4.5 Article

Per-Oral Pyloromyotomy (POP) for Medically Refractory Post-Surgical Gastroparesis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1095-1103

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-04088-7

关键词

Per-oral pyloromyotomy; Pyloromyotomy; Gastroparesis; Post-surgical; Endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPost-surgical gastroparesis (psGP) is putatively related to vagal denervation from either therapeutic transection or inadvertent injury. Here, we present a series of patients undergoing endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP) as a treatmentfor medically refractory psGP.MethodsPatients identified from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing POP procedures at our institution from January 2016 to January 2018 were included. Surgical history, symptom scores, and gastric emptying studies before and 3months after POP were additionally recorded.ResultsDuring the study period, 177 POP procedures were performed, of which 38 (21.5%) were for psGP. The study cohort was 84.2% female with a mean body mass index of 27.6kg/m(2) and mean age of 55.2years. Common comorbidities included hypertension (34.2%), depression (31.6%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (28.9%). Hiatal/paraesophageal hernia repair (39.5%) or fundoplication (36.8%) preceded psGP diagnosis most often. The mean operative time was 3020min. There were no intraoperative complications. Mean postoperative length of stay was 1.2days. There were two readmissions within 30days, one for melena and one for dehydration. The mean improvement in total Gastroparesis Symptom Index Score was 1.29 (p=0.0002). The mean 4-h gastric retention improved from a pre-POP mean of 46.4 to 17.9% post-POP. Normal gastric emptying was noted in 50% of subjects with available follow-up imaging.Conclusion POP is a safe and effective endoscopic therapy for patients with psGP. POP should be considered a reasonable first-line option for patients with medically refractory psGP and may allow stomach preservation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据