Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
St Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute, Harrow, UK.
Br J Surg. 2018 Jul;105(8):1028-1035. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10805. Epub 2018 Mar 30.
The aim of this national population-based cohort study was to compare rates of reintervention after surgical myotomy versus sequential pneumatic dilatation for the primary management of oesophageal achalasia.
Patients with oesophageal achalasia diagnosed between 2002 and 2012, and without an intervention in the preceding 5 years were identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Patients were divided into two groups based on the primary treatment, and propensity score matching was used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.
Some 14 705 patients were diagnosed with oesophageal achalasia, of whom 7487 (50·9 per cent) received interventional treatment: 1742 (23·3 per cent) surgical myotomy, 4534 (60·6 per cent) pneumatic dilatation and 1211 (16·2 per cent) endoscopic botulinum toxin injection. As age increased, the proportion of patients receiving myotomy decreased and the proportion undergoing dilatation increased. Patients who underwent surgical myotomy were younger (mean age 44·8 years versus 58·5 years among those who had pneumatic dilatation; P < 0·001), a greater proportion had a Charlson co-morbidity index score of 0 (90·1 versus 87·7 per cent; P = 0·003) and they were more commonly men (55·6 versus 51·8 per cent; P = 0·020). Following propensity score matching, the safety of the two initial treatment approaches was equivalent, with no difference in incidence of oesophageal perforation (1·3 and 1·4 per cent after myotomy and dilatation respectively; P = 0·750). However, dilatation was associated with increased need for reintervention (59·6 versus 13·8 per cent; P < 0·001) and frequency of reinterventions (mean 0·34 versus 0·06 per year; P < 0·001).
Surgical myotomy was associated with a lower rate of reintervention and could be offered as primary treatment in patients with oesophageal achalasia who are fit for surgery. For those unfit for surgery, pneumatic dilatation may provide symptomatic relief with approximately 60 per cent of patients requiring reintervention.
本项全国性基于人群的队列研究旨在比较食管失弛缓症的初次治疗中,行肌切开术与序贯气囊扩张术的再干预率。
从医院病例统计数据库中,选取 2002 年至 2012 年诊断为食管失弛缓症且在之前 5 年内未接受过任何干预的患者。根据初次治疗,将患者分为两组,并使用倾向评分匹配来补偿基线特征的差异。
共有 14705 例患者被诊断为食管失弛缓症,其中 7487 例(50.9%)接受了介入治疗:1742 例(23.3%)行肌切开术,4534 例(60.6%)行气囊扩张术,1211 例(16.2%)行内镜肉毒毒素注射。随着年龄的增长,接受肌切开术的患者比例下降,而行扩张术的患者比例增加。行肌切开术的患者更年轻(平均年龄 44.8 岁,而行气囊扩张术的患者平均年龄 58.5 岁;P<0.001),有更高比例的Charlson 合并症指数评分为 0(90.1%与 87.7%;P=0.003),更常见为男性(55.6%与 51.8%;P=0.020)。经倾向评分匹配后,两种初始治疗方法的安全性相当,食管穿孔的发生率无差异(肌切开术和扩张术分别为 1.3%和 1.4%;P=0.750)。然而,扩张术与再干预的需求增加相关(59.6%与 13.8%;P<0.001)和再干预的频率增加(平均每年 0.34 次与 0.06 次;P<0.001)。
肌切开术与较低的再干预率相关,可作为适合手术的食管失弛缓症患者的初次治疗。对于不适合手术的患者,气囊扩张术可能提供症状缓解,约 60%的患者需要再干预。