Surgical endoscopy · 2001
Does pneumatic dilatation affect the outcome of laparoscopic cardiomyotomy?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Dolan K, Zafirellis K, Fountoulakis A, Martin I G, Dexter S P L, Larvin M, McMahon M J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Controversy surrounds the choice of laparoscopic cardiomyotomy as the primary treatment for achalasia or a second-line treatment following the failure of nonsurgical treatment. Laparoscopic cardiomyotomy can be more difficult technically following pneumatic dilatations. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome obtained with primary laparoscopic cardiomyotomy to that achieved when the procedure is performed following failed pneumatic dilatation.
METHODS: Laparoscopic cardiomyotomy was performed in seven patients following a median of four pneumatic dilatations (group A) and in five patients as their primary treatment (group B). Outcome was measured using manometry, a modified DeMeester symptom scoring system, and a quality-of-life questionnaire.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups A and B in sex, age, preoperative modified DeMeester score, or mean barrier pressure. Six of seven group A patients had evidence of periesophageal and submucosal fibrosis at surgery, but this condition was not seen in group B patients. The operative time was slightly longer in group A patients. There was no difference in complication rates (one primary hemorrhage in group A and one esophageal perforation in group B), and both groups had a significantly improved modified DeMeester score at 6 weeks and at long-term follow-up (median, 26 months). Eleven of 12 patients said that they would choose laparoscopic cardiomyotomy as their primary treatment if newly diagnosed with achalasia.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cardiomyotomy is safe and effective as a primary or second-line treatment following pneumatic dilatations in patients with achalasia.
METHODS: Laparoscopic cardiomyotomy was performed in seven patients following a median of four pneumatic dilatations (group A) and in five patients as their primary treatment (group B). Outcome was measured using manometry, a modified DeMeester symptom scoring system, and a quality-of-life questionnaire.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups A and B in sex, age, preoperative modified DeMeester score, or mean barrier pressure. Six of seven group A patients had evidence of periesophageal and submucosal fibrosis at surgery, but this condition was not seen in group B patients. The operative time was slightly longer in group A patients. There was no difference in complication rates (one primary hemorrhage in group A and one esophageal perforation in group B), and both groups had a significantly improved modified DeMeester score at 6 weeks and at long-term follow-up (median, 26 months). Eleven of 12 patients said that they would choose laparoscopic cardiomyotomy as their primary treatment if newly diagnosed with achalasia.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cardiomyotomy is safe and effective as a primary or second-line treatment following pneumatic dilatations in patients with achalasia.