Laparoscopic pyloroplasty versus endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy for the treatment of gastroparesis
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 pyloro...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2019-03, Vol.33 (3), p.773-781 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00464-018-6342-6 |