BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic treatment of esophageal achalasia has recently been introduced, and the occasional reports in the literature seem to indicate considerable advantages for patients in terms of surgical trauma, postoperative discomfort, and appearance. As yet, however, no studies have directly analyzed the benefits and shortcomings of the new surgical technique by comparison with the conventional open procedure. The objective of our study was to review recent experience with the laparoscopic Heller-Dor operation (LAP-HD) at the Department of Surgery of Padua University and compare it with the traditional open Heller-Dor procedure (OPEN-HD) to assess early effectiveness in patients with primary esophageal achalasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 17 patients who had LAP-HD and a matched group of 17 patients who had OPEN-HD were retrospectively reviewed. The duration of procedures, morbidity, several aspects of the postoperative course, and hospital costs were recorded and compared. Results of clinical follow-up and of manometric and pH-monitoring studies performed 6 months postoperatively were also evaluated in both patient groups. RESULTS: LAP-HD took longer than OPEN-HD (mean 178 versus 125 minutes). There was no mortality or major morbidity in either group. Postoperative pain and ileus and need for IV nutrition lasted a shorter time for LAP-HD patients (P < 0.0001). Consequently, the median postoperative hospital stay and the median interval before returning to normal activity were also shorter (4 and 14 days for the LAP-HD group versus 10 and 30 days for the OPEN-HD group, P < 0.0001). During follow-up, dysphagia recurred in 1 patient of the LAP-HD group and gastroesophageal reflux was registered in 1 patient of the OPEN-HD group. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure decreased significantly after both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic management of achalasia leads to short-term results comparable to those of the well-established open technique. In view of the less severe surgical trauma and lower hospital cost, the laparoscopic approach is preferable, but long-term studies are needed.
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic treatment of esophageal achalasia has recently been introduced, and the occasional reports in the literature seem to indicate considerable advantages for patients in terms of surgical trauma, postoperative discomfort, and appearance. As yet, however, no studies have directly analyzed the benefits and shortcomings of the new surgical technique by comparison with the conventional open procedure. The objective of our study was to review recent experience with the laparoscopic Heller-Dor operation (LAP-HD) at the Department of Surgery of Padua University and compare it with the traditional open Heller-Dor procedure (OPEN-HD) to assess early effectiveness in patients with primary esophageal achalasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 17 patients who had LAP-HD and a matched group of 17 patients who had OPEN-HD were retrospectively reviewed. The duration of procedures, morbidity, several aspects of the postoperative course, and hospital costs were recorded and compared. Results of clinical follow-up and of manometric and pH-monitoring studies performed 6 months postoperatively were also evaluated in both patient groups. RESULTS:LAP-HD took longer than OPEN-HD (mean 178 versus 125 minutes). There was no mortality or major morbidity in either group. Postoperative pain and ileus and need for IV nutrition lasted a shorter time for LAP-HDpatients (P < 0.0001). Consequently, the median postoperative hospital stay and the median interval before returning to normal activity were also shorter (4 and 14 days for the LAP-HD group versus 10 and 30 days for the OPEN-HD group, P < 0.0001). During follow-up, dysphagia recurred in 1 patient of the LAP-HD group and gastroesophageal reflux was registered in 1 patient of the OPEN-HD group. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure decreased significantly after both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic management of achalasia leads to short-term results comparable to those of the well-established open technique. In view of the less severe surgical trauma and lower hospital cost, the laparoscopic approach is preferable, but long-term studies are needed.