| Literature DB >> 28316620 |
Chenyu Li1, Aixia Gong1, Jingwen Zhang1, Zhijun Duan2, Linmei Ge1, Nan Xia1, Jing Leng1, Mei Li1, Yanjie Liu1.
Abstract
Background. Here we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety between partial full-thickness myotomy and circular muscle myotomy during POEM procedure in achalasia patients. Methods. Clinical data of achalasia of cardia (AC) patients who underwent POEM in our center during January 2014 to January 2015 was collected (34 cases). 19 patients who received partial full-thickness myotomy were assigned to group A and 14 patients who received circular muscle myotomy were assigned to group B. The procedure-related parameters between the two groups were compared. Symptom relief rate and postprocedure manometry outcomes were compared to evaluate the efficacy. Procedure-related adverse events and complications were compared to evaluate the safety. Results. (1) Mean operation times were significantly shorter in group A than group B (62.42 ± 23.17 vs 87.86 ± 26.44 min, p < 0.01). (2) Symptom relief rate and postprocedure manometry outcomes had no statistical differences when compared between the two groups (all p > 0.05). (3) Comparison of procedure-related adverse events and complications had no statistical differences (all p > 0.05). Conclusion. Partial full-thickness myotomy had no significant differences in efficacy or safety with circular myotomy, but partial full-thickness myotomy significantly reduced the procedure time.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28316620 PMCID: PMC5339530 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2676513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Preoperative patients characteristics.
| Patients characteristics | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Age, y | 45.37 ± 12.28 | 46.07 ± 15.43 | 0.89 |
| Symptom duration, y | 6.36 ± 7.44 | 5.04 ± 4.19 | 0.56 |
| LESP (mmH2O) | 27.71 ± 15.60 | 37.37 ± 17.41 | 0.19 |
| IRP (mmH2O) | 19.36 ± 14.10 | 12.60 ± 5.94 | 0.20 |
| LES length (cm) | 3.17 ± 1.47 | 3.39 ± 0.70 | 0.70 |
|
| |||
| Heller | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.00 |
| Pneumatic balloon dilation | 2 (10.5%) | 3 (21.4) | 0.63 |
| Botox | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (7.1%) | 0.55 |
| POEM | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.00 |
LESP: lower esophageal sphincter pressure, IRP: integrated relaxation pressure, LES: lower esophageal sphincter, and POEM: peroral endoscopic myotomy.
Figure 1(a) Submucosal injection. (b) Creating submucosal tunnel. (c) Submucosal tunnel was dissected. (d) Circular muscle myotomy. (e) full-thickness muscle myotomy. (f) Closure of the mucosal entry site (with metallic clips).
Figure 2(a-1) The myotomy was begun at about 2 cm distal to the mucosal entry. In partial full-thickness myotomy, not only the circular muscle layer but also the longitudinal muscle layer was cut at 2 cm above the EGJ. (a-2) Distal of full-thickness myotomy was extended to the fundus of the stomach. Incision was closed by endoscopic metallic clips. (b-1) The myotomy was begun at about 2 cm distal to the mucosal entry in partial full-thickness myotomy. In circular muscle myotomy, only circular muscle layer was resected and the longitudinal muscle layer was carefully protected. (b-2) Distal of circular muscle myotomy was extended to the fundus of the stomach. Incision was closed by endoscopic metallic clips.
Eckardt symptom score.
| Score | Symptoms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight loss (Kg) | Dysphagia | Chest pain | Regurgitation | |
| 0 | None | None | None | None |
| 1 | <5 | Occasional | Occasional | Occasional |
| 2 | 5~10 | Daily | Daily | Daily |
| 3 | >10 | Every meal | Every meal | Every meal |
Procedure-related parameters.
| Parameters | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Operation success rate | 100% | 100% | 1.00 |
| Operation time (min) | 56.73 ± 20.51 | 88.21 ± 27.08 |
|
| Tunnel creation time (min) | 15.24 ± 2.81 | 16.93 ± 3.43 | 0.16 |
| Myotomy time (min) | 41.49 ± 19.71 | 71.29 ± 24.68 |
|
| Myotomy length (cm) | 10.33 ± 0.90 | 9.86 ± 1.70 | 0.36 |
Figure 3(a) A case of preoperative manometry showed Type II (absence of normal peristalsis and panoesophageal pressurization with ≥20% of swallows). (b) Postoperative manometry showed significant amelioration of panoesophageal pressurization.
Comparison of procedure related adverse events.
| Variable | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Mucosal injury | 3 (15.7%) | 1 (7.1%) | 0.62 |
| Fever | 7 (36.8%) | 4 (28.6%) | 0.45 |
| Pneumonia | 2 (10.5%) | 1 (7.1%) | 0.55 |
| Air-related complications | 4 (21.1%) | 5 (35.7%) | 0.44 |
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 2 (10.5%) | 3 (21.4%) | 0.63 |
| Pneumomediastinum | 3 (15.7%) | 2 (14.3%) | 0.97 |
| Pneumoperitoneum | 3 (15.7%) | 2 (14.3%) | 0.97 |
| Pneumothorax | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.00 |
| Delayed bleeding | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.00 |
| Effusion | 8 (42.1%) | 6 (42.8%) | 0.96 |
Comparison of reflux complication.
| Variable | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Reflux rate by symptom at 6th | 10.5% (2 of 19) | 14.2% (2 of 14) | 0.63 |
| Reflux rate by symptom at 12th | 31.5% (6 of 19) | 35.7% (5 of 14) | 0.71 |
| Reflux rate base on endoscopy at 12th | 26.7% (4 of 15) | 25% (3 of 12) | 0.96 |
| Parameters | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Preoperative symptom score | 6.74 ± 1.79 | 6.64 ± 1.86 | 0.89 |
| Postoperative symptom score | 0.47 ± 0.77 | 0.50 ± 0.94 | 0.93 |
| 1-month remission rate | 100% (19/19) | 92.9% (13/14) | 0.42 |
| 6-month remission rate | 94.7% (18/19) | 85.7% (12/14) | 0.56 |
| 12-month remission rate | 89.4% (17/19) | 85.7% (12/14) | 0.61 |
| Parameters | Totally | Group A | Group B |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | |
| IRP | |||
| Preoperative | 16.47 ± 4.89 | 16.30 ± 5.05 | 19.17 ± 1.65 |
| Postoperative | 3.12 ± 1.61 | 3.18 ± 1.97 | 3.05 ± 1.32 |
| |
|
|
|
| LESP | |||
| Preoperative | 34.72 ± 18.58 | 37.60 ± 20.50 | 32.80 ± 10.91 |
| Postoperative | 10.49 ± 11.92 | 12.56 ± 15.21 | 9.10 ± 10.54 |
| |
|
|
|
IRP: integrated relaxation pressure and LESP: lower esophageal sphincter pressure.