首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>World Journal of Gastroenterology >Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs other achalasia treatments in improving esophageal function
【2h】

Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs other achalasia treatments in improving esophageal function

机译:经口内镜下肌切开术与其他失弛缓症治疗在改善食道功能方面的疗效

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

AIM: To assess and compare the esophageal function after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs other conventional treatments in achalasia.METHODS: Chart review of all achalasia patients who underwent POEM, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) or pneumatic dilation (PD) at our institution between January 2012 and March 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, type of achalasia, prior treatments, pre- and post-treatment timed barium swallow (TBE) and high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) findings were compared between the three treatment groups. Patients who had both pre- and 2 mo post-treatment TBE or HREM were included in the final analysis. TBE parameters compared were barium column height, width and volume of barium remaining at 1 and 5 min. HREM parameters compared were basal lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressures and LES-integrated relaxation pressures (IRP). Data are presented as mean ± SD, median [25th, 75th percentiles] or frequency (percent). Analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearsons χ2 test and Fishers Exact tests were used for analysis.RESULTS: A total of 200 achalasia patients were included of which 36 underwent POEM, 22 underwent PD and 142 underwent LHM. POEM patients were older (55.4 ± 16.8 years vs 46.5 ± 15.7 years, P = 0.013) and had higher BMI than LHM (29.1 ± 5.9 kg/m2 vs 26 ± 5.1 kg/m2, P = 0.012). More number of patients in POEM and PD groups had undergone prior treatments compared to LHM group (72.2% vs 68.2% vs 44.3% respectively, P = 0.003). At 2 mo post-treatment, all TBE parameters including barium column height, width and volume remaining at 1 and 5 min improved significantly in all three treatment groups (P = 0.01 to P < 0.001) except the column height at 1 min in PD group (P = 0.11) . At 2 mo post-treatment, there was significant improvement in basal LES pressure and LES-IRP in both LHM (40.5 mmHg vs 14.5 mmHg and 24 mmHg vs 7.1 mmHg respectively, P < 0.001) and POEM groups (38.7 mmHg vs 11.4 mmHg and 23.6 mmHg vs 6.6 mmHg respectively, P < 0.001). However, when the efficacy of three treatments were compared to each other in terms of improvement in TBE or HREM parameters at 2 mo, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05).CONCLUSION: POEM, PD and LHM were all effective in improving esophageal function in achalasia at short-term. There was no difference in efficacy between the three treatments.
机译:目的:评估和比较经口内镜下肌切开术(POEM)与其他传统治疗方法在门失弛缓症中的食管功能。方法:对本机构接受过POEM,腹腔镜Heller肌切开术(LHM)或气管扩张(PD)的所有al门失弛缓患者进行图表审查从2012年1月到2015年3月。在三个治疗组之间比较了患者的人口统计资料,门失弛缓的类型,先前的治疗,治疗前和治疗后的定时钡剂吞咽(TBE)和高分辨率食管测压(HREM)结果。最终分析包括治疗前和治疗后2个月TBE或HREM的患者。比较的TBE参数是钡柱的高度,在1和5分钟时剩余的钡的宽度和体积。比较的HREM参数为基底食管下括约肌(LES)压力和LES综合松弛压力(IRP)。数据表示为均值±SD,中位数[th ,75 百分位数]或频率(百分比)。采用方差分析,Kruskal-Wallis检验,Pearsonsχ 2 检验和Fishers Exact检验进行分析。结果:总共包括200例门失弛症患者,其中POEM 36例,PD 22例和142例。接受了LHM。 POEM患者年龄较大(55.4±16.8岁vs 46.5±15.7岁,P = 0.013)并且BMI高于LHM(29.1±5.9 kg / m 2 vs 26±5.1 kg / m 2 ,P = 0.012)。与LHM组相比,POEM和PD组中接受过先前治疗的患者数量更多(分别为72.2%对68.2%对44.3%,P = 0.003)。在治疗后2个月,除PD组在1 min处的柱高外,所有三个治疗组(包括钡柱的高度,宽度和体积在1和5分钟时)的所有TBE参数均显着改善(P = 0.01至P <0.001)。 (P = 0.11)。在治疗后2个月,LHM(分别为40.5 mmHg vs 14.5 mmHg和24 mmHg vs 7.1 mmHg,P <0.001)和POEM组(38.7 mmHg vs 11.4 mmHg和10)的基础LES压力和LES-IRP均有显着改善。 23.6 mmHg和6.6 mmHg, P <0.001)。然而,将两种疗法的疗效在2 mo时的TBE或HREM参数改善方面进行比较时,则没有显着差异( P

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号