4.4 Article

Angle of His Accentuation Is a Viable Alternative to Dor Fundoplication as an Adjunct to Laparoscopic Heller Cardiomyotomy: Results of a Randomized Clinical Study

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 63, 期 9, 页码 2395-2404

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5130-4

关键词

Achalasia; Laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy; Angle of his accentuation; Dor fundoplication; Achalasia-specific quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There is no consensus regarding the type of anti-reflux procedure to be used as an adjunct to laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy (LHCM). The aim of this study was to compare Angle of His accentuation (AOH) with Dor Fundoplication (Dor) as an adjunct to LHCM. Methods A total of 110 patients with achalasia cardia presenting for LHCM from March 2010 to July 2015 were randomized to Dor and AOH. Symptom severity, achalasia-specific quality of life (ASQOL), new onset heartburn, and patient satisfaction were assessed using standardized scores preoperatively, at 3, 6 months, and then yearly. The primary outcome was relief of esophageal symptoms while secondary outcomes were new onset heartburn and ASQOL. Results Both groups were comparable with respect to the baseline demographic characteristics. There was no conversion to open and no mortality in either group. Median operative time was 128 min in AOH and 144 min in Dor group (p < 0.01). Mean follow-up was 36 months and was available in 98% patients. There was significant improvement in esophageal symptoms in both groups with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in cumulative symptom scores between the two groups over the period of follow-up. New onset heartburn was seen in 11% in AOH and 9% in Dor group. Mean ASQOL score improved in both groups with no difference between the two groups (p = 0.83). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups. Conclusion AOH is similar to Dor as an adjunct to LHCM in safety and efficacy and can be performed in shorter time.

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

4.4
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