Becker K, Biesenbach S, Erckenbrecht J F, Frieling T
Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital "Florence Nightingale", Kaiserswerther Diakonie, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Z Gastroenterol. 2001 Oct;39(10):831-6. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-17868.
Pneumatic dilation is the standard non-surgical treatment of achalasia. The dilation devices in use differ in their physical properties, particularly with regard to balloon compliance.
35 achalasia patients (18male, 20-82 years, median 45 years) diagnosed by accepted criteria were prospectively and randomly assigned to 39 dilation procedures by either a low compliance dilation device (LCDD, polyethylene balloon, Rigiflex(trade mark), Microvasive Boston Scientific, USA, n = 18) or a high compliance dilation device (HCDD, latex balloon, Rüsch Inc., Germany, n = 17). Individual complaints were graded by a standardized questionnaire before treatment and prospectively after a median of 3 and 13 months. Furthermore, the patients' readiness to retrospectively re-consent (treatment satisfaction) and treatment complications were recorded.
Patient groups did not differ with regard to age, sex, number of previous dilations, and duration of follow-up (Mann-Whitney U-test, p > 0.05). 2 patients were excluded from follow-up, with one individual (HCDD) having suffered a dilation-related perforation (2.6 %) and another subject (LCDD) having not been able to re-contact. Initial and post-treatment symptom scores as well as treatment complications were similar in both treatment groups (p > 0.05). Treatment satisfaction was 90 % for the LCDD and 82 % for the HCDD group at first control, and 89 % and 87 % at second control, respectively (p > 0.05). In both patient groups, dilation therapy best improved the symptom "dysphagia" (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p < 0.05).
Achalasia patients' satisfaction of dilation treatment is high, with their dysphagia benefiting most from therapy. Low and high compliance balloon devices did not differ from each other with regard to symptomatic efficacy and safety in forceful dilation of these individuals.
气囊扩张术是贲门失弛缓症的标准非手术治疗方法。目前使用的扩张装置物理特性不同,尤其是气囊顺应性方面。
35例经公认标准诊断为贲门失弛缓症的患者(18例男性,年龄20 - 82岁,中位年龄45岁),前瞻性地随机分为两组,分别接受39次使用低顺应性扩张装置(LCDD,聚乙烯气囊,美国波士顿科学公司生产的Rigiflex商标产品,n = 18)或高顺应性扩张装置(HCDD,乳胶气囊,德国Rüsch公司生产,n = 17)的扩张治疗。在治疗前以及前瞻性地在中位时间3个月和13个月后,通过标准化问卷对个体主诉进行评分。此外,记录患者回顾性再次同意治疗的意愿(治疗满意度)以及治疗并发症。
两组患者在年龄、性别、既往扩张次数以及随访时间方面无差异(曼 - 惠特尼U检验,p > 0.05)。2例患者被排除在随访之外,1例(HCDD组)发生与扩张相关的穿孔(2.6%),另1例(LCDD组)无法再次联系。两个治疗组的初始和治疗后症状评分以及治疗并发症相似(p > 0.05)。首次复查时,LCDD组治疗满意度为90%,HCDD组为82%;第二次复查时,分别为89%和87%(p > 0.05)。在两组患者中,扩张治疗对“吞咽困难”症状改善最为明显(威尔科克森秩和检验,p < 0.05)。
贲门失弛缓症患者对扩张治疗的满意度较高,其中吞咽困难症状从治疗中获益最大。在对这些个体进行强力扩张时,低顺应性和高顺应性气囊装置在症状改善效果和安全性方面并无差异。