tunnel, length of myotomy and rates of adverse events were analyzed.
RESULTS: The preoperative features were similar in both groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups in Eckardt score change, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure or residual pressure after POEM (all p > 0.05). The mean lengths of the tunnel and myotomy were 7.6 cm and 4.8 cm, respectively, in the short tunnel group and 11.8 cm and 9.2 cm, respectively, in the standard tunnel group. The mean operative time of the short tunnel group was significantly shorter than that of the standard tunnel group (39.5 min vs. 48.2 min, respectively, p = 0.001). A significant difference was observed in the rates of procedure-related adverse events between the two groups (9.5% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The efficacy of the procedure was comparable between the two groups. However, the short tunnel significantly reduced the operation time and the rates of procedure-related adverse events.
METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study of 126 patients with Ling type IIc and III achalasia undergoing POEM from January 2013 to December 2016. These patients were divided into a short tunnel group (n = 63) and a standard tunnel group (n = 63). The clinical efficacy of the procedure, operative time, length of the tunnel, length of myotomy and rates of adverse events were analyzed.
RESULTS: The preoperative features were similar in both groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups in Eckardt score change, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure or residual pressure after POEM (all p > 0.05). The mean lengths of the tunnel and myotomy were 7.6 cm and 4.8 cm, respectively, in the short tunnel group and 11.8 cm and 9.2 cm, respectively, in the standard tunnel group. The mean operative time of the short tunnel group was significantly shorter than that of the standard tunnel group (39.5 min vs. 48.2 min, respectively, p = 0.001). A significant difference was observed in the rates of procedure-related adverse events between the two groups (9.5% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The efficacy of the procedure was comparable between the two groups. However, the short tunnel significantly reduced the operation time and the rates of procedure-related adverse events.