Stark G A, Castell D O, Richter J E, Wu W C
Department of Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Am J Gastroenterol. 1990 Oct;85(10):1322-6.
We report the results of a randomized prospective study comparing a standard bougie rubber balloon dilator [Brown-McHardy (BMH)] and a newer polyethylene dilator passed over a guide wire [Microvasive Rigiflex (MVR)]. Twenty achalasia patients (15M, 5F, mean age 45.4 yr) considered candidates for either dilator were randomized. Symptom assessment, body weight, and upright radionuclide solid esophageal emptying study were measured before and 6 months after pneumatic dilatation. All dilatations were performed by one of three experienced gastroenterologists under fluoroscopic guidance. Overall success occurred with 10/10 BMH and 7/10 MVR. One patient not improved with MVR had myotomy; the other two were successfully treated by BMH. No complications occurred with either dilator.
我们报告了一项随机前瞻性研究的结果，该研究比较了标准的探条式橡胶球囊扩张器[布朗-麦克哈迪（BMH）]和一种新型的经导丝置入的聚乙烯扩张器[微创Rigiflex（MVR）]。20例被认为适合使用任何一种扩张器的贲门失弛缓症患者（15例男性，5例女性，平均年龄45.4岁）被随机分组。在气囊扩张前及扩张后6个月测量症状评估、体重和直立位放射性核素食管固体排空研究。所有扩张均由三位经验丰富的胃肠病学家之一在荧光透视引导下进行。BMH组10例患者全部成功，MVR组7例成功。1例MVR治疗无效的患者接受了肌切开术；另外2例患者经BMH成功治疗。两种扩张器均未发生并发症。
