贲门失弛缓症经胃镜球囊扩张治疗的随访研究

贲门失弛缓症是原发性食管运动障碍性疾病，临床主要表现为吞咽困难、胸骨后疼痛和反食等。我们对18例贲门失弛缓症患者经胃镜下定位进行球囊扩张治疗，并于扩张术前后测量下食管括约肌压力(LESP)、下食管括约肌松弛残余压力(LESRP)和吞咽时下食管括约肌松弛率(LESRR)，研究扩张前后下食管括约肌动力学特征及其近、远期疗效。     

贲门失弛缓症气囊扩张前后食管测压指标的变化

贲门失弛缓症病因未明 ,多数人认为是迷走神经及其背核和食管壁肌间神经丛神经节细胞变性乃至消失 ,使得食管体部缺少蠕动和下食管括约肌 (LES)松弛不全。我院自1996年起对 35例贲门失弛缓症患者进行了气囊扩张 ,术前常规进行食管测压 ,其中 17例进行Rigiflex气囊扩张后测压复查及随访。现将其食管动力改变情况分析如下。一、资料和方法1 分组 :(1)病例组 :共 35例贲门失弛缓症患者 ,男 2 0例 ,女 15例 ,平均年龄 (38± 2 7)岁 ,所有患者经内镜和食管钡餐确诊为贲门失弛缓症。 (2 )对照组 :共 30例 ,男 13例 ,女 17例 ,平均年龄 (39± 14 …     

贲门失弛缓症气囊扩张对食管动力近期和中期的影响

目的　探讨气囊扩张对贲门失弛缓症患者食管动力的影响及与扩张疗效的关系。方法　4 8例经临床、钡餐造影、内镜检查及食管测压确诊的贲门失弛缓症 ,采用上消化道动力监测系统。观察扩张前和扩张后 4周以及 12～ 2 4周时的症状计分、钡餐造影显示的食管最大宽度、下食管括约肌压力(LESP)、下食管括约肌松弛率 (LESRR)及食管体部收缩振幅。结果　①扩张后吞咽困难、胸痛和反食症状的计分以及食管的最大宽度均明显低于扩张前 (P <0 .0 5 )。②扩张后 4周、12～ 2 4周 4个方位的LESP明显降低 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,4个方位相应的LESRR扩张后较扩张前明显增加 (P <0 .0 5 )。③扩张前后LESP <2 .6 7kPa次数百分比分别为 4 5 .4 1% ,82 .4 8%和 85 .87% (与扩张前比P <0 .0 5 ) ,LESRR≥80 %的次数百分比分别占 6 .74 % ,5 5 .97%和 4 3.78% (与扩张前比P <0 .0 5 )。④ 4 8例患者中未发现食管体部恢复推进性蠕动波。食管体部收缩振幅扩张前 ,后均表现为无效收缩。结论　①气囊扩张治疗贲门失弛缓症近期、中期疗效较好 ,并有维持治疗作用。②气囊扩张不仅降低LESP且改善LESRR ,是气囊扩张缓解症状、减少食管扩张程度的重要病理生理改变的基础。提示是否再行扩张的食管动力指标除LESP外 ,还要考虑LESRR。     

内镜下注射肉毒毒素治疗贲门失弛缓症的研究

将48例贲门失弛缓症患者随机分为两组，A组注射肉毒毒素治疗，B组用小气囊扩张治疗。分别于治疗后1周、3个月和1年比较两组患者的临床症状积分、下食管插约肌的压力（LESP）、松弛率（LESRR）。结果：治疗后1周、3个月和1年的有效率及治疗前后LESP、LESRR的差值，注射肉毒毒素组均高于小气囊扩张组；两组均无并发症发生。认为内镜下食管下括约肌内注射肉毒毒素治疗贲门失弛缓症的近期疗效高，且患者痛苦小。     

食管测压在贲门失弛缓症诊治中的应用及评价

目的　研究贲门失弛缓症患者的食管压力变化。方法　对 35例贲门失弛缓症患者与 30位正常对照的食管测压数据进行对比分析。结果　贲门失弛缓症组食管体部均为同步蠕动波 ,91 4 % (32 / 35 )为低幅同步收缩波 ;食管下括约肌松弛率 (LESRR)为 (6 9 1± 16 3) % ,明显低于正常对照的 (96 0± 0 1) % (P <0 0 1) ;食管下括约肌压增加 ;食管上括约肌各项指标与正常对照组比较无明显差别。结论　贲门失弛缓症的食管压力以低幅同步收缩波和LESRR增高为特征性表现。     

