Laparoscopic Esocardiomyotomy—Risk Factors and Implications of Intraoperative Mucosal Perforation
Author:
Alkadour Abdullah12, Panaitescu Eugenia3ORCID, Hoară Petre12, Constantinoiu Silviu12, Mitrea-Tocitu Madalina2, Ciuc Diana4, Dinca Valeriu-Gabi5, Bîrla Rodica12ORCID
Affiliation:
1. General Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania 2. Clinic of General and Esophageal Surgery, “Sf. Maria” Clinical Hospital, 011192 Bucharest, Romania 3. Medical Informatics and Biostatistics Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania 4. ENT Department CFR 2 Clinic Hospital, 011464 Bucharest, Romania 5. Faculty of Medicine, “TituMaiorescu” University, 031593 Bucharest, Romania
Abstract
Background: Mucosal perforation during laparoscopic esocardiomyotomy is quite frequent, and its consequences cannot always be neglected. The purpose of the study is to investigate the risk factors for intraoperative mucosal perforation and its implications on the postoperative outcomes and the functional results three months postoperatively. Material and methods: We retrospectively identified the patients with laparoscopic esocardiomyotomy performed at Sf. Maria Hospital Bucharest, in the period between January 2017–January 2022 and collected the data (preoperative—clinic, manometric and imaging, intra-and postoperative). To identify the risk factors for mucosal perforations, we used logistic regression analysis. Results: We included 60 patients; intraoperative mucosal perforation occurred in 8.33% of patients. The risk factors were: the presence of tertiary contractions (OR = 14.00, 95%CI = [1.23, 158.84], p = 0.033206), the number of propagated waves ≤6 (OR = 14.50), 95%CI = [1.18, 153.33], p < 0.05), the length of esophageal myotomy (OR = 1.74, 95%CI = [1.04, 2.89] p < 0.05), the length of esocardiomyotomy (OR = 1.74, 95%CI = [1.04, 2.89] p < 0.05), and a protective factor—the intraoperative upper endoscopy (OR = 0.037, 95%CI = [0.003, 0.382] p < 0.05). Conclusions: Identifying risk factors for this adverse intraoperative event may decrease the incidence and make this surgery safer. Although mucosal perforation resulted in prolonged hospital stays, it did not lead to significant differences in functional outcomes.
Subject
Paleontology,Space and Planetary Science,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference44 articles.
1. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of achalasia;Vaezi;Am. J. Gastroenterol.,2013 2. Achalasia: From diagnosis to management;Vaezi;Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.,2016 3. Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0©;Yadlapati;Neurogastroenterol. Motil.,2021 4. Outcomes of treatment for achalasia depend on manometric subtype;Rohof;Gastroenterology,2013 5. Tang, Y., Jin, P., Tao, Y., Xie, H., Wang, X., Yu, D., Tang, S., and Sheng, J. (2022). Comparison of fully coated anti-reflux metal stenting and per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia: A propensity score-matched retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol., 22.
|
|