We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Laparoscopic pyloroplasty versus endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy for the treatment of gastroparesis.
Surgical Endoscopy 2019 March
BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is a debilitating functional disorder of the stomach characterized by delayed gastric emptying absent an obstructive etiology. Surgical or endoscopic disruption of the pylorus has been utilized to treat this disease, but there is little evidence comparing laparoscopic pyloroplasty (LP) with endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP). Herein we describe our experience at our institution using a propensity-matched cohort study to compare outcomes between these procedures.
METHODS: All patients who underwent LP for the treatment of gastroparesis from October 2014 through September 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity scoring was used to match these patients 1:1 to patients undergoing POP during this time period based on gender, age, and etiology of gastroparesis. Symptom scores using the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI), scintigraphic gastric emptying studies (GES), and perioperative outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. Thirty patients underwent LP for gastroparesis during the study period which were matched 1:1 with patients undergoing POP. The etiology of gastroparesis was 63.3% idiopathic (n = 19), 20.0% post-surgical (n = 6), and 16.7% diabetic (n = 5) in both cohorts.
RESULTS: Patients who underwent LP had a longer average length of stay (4.6 vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.003), operative time (99.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (12.9 vs. 0.4 mL, p < 0.001). There were more complications in the LP cohort (16.7 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.086), which included surgical site infection (6.7 vs. 0%, p = 0.153), pneumonia (6.7 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.153), and unplanned ICU admission (10.0 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.078). LP and POP both resulted in similar, significant improvements in both in GCSI scores and objective gastric emptying.
CONCLUSIONS: Per-oral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (POP) is safe and effective for the treatment of medical refractory gastroparesis. POP has less perioperative morbidity compared to LP with comparative functional outcomes.
METHODS: All patients who underwent LP for the treatment of gastroparesis from October 2014 through September 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity scoring was used to match these patients 1:1 to patients undergoing POP during this time period based on gender, age, and etiology of gastroparesis. Symptom scores using the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI), scintigraphic gastric emptying studies (GES), and perioperative outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. Thirty patients underwent LP for gastroparesis during the study period which were matched 1:1 with patients undergoing POP. The etiology of gastroparesis was 63.3% idiopathic (n = 19), 20.0% post-surgical (n = 6), and 16.7% diabetic (n = 5) in both cohorts.
RESULTS: Patients who underwent LP had a longer average length of stay (4.6 vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.003), operative time (99.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001), and estimated blood loss (12.9 vs. 0.4 mL, p < 0.001). There were more complications in the LP cohort (16.7 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.086), which included surgical site infection (6.7 vs. 0%, p = 0.153), pneumonia (6.7 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.153), and unplanned ICU admission (10.0 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.078). LP and POP both resulted in similar, significant improvements in both in GCSI scores and objective gastric emptying.
CONCLUSIONS: Per-oral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (POP) is safe and effective for the treatment of medical refractory gastroparesis. POP has less perioperative morbidity compared to LP with comparative functional outcomes.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app