经口内镜肌切开术对贲门失弛缓症患者食管动力的影响

目的探讨经口内镜肌切开术（POEM）对贲门失弛缓症患者食管动力的影响。方法对3例贲门失弛缓症患者POEM治疗前后的食管测压结果进行对比分析。结果术后3例患者食管下括约肌压力（LESP）和食管上括约肌残余压（UESRP）均低于术前,且差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;术后食管下括约肌残余压（LESRP）有2例明显降低至正常值,有1例变化不大,仍高于正常,平均值较术前降低但差异无统计学意义;术前3例患者均有食管蠕动波消失,术后食管蠕动波均无改善;3例患者术前食管下括约肌松弛率（LESRR）均低于正常值,术后仍均低于正常;食管上括约肌压（UESP）平均值术后较术前降低,但差异无统计学意义。结论POEM近期能明显改善贲门失弛缓症患者的食管动力学特征。     

食管测压在评估气囊扩张术治疗贲门失弛缓症疗效中的作用

背景：贲门失弛缓症是原发性食管运动功能障碍性疾病，气囊扩张术是目前治疗本病的主要方法之一。目的：探讨食管压力测定在评估气囊扩张术治疗贲门失弛缓症疗效中的作用。方法：予21例贲门失弛缓症患者内镜下气囊扩张术，治疗前后行食管压力检测，分析食管下括约肌（LES）和食管体部各参数的变化。结果：扩张后，21例患者的吞咽困难和反流症状消失。与扩张前相比，扩张后LES长度无显著差异，LES静息压和LES残余压显著降低（P〈0．01），LES松弛率显著升高（P〈0．05）。扩张后食管体部同步收缩波和吞咽蠕动波消失的发生率较扩张前无显著差异，继发性收缩波和食管体部静息压高于胃内静息压的发生率较扩张前显著降低（P〈0．01）。结论：气囊扩张术能显著提高LES松弛率，降低LES静息压、LES残余压、食管体部静息压和继发性蠕动波的发生率，迅速缓解患者症状。食管压力测定对评估气囊扩张术治疗贲门失弛缓症的疗效具有重要意义。     

内镜下气囊扩张治疗贲门失弛缓症的价值

贲门失弛缓症是一种病因不明的食管动力学功能障碍性疾病,表现为食管下括约肌的静息压明显高于正常,吞咽时不能充分松弛,严重影响食管排空,目前治疗尚无理想的方案,主要以外科手术及内镜下扩张为主,本文旨在探讨内镜下气囊扩张术治疗贲门失弛缓症的价值. 一、对象:选择1997年8月～1999年12月我院消化专家门诊诊断,并经胃镜钡餐及食管测压,证实贲门失弛缓症39例,男24例,女15例.男女之比1.6:1,年龄18～70岁,平均40.05±10.1岁,随机分组.内镜组20例行内镜下气囊扩张术,外科组19例行Heller手术治疗.     

贲门失弛缓症的病因、病理和发病机制研究进展

贲门失弛缓症是一种食管运动障碍性疾病,以食管缺乏蠕动和食管下括约肌(ＬＥＳ)松弛不良为特征。临床上贲门失弛缓症表现为液体和固体食物的吞咽困难,体重减轻,餐后反食,夜间呛咳以及胸骨后不适或疼痛。以上临床症状加上食管吞钡检查发现食管胃连接处典型的鸟嘴样狭窄、食管扩张以及食管下括约肌压力测定显示ＬＥＳ压力升高,吞咽引起的反射性ＬＥＳ松弛消失,贲门失弛缓症可以确诊。目前治疗有药物、气囊扩张、手术及肉毒杆菌毒素(ＢＴ)局部注射等。现就本病的病因、病理及发病机制作一综述。一、病因和发病机制贲门失弛缓症的病因还不十分清…     

贲门失弛缓症

贲门失弛缓症是一种病因尚未明确、累及食管平滑肌和下食管括约肌（LES）的动力障碍性疾病。以吞咽时食管体部蠕动消失、LES松弛障碍为特征,临床表现为吞咽困难和胸痛等。本病可根据临床表现结合内镜、食管钡餐造影和食管动力学检查等确诊。本文就贲门失弛缓症的流行病学现状、发病机制、临床表现和诊断相关研究进展作一概述。     

Graded Pneumatic Dilation using Rigiflex Achalasia Dilators in Patients with Primary Esophageal Achalasia

