Heller myotomy versus endoscopic balloon dilatation for achalasia: A single center experience.
Dilatation
/ instrumentation
Esophageal Achalasia
/ surgery
Esophagoscopy
/ methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Heller Myotomy
/ methods
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Satisfaction
/ statistics & numerical data
Prospective Studies
Quality of Life
Reoperation
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
entrez:
7
11
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
15
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to compare clinical results, symptom relief, quality of life and patient satisfaction after the 2 most common procedures for achalasia treatment: laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD).Patients treated at University Hospital of Heidelberg with LHM or EBD were included. A retrospective chart review of perioperative data and a prospective follow-up of therapeutic efficiency, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and patient satisfaction was conducted.Follow-up data (mean follow-up: 75.1 ± 53.9 months for LHM group and 78.9 ± 45.6 months for EBD) were obtained from 36 patients (19 LHM; 17 EBD). Eckardt score (median (q1,q3): 2 (1,4) in both groups, P = .91, GIQLI (LHM: 117 (91.5, 126) vs EBD: 120 (116, 128), P = .495) and patient satisfaction (3 (2,3) vs 3 (2,4), P = .883) did not differ between groups. Fifteen patients (78.9%) in LHM group and 11 (64.7%) in EBD group (P = .562) stated they would undergo the intervention again. All patients with EBD had at least 2 dilatations (100%), whilst only 2 patients (10.5%) had dilatation after LHM (P < .001). There were no complications after EBD, but 2 after LHM (10.5%, P = .517).Both LHM and EBD are able to control symptoms and provide similar quality of life and patient satisfaction. However, reintervention rate was higher following EBD, hence LHM provided a more sustained treatment than EBD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31689807
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017714
pii: 00005792-201911010-00067
pmc: PMC6946323
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e17714Références
Am J Med. 1987 Mar;82(3):439-46
pubmed: 3548347
Ann Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan-Mar;28(1):3-9
pubmed: 25608535
N Engl J Med. 2011 May 12;364(19):1807-16
pubmed: 21561346
Gut Liver. 2015 Jul;9(4):449-63
pubmed: 26087861
Dig Surg. 2004;21(3):165-76
pubmed: 15218230
Ann Surg. 2002 Dec;236(6):750-8; discussion 758
pubmed: 12454513
Ann Surg. 2002 Feb;235(2):186-92
pubmed: 11807357
Ann Surg. 2016 Jan;263(1):82-7
pubmed: 25361224
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Oct;34(8):832-9
pubmed: 21848630
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2011;4:33-41
pubmed: 21694870
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 Mar;107(3):411-7
pubmed: 22068665
World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Dec 14;14(46):7122-6
pubmed: 19084921
World J Gastroenterol. 2006 May 28;12(20):3155-61
pubmed: 16718833
BMC Gastroenterol. 2002 Aug 13;2:19
pubmed: 12175425
Ann Surg. 2005 May;241(5):725-33; discussion 733-5
pubmed: 15849508
Br J Surg. 1995 Feb;82(2):216-22
pubmed: 7749697
Med Sci Monit. 2013 Dec 02;19:1089-94
pubmed: 24296693
Am J Gastroenterol. 1994 Nov;89(11):2014-8
pubmed: 7942729
Dis Esophagus. 2017 May 1;30(5):1-6
pubmed: 28375437
Dig Dis Sci. 2009 Nov;54(11):2303-11
pubmed: 19107596
Gastroenterology. 2010 Aug;139(2):369-74
pubmed: 20600038
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 May;4(5):580-7
pubmed: 16630776
Ann Surg. 2004 Mar;239(3):364-70
pubmed: 15075653
Bratisl Lek Listy. 2014;115(3):156-60
pubmed: 24579685
Ann Surg. 2009 Jan;249(1):45-57
pubmed: 19106675
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Jul;15(7):825-8
pubmed: 12811315
Am Surg. 2005 May;71(5):424-9
pubmed: 15986975
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1991 Jun;36(3):152-4
pubmed: 1833541
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Jun;8(6):311-9
pubmed: 21522116
Int J Surg. 2012;10(3):120-3
pubmed: 22327009