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

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastrointestinal endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2024.05.010
{"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 &lt;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 &lt;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的很少有数据支持在进行口腔内镜下肌切开术(POEM)时需要进行隔膜切开术,或者仅进行口腔内镜下肌切开术就足够了。我们的目的是比较对有症状的虹膜上腔憩室(ED)和潜在运动障碍患者进行和不进行隔肌切开术(POEM+S 或 POEM-S)的 POEM 结果。研究纳入了接受POEM手术的ED和潜在运动障碍患者。主要结果是临床成功(埃卡特评分[ES] ≤3,或基线ES <3的患者ES下降1分),且随访期间无需重复手术/内镜干预。结果共有85名患有ED和潜在运动障碍的患者(平均年龄为64.29 ± 17.1岁;32名[37.6%]女性)接受了POEM+S(n = 47)或POEM-S(n = 38)治疗。POEM+S 组患者在 POEM 前的平均 ES 值明显更高(7.3 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2;P = .002)。POEM最常见的适应症是贲门失弛缓症(POEM+S组为51%,POEM-S组为51.8%;P = .7)。POEM+S 组更倾向于采用后入路(76.6% 对 52.6%;P = .02)。两组的技术成功率相似(97.9% vs 100%;P = .1)。两组的不良事件发生率相似(4.2% vs 8.1%;P = .6)。与 POEM+S 相比,POEM-S 的中位住院时间明显更长(2 天 [四分位数间距 (IQR),1-4 天] vs 1 天 [IQR, 1-2 天];P = .005)。结论 在患有 ED 和潜在运动障碍的患者中,POEM+S 和 POEM-S 同样安全有效,手术时间相似,短期随访时复发率较低。未来需要进行长期随访的前瞻性比较研究来验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Gastrointestinal endoscopy 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
7.80%
发文量
1441
审稿时长
38 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Management of Patients with Colorectal Intramucosal Carcinoma Compared to High-Grade Dysplasia and T1 Colorectal Cancer. Development and validation of the Open-Source Automatic Bowel Preparation Scale. Digital single-operator cholangioscopy for difficult anastomotic biliary strictures in living donor liver transplantation recipients after failure of standard ERCP: SPYPASS-2 study. Identification of risk factors associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with easy cannulation: A prospective multicenter observational study. Interobserver Agreement in Dysplasia Grading of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms: Performance of Kyoto Guidelines and Optimization of Endomicroscopy Biomarkers through Pathology Reclassification.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1