Pneumatic dilation is the initial therapy for primary esophageal achalasia. Recently, polyethylene balloon (Rigiflex) dilators have been used with varying success and complication rate. We performed a total of 47 dilations in 29 consecutive patients with achalasia using the Rigiflex dilators. The 3.0-cm balloon was always used first. If there was no symptomatic response, a 3.5-cm balloon was used after 4–8 wk. If there was still no symptomatic response after 4-8 wk, a 4.0-cm dilator was used. Eighteen (62%) patients were successfully dilated with a 3.0-cm balloon only. Of 11 patients not responding to a 3.0-cm balloon, five were dilated successfully with a 3.5-cm balloon. Of six patients not responding to a 3.5-cm balloon, four were successfully dilated with a 4.0-cm balloon dilator. Two patients eventually required surgery. The overall success with Rigiflex balloon dilator was achieved in 27 of 29 (93%) patients. There were no complications. We conclude that pneumatic dilation for esophageal achalasia performed in a graded fashion starting with Rigiflex 3.0-cm balloon dilator has a high success rate without complications in patients with achalasia.     

Rigiflex气囊扩张治疗贲门失驰缓症复发患者的临床应用价值

目的探讨Rigiflex气囊扩张治疗贲门失弛缓症复发患者的疗效及安全性。方法2000至2012年泰山医学院附属医院27例首次气囊扩张治疗术后复发的贲门失弛缓症患者再次应用直径为3.5 cm的Rigiflex气囊扩张治疗（Rigiflex气囊组）,治疗后1、3、6、12、24、36个月随访患者临床症状积分、食管钡透检查、并发症情况等,并与43例首次接受3.2 cm直径哑铃型气囊扩张治疗患者（哑铃型气囊组）进行对照。Rigiflex气囊组与哑铃型气囊组患者治疗有效率比较采用χ^2检验。Rigiflex气囊组与哑铃型气囊组患者治疗前、后贲门口直径、5 min存留钡柱高度比较采用t检验。结果 Rigiflex气囊组患者治疗后6、12、24、36个月的治疗有效率分别为81.5%、77.8%、70.4%、51.9%,均高于哑铃型气囊组患者的65.1%、39.5%、27.9%、18.6%,且差异均有统计学意义（χ^2值分别为2.18、93.77、12.12、8.51,均P〈0.05）。Rigiflex气囊组患者治疗后1、3、6、12、24、36个月贲门口直径均大于哑铃型气囊组患者,5 min存留钡柱高度均低于哑铃型气囊扩张组患者,且差异均有统计学意义（贲门口直径：t值分别为2.96、14.69、20.96、17.24、9.70、8.09;5 min存留钡柱高度：t值分别为2.77、3.85、4.96、6.25、7.78、6.38;P〈0.05或0.01）。2组患者均未发现食管大出血及穿孔等并发症发生。结论选择3.5 cm直径的大口径Rigiflex气囊序贯扩张治疗复发的贲门失缓症患者长期疗效显著,效价比突出,治疗安全性高。     

Long-term effects of pneumatic dilatation on symptoms and lower oesophageal sphincter pressure in achalasia

BACKGROUND: Pneumatic dilatation is an effective treatment for achalasia. Although follow-up studies have shown that its clinical benefit persists for years, it is still unknown whether the decrease in lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) pressure is maintained over time. Our aim is to assess the long-term effects of pneumatic dilatation on symptoms and LOS pressure in patients with idiopathic achalasia. METHODS: Eleven consecutive patients with achalasia (7 men) underwent I (n = 5) or 2 (n = 6) pneumatic dilatations (Rigiflex dilator) in order to achieve a stable (>1 year) clinical remission. Clinical scores (0-12, with scores of <3 indicating remission) and LOS pressure (sleeve manometry) were determined before treatment, after 3 and 12 months, and then every year for 6 years. RESULTS: No operative complications occurred. The patients showed a marked clinical improvement (2.0 (2.0-2.0), median (IQ range), after 3 months versus 8.0 (7.2-9.0) before treatment; P < 0.001), which was maintained throughout the follow-up period. Concurrently, there was a marked decrease in LOS pressure (5.0 (4.0-7.0) mmHg after 3 months versus 25.0 (20.0-36.2) before treatment; P < 0.001), which also remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: One or two pneumatic dilatations induce stable clinical remission and a decrease in LOS pressure that remains unchanged over time. Our data further support the use of dilatations as first-line treatment of achalasia.     

Achalasia: diagnosis and management.

Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown cause that produces complaints of dysphagia, regurgitation, and chest pain. The current treatments for achalasia involve the reduction of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, resulting in improved esophageal emptying. Calcium channel blockers and nitrates, once used as an initial treatment strategy for early achalasia, are now used only in patients who are not candidates for pneumatic dilation or surgery, and in patients who do not respond to botulinum toxin injections. Because of the more rigid balloons, the current pneumatic dilators are more effective than the older, more compliant balloons. The graded approach to pneumatic dilation, using the Rigiflex (Boston Scientific Corp, Boston, MA) balloons (3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 cm) is now the most commonly used nonsurgical means of treating patients with achalasia, resulting in symptom improvement in up to 90% of patients. Surgical myotomy, once plagued by high morbidity and long hospital stay, can now be performed laparoscopically, with similar efficacy to the open surgical approach (94% versus 84%, respectively), reduced morbidity, and reduced hospitalization time. Because of the advances in both balloon dilation and laparoscopic myotomy, most patients with achalasia can now choose between these two equally efficacious treatment options. Botulinum toxin injection of the LES should be reserved for patients who can not undergo balloon dilation and are not surgical candidates.     

Pneumatic balloon dilation in achalasia: a prospective comparison of balloon distention time

Objective: Duration of Inflation in pneumatic balloon dilatation as treatment of achalasia has been variable ranging from 15 s to 6 min. A 60 s duration appears to be most often used. We compared the efficacy of dilation of achalasia with either 6- or 60-s inflation duration using a Rigiflex dilator of 3.0 cm diameter.
Methods: Eighty-one consecutive patients were prospectively studied in a randomized fashion, 41 in the 60-s group (A) and 40 patients in the 6-s group (B). Mean age of group A was 43 ± 16.2 yr and of group B was 40 ± 16.4 yr. Symptoms of dysphagia, chest pain, heartburn, regurgitation, and night cough were evaluated at basal (before dilation), 1- and 6-month intervals after dilation in both groups. Barium swallow was done to assess esophageal emptying 1 wk before dilation and 5 min postdilation in both groups.
Results: Significant and sustained improvement was seen for all symptoms in both groups. In addition, the degree of improvement in symptom scores between the two groups was similar. Barium esophagram in both groups at basal and immediately postdilation showed significant improvement in barium emptying but there was no significant difference between the two groups, indicative of equal efficacy in both distention times. Two patients needed repeat dilatation in group A and one in group B, with one drop out from group A, who was lost to follow-up, and was excluded from the analysis. No perforation occurred.
Conclusion: Short duration of pneumatic balloon dilatation (6-s) is as effective as longer duration (60-s) in treatment of achalasia.     

Long-term results of graded pneumatic dilatation under endoscopic guidance in patients with primary esophageal achalasia

AIM: Achalasia is the best known primary motor disorder of the esophagus in which the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) has abnormally high resting pressure and incomplete relaxation with swallowing. Pneumatic dilatation remains the first choice of treatment. The aims of this study were to determine the long term clinical outcome of treating achalasia initially with pneumatic dilatation and usefulness of pneumatic dilatation technique under endoscopic observation without fluoroscopy. METHODS: A total of 65 dilatations were performed in 43 patients with achalasia [23 males and 20 females, the mean age was 43 years (range, 19-73)]. All patients underwent an initial dilatation by inflating a 30 mm balloon to 15 psi under endoscopic control. The need for subsequent dilatation was based on symptom assessment. A 3.5 cm balloon was used for repeat procedures. RESULTS: The 30 mm balloon achieved a satisfactory result in 24 patients (54%) and the 35 mm ballon in 78% of the remainder (14/18). Esophageal perforation as a short-term complication was observed in one patient (2.3%). The only late complication encountered was gastroesophageal reflux in 2 (4%) patients with a good response to dilatation. The mean follow-up period was 2.4 years (6 mo - 5 years). Of the patients studied, 38 (88%) were relieved of their symptoms after only one or two sessions. Five patients were referred for surgery (one for esophageal perforation and four for persistent or recurrent symptoms). Among the patients whose follow up information was available, the percentage of patients in remission was 79% (19/24) at 1 year and 54% (7/13) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Performing balloon dilatation under endoscopic observation as an outpatient procedure is simple, safe and efficacious for treating patients with achalasia and referral of surgical myotomy should be considered for patients who do not respond to medical therapy or individuals that do not desire pneumatic dilatations.     

