4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic Heller-Dor surgery for esophageal achalasia: Possible detrimental role of previous endoscopic treatment

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages 1332-1339

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2005.10.001

Keywords

esophageal achalasia; laparoscopic surgery; Heller myotomy; pneumatic dilation; botox injection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy has recently emerged as the treatment of choice for esophageal achalasia. Previous unsuccessful treatments (pneumatic dilations or botulinum toxin [BT] injections) can make surgery more difficult, causing a higher risk of inucosal perforation and jeopardizing the outcome. The study goal was to evaluate the effects of prior endoscopic treatments on laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Between January 1992 and February 2005, 248 patients (130 males and 118 females; median age, 43 years) underwent a laparoscopic Heller-Dor operation for achalasia: 203 underwent primary surgery (group A), 19 had been previously treated with pneumatic dilations (group B), and 26 had BT injections (alone [22] or with dilations [4] (group C). Median duration of the operation and rate of intraoperative mucosal lesions were not different in the three groups. Median follow-up was 41 months. The 5-year actuarial of control of dysphagia was similar in groups A (86%) and B (94%), whereas only 75% of group C patients were symptom free at 5 vears (P = 0.02). On logistic regression analysis, prior treatment with two BT injections or BT combined with dilation was associated with poor outcome of surgery. Further, dilations for surgical failure patients were effective in 80% of group A but in only 33% of group B or C patients. Heller-Dor surgery is safe and effective as a primary or a second-line treatment (after pneumatic dilations or BT injections) for achalasia. However, long-term results seem less satisfactory in patients previously treated with BT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available