{"title":"口腔内窥镜肌切开术(含或不含隔膜切开术)治疗虹吸管憩室的临床效果 - 一项国际多中心经验","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2024.05.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>There are few data favoring the need for septotomy at the time of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) or if POEM alone is sufficient. Our aim was to compare POEM outcomes with and without septotomy (POEM+S or POEM-S) in patients with symptomatic epiphrenic diverticula (ED) and an underlying motility disorder.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was an international, multicenter retrospective study involving 21 centers between January 2014 and January 2023. Patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder who underwent POEM were included. The primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score [ES] ≤3 or a 1-point drop in ES for patients with baseline ES <3) without the need for repeat surgical/endoscopic interventions during follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 85 patients (mean age, 64.29 ± 17.1 years; 32 [37.6%] female) with ED and underlying motility disorder underwent POEM+S (n = 47) or POEM–S (n = 38). Patients in the POEM+S group had a significantly higher mean pre-POEM ES (7.3 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2; <em>P</em> = .002). The most common indication for POEM was achalasia (51% in the POEM+S cohort and 51.8% in the POEM–S cohort; <em>P</em> = .7). A posterior approach was favored in the POEM+S group (76.6% vs 52.6%; <em>P</em> = .02). A similar rate of technical success was seen in both groups (97.9% vs 100%; <em>P</em> = .1). The rate of adverse events was similar between the 2 cohorts (4.2% vs 8.1%; <em>P</em> = .6). The median length of hospital stay after POEM–S was significantly longer compared with POEM+S (2 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-4 days] vs 1 day [IQR, 1-2 days]; <em>P</em> = .005). Clinical success was equivalent between the 2 groups (83% vs 86.8%; <em>P</em> = .6) at a median follow-up duration of 8 months (IQR, 3-19 months).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder, both POEM+S and POEM–S are equally safe and effective, with similar procedure duration and a low recurrence rate at short-term follow-up. Future comparative prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to validate these findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":"100 5","pages":"Pages 840-848.e4"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy with and without septotomy for management of epiphrenic diverticula: an international multicenter experience (with video)\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gie.2024.05.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>There are few data favoring the need for septotomy at the time of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) or if POEM alone is sufficient. Our aim was to compare POEM outcomes with and without septotomy (POEM+S or POEM-S) in patients with symptomatic epiphrenic diverticula (ED) and an underlying motility disorder.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was an international, multicenter retrospective study involving 21 centers between January 2014 and January 2023. Patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder who underwent POEM were included. The primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score [ES] ≤3 or a 1-point drop in ES for patients with baseline ES <3) without the need for repeat surgical/endoscopic interventions during follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 85 patients (mean age, 64.29 ± 17.1 years; 32 [37.6%] female) with ED and underlying motility disorder underwent POEM+S (n = 47) or POEM–S (n = 38). Patients in the POEM+S group had a significantly higher mean pre-POEM ES (7.3 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2; <em>P</em> = .002). The most common indication for POEM was achalasia (51% in the POEM+S cohort and 51.8% in the POEM–S cohort; <em>P</em> = .7). A posterior approach was favored in the POEM+S group (76.6% vs 52.6%; <em>P</em> = .02). A similar rate of technical success was seen in both groups (97.9% vs 100%; <em>P</em> = .1). The rate of adverse events was similar between the 2 cohorts (4.2% vs 8.1%; <em>P</em> = .6). The median length of hospital stay after POEM–S was significantly longer compared with POEM+S (2 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-4 days] vs 1 day [IQR, 1-2 days]; <em>P</em> = .005). Clinical success was equivalent between the 2 groups (83% vs 86.8%; <em>P</em> = .6) at a median follow-up duration of 8 months (IQR, 3-19 months).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder, both POEM+S and POEM–S are equally safe and effective, with similar procedure duration and a low recurrence rate at short-term follow-up. Future comparative prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to validate these findings.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastrointestinal endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"100 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 840-848.e4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastrointestinal endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001651072403205X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001651072403205X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy with and without septotomy for management of epiphrenic diverticula: an international multicenter experience (with video)
Background and Aims
There are few data favoring the need for septotomy at the time of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) or if POEM alone is sufficient. Our aim was to compare POEM outcomes with and without septotomy (POEM+S or POEM-S) in patients with symptomatic epiphrenic diverticula (ED) and an underlying motility disorder.
Methods
This was an international, multicenter retrospective study involving 21 centers between January 2014 and January 2023. Patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder who underwent POEM were included. The primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score [ES] ≤3 or a 1-point drop in ES for patients with baseline ES <3) without the need for repeat surgical/endoscopic interventions during follow-up.
Results
A total of 85 patients (mean age, 64.29 ± 17.1 years; 32 [37.6%] female) with ED and underlying motility disorder underwent POEM+S (n = 47) or POEM–S (n = 38). Patients in the POEM+S group had a significantly higher mean pre-POEM ES (7.3 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2; P = .002). The most common indication for POEM was achalasia (51% in the POEM+S cohort and 51.8% in the POEM–S cohort; P = .7). A posterior approach was favored in the POEM+S group (76.6% vs 52.6%; P = .02). A similar rate of technical success was seen in both groups (97.9% vs 100%; P = .1). The rate of adverse events was similar between the 2 cohorts (4.2% vs 8.1%; P = .6). The median length of hospital stay after POEM–S was significantly longer compared with POEM+S (2 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-4 days] vs 1 day [IQR, 1-2 days]; P = .005). Clinical success was equivalent between the 2 groups (83% vs 86.8%; P = .6) at a median follow-up duration of 8 months (IQR, 3-19 months).
Conclusions
In patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder, both POEM+S and POEM–S are equally safe and effective, with similar procedure duration and a low recurrence rate at short-term follow-up. Future comparative prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to validate these findings.
期刊介绍:
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.