Yael Oestreicher-Kedem1, Oshri Wasserzug2, Boaz Sagi3, Narin Nard Carmel2, Daniel Zikk2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, 6 Weizman St., 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel. dkyo@013.net. 2. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, 6 Weizman St., 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Department of General Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic stapler diverticulotomy (ESD) has become an accepted primary treatment for Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). Recurrence of symptoms after surgical treatment of ZD is not uncommon, and traditionally patients with recurrent symptomatic ZD were referred to revision surgery by the transcervical Zenker's diverticulectomy approach. Our objective was to evaluate the technical feasibility, safety and effectiveness of revision endoscopic stapler diverticulotomy (RESD) for recurrent ZD. METHODS: A case series with chart review study conducted in a tertiary referral center. The records of all patients who underwent ESD at our institute between 2002 and 2013 were retrieved and those who underwent RESD were identified and screened for primary surgical history, symptoms of recurrent ZD, time to recurrence, intraoperative and postoperative RESD course, complications and symptom resolution. The surgical history and outcome results of RESD and primary ESD (PESD) patients were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-nine ESDs were performed. Twenty were RESDs for recurrent ZD, and 69 were PESDs. Nine RESDs were performed for recurrent ZD after transcervical Zenker's diverticulectomy, 10 RESDs for recurrent ZD after ESD, and one initial surgical approach was unknown. The mean time from first operation for ZD to RESD was 4.7 years. The average RESD surgery time and hospital stay were 21.4 min and 2.8 days, respectively. Endoscopic stapling of the ZD was feasible in 19 of 20 RESDs. Relief of symptoms without recurrence was achieved after 18 RESDs. Four RESD patients experienced minor postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in operative time, technical feasibility, hospital stay and complication rate between the RESD and PESD groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: RESD for ZD is technically feasible, safe and effective. The results are comparable to those of PESD.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic stapler diverticulotomy (ESD) has become an accepted primary treatment for Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). Recurrence of symptoms after surgical treatment of ZD is not uncommon, and traditionally patients with recurrent symptomatic ZD were referred to revision surgery by the transcervical Zenker's diverticulectomy approach. Our objective was to evaluate the technical feasibility, safety and effectiveness of revision endoscopic stapler diverticulotomy (RESD) for recurrent ZD. METHODS: A case series with chart review study conducted in a tertiary referral center. The records of all patients who underwent ESD at our institute between 2002 and 2013 were retrieved and those who underwent RESD were identified and screened for primary surgical history, symptoms of recurrent ZD, time to recurrence, intraoperative and postoperative RESD course, complications and symptom resolution. The surgical history and outcome results of RESD and primary ESD (PESD) patients were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-nine ESDs were performed. Twenty were RESDs for recurrent ZD, and 69 were PESDs. Nine RESDs were performed for recurrent ZD after transcervical Zenker's diverticulectomy, 10 RESDs for recurrent ZD after ESD, and one initial surgical approach was unknown. The mean time from first operation for ZD to RESD was 4.7 years. The average RESD surgery time and hospital stay were 21.4 min and 2.8 days, respectively. Endoscopic stapling of the ZD was feasible in 19 of 20 RESDs. Relief of symptoms without recurrence was achieved after 18 RESDs. Four RESD patients experienced minor postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in operative time, technical feasibility, hospital stay and complication rate between the RESD and PESD groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: RESD for ZD is technically feasible, safe and effective. The results are comparable to those of PESD.