Colin Huntley1, Maurits Boon2, Joseph Spiegel2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: Colin.huntley@jefferson.edu. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The upper esophageal sphincter (UES) is composed largely of the cricopharyngeus muscle (CP) and acts as the gatekeeper to the esophagus. There are multiple methods of treating UES dysfunction, but myotomy has been shown to be the most definitive means. We aim to evaluate the difference between open and endoscopic CP myotomy (CPM). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing endoscopic and open CPM was undertaken. We recorded demographic, clinical, operative, hospital, and postoperative data for both groups from January 2010-March 2015. The endoscopic and open CPM groups were directly compared. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 38 open and 41 endoscopic CPM patients. There were 22 males and 16 females in the open group and 9 males and 32 females in the endoscopic group. The primary diagnosis for both groups was cricopharyngeal hyperfunction. We found a significant improvement in surgical time and symptomatic outcomes in the endoscopic group (p=0.008 and p=0.010). There was no difference in UES preop pressure, hospital stay, complication rate, time to oral intake, or length of follow-up between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic CPM is a safe and effective alternative to the open approach. Patients undergoing endoscopic CPM have shorter operative times and improved outcomes when compared to the open approach.
INTRODUCTION: The upper esophageal sphincter (UES) is composed largely of the cricopharyngeus muscle (CP) and acts as the gatekeeper to the esophagus. There are multiple methods of treating UES dysfunction, but myotomy has been shown to be the most definitive means. We aim to evaluate the difference between open and endoscopic CP myotomy (CPM). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing endoscopic and open CPM was undertaken. We recorded demographic, clinical, operative, hospital, and postoperative data for both groups from January 2010-March 2015. The endoscopic and open CPM groups were directly compared. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 38 open and 41 endoscopic CPM patients. There were 22 males and 16 females in the open group and 9 males and 32 females in the endoscopic group. The primary diagnosis for both groups was cricopharyngeal hyperfunction. We found a significant improvement in surgical time and symptomatic outcomes in the endoscopic group (p=0.008 and p=0.010). There was no difference in UES preop pressure, hospital stay, complication rate, time to oral intake, or length of follow-up between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic CPM is a safe and effective alternative to the open approach. Patients undergoing endoscopic CPM have shorter operative times and improved outcomes when compared to the open approach.
Authors: Kevin Hines; Nicholas Elmer; Maxwell Detweiler; Umma Fatema; Glenn A Gonzalez; Thiago S Montenegro; Daniel Franco; Srinivas Prasad; Jack Jallo; Ashwini Sharan; Joshua Heller; Maurits Boon; Joseph Spiegel; James Harrop Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-11-18