Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020 Oct;16(10):1543-1553. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2020.05.009. Epub 2020 Jun 1.
Gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is reported in .7% to 4% of cases after sleeve gastrectomy. Two endoscopic balloon dilation techniques are available with no clear consensus on the therapeutic approach.
To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between hydrostatic and pneumatic balloon dilations for GSS.
Academic referral centers, United States and a meta-analysis.
Consecutive patients who presented with GSS and underwent endoscopic hydrostatic and/or pneumatic balloon dilations at 3 tertiary care hospitals were included. Clinical success was defined as an improvement of symptoms that allowed the patient to avoid further interventions. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies for meta-analysis.
Of 46 patients, 13 had pneumatic dilation only, 26 had hydrostatic dilation only, and 7 had pneumatic dilation after failed hydrostatic dilation. Clinical success was not significantly different among the 3 groups with the success rates of 30.8%, 57.6%, and 57.1% (P = .25) after single dilation and 61.5%, 63.6%, and 71.4% (P = .90) after serial dilations in the pneumatic group, hydrostatic group, and pneumatic after failed hydrostatic group, respectively. Patients who failed hydrostatic balloon dilation (n = 7) had a success rate of 71.4% with subsequent pneumatic dilation. Two serious adverse events were observed in the pneumatic group, whereas none were observed in the hydrostatic group. A meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 360 patients demonstrated higher clinical success with single pneumatic balloon dilation compared with hydrostatic balloon dilation (62.2% versus 36.4%; P = .007) with higher adverse events (3 versus 0 events).
Hydrostatic balloon dilation should be considered as an initial modality for GSS given its acceptable success rate and high safety profile. In those who fail hydrostatic balloon dilation, a subsequent step-up approach to pneumatic balloon dilation or revisional surgery should be attempted.
胃袖状切除术(SG)后,胃袖状狭窄(GSS)的发生率为 0.7%至 4%。目前有两种内镜球囊扩张技术,但对于治疗方法尚无明确共识。
比较水动力和气动球囊扩张治疗 GSS 的疗效和安全性。
美国 3 家三级保健中心的学术转诊中心和荟萃分析。
连续纳入在 3 家三级保健中心因 GSS 而行内镜下水动力和/或气动球囊扩张的患者。临床成功定义为症状改善,使患者无需进一步干预。进行了系统文献检索,以确定荟萃分析的相关研究。
46 例患者中,13 例行单纯气动扩张,26 例行单纯水动力扩张,7 例行水动力扩张失败后行气动扩张。在单次扩张中,3 组的临床成功率无显著差异,分别为单纯气动组 30.8%、单纯水动力组 57.6%和水动力扩张失败后行气动扩张组 57.1%(P =.25);在序贯扩张中,气动组、水动力组和水动力扩张失败后行气动扩张组的成功率分别为 61.5%、63.6%和 71.4%(P =.90)。水动力球囊扩张失败的 7 例患者行后续气动扩张,成功率为 71.4%。气动组发生 2 例严重不良事件,水动力组未发生不良事件。对 16 项涉及 360 例患者的研究进行荟萃分析显示,单次气动球囊扩张的临床成功率高于水动力球囊扩张(62.2%对 36.4%;P =.007),不良事件发生率更高(3 例与 0 例)。
鉴于水动力球囊扩张具有可接受的成功率和较高的安全性,应将其作为 GSS 的初始治疗方法。对于水动力球囊扩张失败的患者,应尝试后续的气动球囊扩张或再次手术。