重复口周内窥镜肌切开术:技术难度和风险因素。

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastrointestinal endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019
Li-Yun Ma, Ke-Yi Guo, Zu-Qiang Liu, Shi-Yao Chen, Yun-Shi Zhong, Yi-Qun Zhang, Wei-Feng Chen, Li-Li Ma, Wen-Zheng Qin, Jian-Wei Hu, Ming-Yan Cai, Li-Qing Yao, Quan-Lin Li, Ping-Hong Zhou
{"title":"重复口周内窥镜肌切开术:技术难度和风险因素。","authors":"Li-Yun Ma, Ke-Yi Guo, Zu-Qiang Liu, Shi-Yao Chen, Yun-Shi Zhong, Yi-Qun Zhang, Wei-Feng Chen, Li-Li Ma, Wen-Zheng Qin, Jian-Wei Hu, Ming-Yan Cai, Li-Qing Yao, Quan-Lin Li, Ping-Hong Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Repeat peroral endoscopic myotomy (Re-POEM) appeared to be a promising salvage option for patients with persistent/recurrent symptoms after initial POEM, but it may be more technical challenging. Here we aim to evaluate the safety and technical difficulty of Re-POEM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July 2012 and October 2023, 158 achalasia patients underwent Re-POEM were retrospectively enrolled. Another 2978 patients without prior myotomy were selected for naïve POEM. After propensity score matching (PSM), procedure-related parameters were compared between the two groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to reveal risk factors for difficult Re-POEM (defined as procedure time ≥ 90 min).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With similar baseline characteristics between two groups after PSM, the procedure time was comparable between Re-POEM and naïve POEM groups (61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9, p=0.496). The Re-POEM group showed shorter esophageal myotomy length (7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1, p<0.001) and longer gastric myotomy length (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.1±0.4, p=0.017), compared with the naïve POEM group. Mucosal injury in Re-POEM group was slightly higher, which was not statistically significant (20.3% vs. 13.9%, p=0.135). No differences were found in the incidence of gas-related adverse events (AEs), major AEs, and technical difficulty. Multivariate analysis determined mucosal edema (OR=4.942, 95% CI, 1.554-15.714, p=0.007) and submucosal fibrosis (OR=3.817, 95% CI, 1.333-10.931, p=0.013) to be independent risk factors for difficult Re-POEM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Re-POEM appears safe and feasible as a salvage option after initial POEM failure, with comparable procedure duration, incidence of AEs and technical difficulty to naïve POEM. Mucosal edema and submucosal fibrosis were associated with difficult Re-POEM.</p>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repeat Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: Technical Difficulty and Risk Factors.\",\"authors\":\"Li-Yun Ma, Ke-Yi Guo, Zu-Qiang Liu, Shi-Yao Chen, Yun-Shi Zhong, Yi-Qun Zhang, Wei-Feng Chen, Li-Li Ma, Wen-Zheng Qin, Jian-Wei Hu, Ming-Yan Cai, Li-Qing Yao, Quan-Lin Li, Ping-Hong Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Repeat peroral endoscopic myotomy (Re-POEM) appeared to be a promising salvage option for patients with persistent/recurrent symptoms after initial POEM, but it may be more technical challenging. Here we aim to evaluate the safety and technical difficulty of Re-POEM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July 2012 and October 2023, 158 achalasia patients underwent Re-POEM were retrospectively enrolled. Another 2978 patients without prior myotomy were selected for naïve POEM. After propensity score matching (PSM), procedure-related parameters were compared between the two groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to reveal risk factors for difficult Re-POEM (defined as procedure time ≥ 90 min).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With similar baseline characteristics between two groups after PSM, the procedure time was comparable between Re-POEM and naïve POEM groups (61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9, p=0.496). The Re-POEM group showed shorter esophageal myotomy length (7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1, p<0.001) and longer gastric myotomy length (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.1±0.4, p=0.017), compared with the naïve POEM group. Mucosal injury in Re-POEM group was slightly higher, which was not statistically significant (20.3% vs. 13.9%, p=0.135). No differences were found in the incidence of gas-related adverse events (AEs), major AEs, and technical difficulty. Multivariate analysis determined mucosal edema (OR=4.942, 95% CI, 1.554-15.714, p=0.007) and submucosal fibrosis (OR=3.817, 95% CI, 1.333-10.931, p=0.013) to be independent risk factors for difficult Re-POEM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Re-POEM appears safe and feasible as a salvage option after initial POEM failure, with comparable procedure duration, incidence of AEs and technical difficulty to naïve POEM. Mucosal edema and submucosal fibrosis were associated with difficult Re-POEM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastrointestinal endoscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastrointestinal endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019\",\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019","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:对于初次口腔内镜肌切开术(POEM)后症状持续/复发的患者来说,重复口腔内镜肌切开术(Re-POEM)似乎是一种很有前景的挽救选择,但它可能更具技术挑战性。在此,我们旨在评估再POEM的安全性和技术难度:2012年7月至2023年10月期间,158名贲门失弛缓症患者接受了Re-POEM,我们对这些患者进行了回顾性研究。另外 2978 名未接受过肌切术的患者被选中接受天真 POEM。经过倾向评分匹配(PSM)后,比较了两组患者的手术相关参数。进行了单变量和多变量分析,以揭示困难再POEM(定义为手术时间≥90分钟)的风险因素:结果:在PSM术后两组患者基线特征相似的情况下,再POEM组与新POEM组的手术时间相当(61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9,P=0.496)。再POEM组的食管肌切开长度更短(7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1,p结论:再POEM作为初次POEM失败后的一种挽救方案似乎安全可行,手术持续时间、AEs发生率和技术难度与新POEM相当。粘膜水肿和粘膜下纤维化与再次 POEM 的难度有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Repeat Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: Technical Difficulty and Risk Factors.

Background and aims: Repeat peroral endoscopic myotomy (Re-POEM) appeared to be a promising salvage option for patients with persistent/recurrent symptoms after initial POEM, but it may be more technical challenging. Here we aim to evaluate the safety and technical difficulty of Re-POEM.

Methods: Between July 2012 and October 2023, 158 achalasia patients underwent Re-POEM were retrospectively enrolled. Another 2978 patients without prior myotomy were selected for naïve POEM. After propensity score matching (PSM), procedure-related parameters were compared between the two groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to reveal risk factors for difficult Re-POEM (defined as procedure time ≥ 90 min).

Results: With similar baseline characteristics between two groups after PSM, the procedure time was comparable between Re-POEM and naïve POEM groups (61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9, p=0.496). The Re-POEM group showed shorter esophageal myotomy length (7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1, p<0.001) and longer gastric myotomy length (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.1±0.4, p=0.017), compared with the naïve POEM group. Mucosal injury in Re-POEM group was slightly higher, which was not statistically significant (20.3% vs. 13.9%, p=0.135). No differences were found in the incidence of gas-related adverse events (AEs), major AEs, and technical difficulty. Multivariate analysis determined mucosal edema (OR=4.942, 95% CI, 1.554-15.714, p=0.007) and submucosal fibrosis (OR=3.817, 95% CI, 1.333-10.931, p=0.013) to be independent risk factors for difficult Re-POEM.

Conclusions: Re-POEM appears safe and feasible as a salvage option after initial POEM failure, with comparable procedure duration, incidence of AEs and technical difficulty to naïve POEM. Mucosal edema and submucosal fibrosis were associated with difficult Re-POEM.

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