| Literature DB >> 7495769 |
H C Kim1, J H Song, H E Kim, S C Choi, J H Lyou, T H Kim, B J Shin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL), a recently developed method for controlling active variceal bleeding and eradicating esophageal varices, has similar efficacy to endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) and is known to have a minimal risk of complications and fewer complications in the lower esophagus. However, since the site of EVL is chiefly done in the lower esophagus, we prospectively evaluated to investigate the effect of EVL on the lower esophageal motor function.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 1995 PMID: 7495769 PMCID: PMC4532049 DOI: 10.3904/kjim.1995.10.2.120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Intern Med ISSN: 1226-3303 Impact factor: 2.884
Results of EVL in 27 Patients
| Sessions | |
| Total No. | 45 |
| Mean (range) No./person | 1.7 (1–3) |
| O-band ligations | |
| Total No. | 221 |
| Mean No.(range)/person | 8.2 (3–21) |
| Mean No.(range)/session | 4.9 (1–10) |
| Mean No.(range)/1st session | 5.6 (3–10) |
| Mean No.(range)/2nd session | 2.8 (1–7) |
| Site of ligation | |
| Distance<3cm from GEJ | 150 |
| Distance>3cm from GEJ | 71 |
GEJ* : Gastroesophageal junction
No.: Number
Effects of EVL on Esophageal Manometry
| Pre-EVL (n=27) | Intermediate post-EVL (n=27) | Late post-EVL (n=27) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower esophageal sphincter | |||
| Length (cm) | 3.68±0.66 | 3.64±0.76 | 3.54±0.71 |
| Pressure | 22.67±6.47 | 22.77±7.05 | 22.81±4.45 |
| Relaxation % | 88.40±7.75 | 89.18±10.56 | 91.72±7.26 |
| Relaxation duration (sec) | 9.90±2.13 | 9.40±1.84 | 10.68±1.59 |
| Esophageal peristaltic | |||
| Contration 3 cm above LES | |||
| Pressure (mmHg) | 76.37±54.80 | 100.75±76.10 | 81.56±32.71 |
| Duration (sec) | 2.87±0.54 | 3.23±0.52 | 2.83±0,45 |
| Velocity (cm/sec) | 3.40±0.98 | 3.35±1.01 | 3.96±0.56 |
| Contraction wave | |||
| Abnormalities (%) | |||
| Simultaneous | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spontaneous | 3.7±8.8 | 1.5±4.6 | 0.9±3.0 |
| Repetitive | 0.4±1.9 | 0.7±3.8 | 0 |
| Retrograde | 0 | 0 | 0 |
All values are given as mean±SD.
Compared pre-EVL vs 3 weeks after EVL, p<0.05
Compared pre-EVL vs 6 months after EVL, p<0.05
Compared intermediate post-EVL vs late post-EVL, p<0.05