3.8 Article

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy plus Dor fundoplication in 137 achalasic patients: results on symptoms relief and successful outcome predictors

期刊

UPDATES IN SURGERY-ITALY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 11-15

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-011-0050-2

关键词

Achalasia Esophageal myotomy; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic Heller-Dor (LHD) intervention and identify possible success predictors. LHD is an effective and safe treatment for achalasia. However, open debates are still held on which antireflux procedure should be added and on how long the myotomy on to the stomach should be. A lot of successful outcome predictors have been investigated with sometimes conflicting results. 137 achalasic patients underwent LHD at our institution. Pre-operatively all underwent a complete morphologic and functional work-up. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1, 3, 6 months and then every year. Median follow-up was 65 months. Pre-operatively dysphagia was present in 100% cases, regurgitation in 84.6% and mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure was 29.1 mmHg. We observed 3 mucosal perforations. Mortality was null. The median of oral food intake resumption was second postoperative day and mean post-operative hospital stay was 3.4 days. Dysphagia was treated with success in 94.78% cases and regurgitation in 82.84%. Post-operative mean LES resting pressure was 13.64 mmHg. New-onset heartburn was observed in 10.9% of patients. 9.7% of cases required pneumatic dilations and 1.5% a laparoscopic re-do myotomy. An high pre-operative dysphagia score resulted to be the only statistically significant prognostic factor. Sex, age, dysphagia duration and LES resting pressure did not reach statistical significance. LHD is a safe procedure with good results in about 90% of patients even at a long-term follow-up. Predictors of successful outcome are still poorly plain and sometimes conflicting in literature.

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

3.8
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