RESUMO
Approximately, 10% to 15% of patients in the United States experience gastroesophageal reflux symptoms on a weekly basis, negatively affecting the quality of life and increasing the risk of reflux-related complications. For patients with symptoms recalcitrant to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy or those who cannot take PPIs, surgical fundoplication is the gold standard. The preoperative workup is complex but vital for operative planning and ensuring good postoperative outcomes. Most patients are highly satisfied after fundoplication, though transient dysphagia, gas bloating, and resumption of PPI use are common postoperatively. Multiple newer technologies offer safe alternatives to fundoplication with similar outcomes.
Assuntos
Refluxo Gastroesofágico , Laparoscopia , Fundoplicatura , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/tratamento farmacológico , Refluxo Gastroesofágico/cirurgia , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis (GP) is hallmarked by nausea, vomiting, and early satiety. While dietary and medical therapy are the mainstay of treatment, surgery has been used to palliate symptoms. Two established first-line surgical options are gastric electrostimulation (GES) and pyloric procedures (PP) including pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy. We sought to compare these modalities' improvement in Gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (GCSI) subscores and potential predictors of therapy failure. METHODS: All patients undergoing surgery at a single institution were prospectively identified and separated by surgery: GES, PP, or combined GESPP. GCSI was collected preoperatively, at 6 weeks and 1 year. Postoperative GCSI score over 2.5 or receipt of another gastroparesis operation were considered treatment failures. Groups were compared using Pearson's chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were included: 18 GES, 51 PP, and 13 GESPP. Mean age was 44, BMI was 26.7, and 80% were female. Preoperative GCSI was 3.7. The PP group was older with more postsurgical gastroparesis. More patients with diabetes underwent GESPP. Preoperative symptom scores and gastric emptying were similar among all groups. All surgical therapies resulted in a significantly improved GCSI and nausea/vomiting subscore at 6 weeks and 1 year. Bloating improved initially, but relapsed in the GES and GESPP group. Satiety improved initially, but relapsed in the PP group. Fifty-nine (72%) had surgical success. Ten underwent additional surgery (7 crossed into the GESPP group, 3 underwent gastric resection). Treatment failures had higher preoperative GCSI, bloating, and satiety scores. Treatment failures and successes had similar preoperative gastric emptying. CONCLUSIONS: Both gastric electrical stimulation and pyloric surgery are successful gastroparesis treatments, with durable improvement in nausea and vomiting. Choice of operation should be guided by patient characteristics and discussion of surgical risks and benefits. Combination GESPP does not appear to confer an advantage over GES or PP alone.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Gastroparesia , Piloromiotomia , Adulto , Estimulação Elétrica , Feminino , Esvaziamento Gástrico , Gastroparesia/etiologia , Gastroparesia/cirurgia , Humanos , Piloro/cirurgia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation is a treatment for symptoms of diabetic or idiopathic gastroparesis refractory to medical management. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of gastric electrical stimulation in the state of Wisconsin during a more than 10-year period. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from patients undergoing implantation of the gastric electrical stimulation to initiate gastric electrical stimulation therapy at two Wisconsin institutions from 2005-2017. The Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index was administered during clinical encounters and over the phone preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients received gastric electrical stimulation therapy (64 diabetic and 55 idiopathic). All devices were placed laparoscopically. Mean follow-up was 34.1 ± 27.2 months in diabetic and 44.7 ± 26.2 months in idiopathic patients. A total of 18 patients died during the study interval (15.1%). No mortalities were device-related. Diabetics had the greatest rate of mortality (25%; mean interval of 17 ± 3 months post implantation). GCSI scores improved, and prokinetic and narcotic medication use decreased significantly at ≥1 year. Satisfaction scores were high. CONCLUSION: Gastric electrical stimulation therapy led to the improvement of symptoms of gastroparesis and a better quality of life. Patients were able to decrease the use of prokinetic and narcotic medications and achieve long-term satisfaction. Diabetic patients who develop symptomatic gastroparesis have a high mortality rate over time.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Gastroparesia/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Eletrodos Implantados , Feminino , Gastroparesia/etiologia , Humanos , Laparoscopia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , WisconsinRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess whether adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines leads to differences in survival in patients diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with stage II and III esophageal cancer included in the Cancer Registry at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 2008 to 2013. Seven quality indicators were identified using the 2014 NCCN guidelines, and individual and overall quality measure scores were calculated and used to define low and high quality of care groups. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients met inclusion criteria, and 88 patients (62.4 %) were identified as receiving high-quality care. Adherence to guidelines ranged from 63.1 to 100.0 %, with an overall compliance of 81.3 %. Risk factors for receiving low quality of care included advanced age, non-white race, lower education level, and unspecified primary site of tumor. A significantly better overall survival was observed in patients who received high-quality care (HR, 0.58; 95 %, 0.37-0.90, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of high-quality care is associated with improved survival in these patients. Efforts should be directed at minimizing disparities in treatment in regards to race and educational levels.