Sixteen years follow up of achalasia: A prospective study of graded dilatation using Rigiflex balloon

Pneumatic balloon dilatation is the treatment of choice for esophageal achalasia. Rigiflex (Microvasive, Watertown, MA) polyethylene balloon dilators have been used with varying success and complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of graded balloon dilatation, to achieve symptomatic improvement in patients with achalasia. From January 1987 until the end of December 2003, 300 patients were evaluated and treated for achalasia, with 30 mm balloons. Patients who did not achieve satisfactory symptomatic responses during follow up underwent repeat dilatation with 35-mm balloons. They were studied at the onset then at 1 and 6 month intervals and then yearly for postdilatation symptom evaluation for dysphagia, regurgitation, night cough and heartburn. Baseline and 5-min postdilatation barium swallow studies were obtained to compare barium height and width for efficacy of dilatation and to evaluate for complications. No patients developed cancer of the esophagus in 16 years follow up. Barium height, width, composite symptom score and weight improved significantly during follow up. Two patients, who needed repeat dilatation with 35-mm balloons, developed esophageal perforation; one was successfully managed with intensive medical care management, whereas the other patient died despite surgical intervention. The authors conclude that pneumatic balloon (Rigiflex) dilatation for achalasia of the esophagus is a successful first option, when applied in an incremental balloon size to achieve desired results in symptomatic relief.     

Radiographic evaluation of achalasia immediately after pneumatic dilatation with the Rigiflex dilator

Radiographic evaluation of the lower esophagus was done immediately after pneumatic dilatation using the Rigiflex dilator in 34 patients (24 men, 10 women; mean age, 55 years) with achalasia. The dilator was positioned across the esophagogastic junction using fluoroscopy and the balloon was inflated for 1 min. The esophagus was intubated and injected sequentially with water-soluble and barium contrast materials. Radiographic analysis included changes in the appearance of the caliber and contour of the esophagogastric junction, rate of esophageal emptying, and presence of complications. In 23 patients with predilatation esophagrams, the mean esophagogastric junction caliber increased from 4.7-7.6 mm following dilatation. The postdilatation esophagrams in 33 patients showed a smooth contour in 22 (67%) and immediate esophageal emptying in 26 (79%). Esophageal perforation occurred in one (3%) patient and intramural hematoma in one (3%). Clinical follow-up (mean, 7 months) was available in 29 patients and 23 (79%) had symptomatic improvement. Five of the six patients who did not improve clinically all had previous Heller myotomy, pneumatic dilatation, or both.     

Intrasphincteric botulinum toxin versus pneumatic dilatation for achalasia: a cost minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pneumatic dilatation or intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection provide effective symptom relief for patients with achalasia. Although intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection is simple and safe, its efficacy may be short-lived. Pneumatic dilatation lasts longer, but esophageal perforation is a risk. We compared treatment costs for pneumatic dilatation and intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection using a decision analysis model to determine whether the practical advantages of intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection outweigh the economic impact of the need for frequent re-treatment. METHODS: Probability estimates for intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection were derived from published reports. Probability estimates for the pneumatic dilatation strategy were obtained by retrospective review of our 10-year experience using the Rigiflex dilator. Direct, "third-party payer" costs were determined in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection was significantly more costly at $5033 compared with $3608 for the pneumatic dilatation strategy, yielding an incremental cost of $1425 over the 10-year period considered. Sensitivity analysis showed that pneumatic dilatation is less expensive across all probable ranges of costs and probability estimates. The intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection strategy is less costly if life-expectancy is less than 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection is more costly than pneumatic dilatation for the treatment of achalasia. The added expense of frequent re-treatment with intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection outweighs the potential economic benefits of the safety of the procedure, unless life-expectancy is 2 years or less.     

Risk factors of oesophageal perforation during pneumatic dilatation for achalasia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Pneumatic dilatation of the oesophagus is a well established treatment for achalasia. Oesophageal perforation is the most serious complication that occurs in 2% to 6% of cases. The aim of this retrospective survey was to identify predictive risk factors for perforation in a consecutive series of 218 patients with achalasia. METHODS: Between 1983 and 1993, 270 pneumatic dilatations were performed in 218 patients. A Witzel dilator was used in 58 cases and a Rigiflex dilator in 212. Eight oesophageal perforations occurred (3%). The clinical, radiological, endoscopic, manometric, and technical data for the eight perforated patients were compared with those of 30 patients randomly sampled among those without perforation. RESULTS: All perforations occurred during the first dilatation. Perforations were fewer during dilatations with the Rigiflex dilator than with the Witzel dilator (2.4% v 5.2%). Perforations were all located above the cardia, on the left side of the oesophagus. In a multivariate analysis, a small weight loss and a high amplitude of oesophageal contractions in the group of patients with perforations were predictive of complications (respectively, p = 0.001 and p = 0.026). A contraction amplitude higher than 70 cm H2O in the lower part of the oesophagus was observed in three of eight patients with perforations but was not seen in any of the 30 patients without perforation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This identification of risk factors should facilitate the choice between pneumatic dilatation or a surgical approach.