Comparative analysis of CO2 laser and ultracision harmonic scalpel for endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticulum using a propensity score: A retrospective observational study

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
{"title":"Comparative analysis of CO2 laser and ultracision harmonic scalpel for endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticulum using a propensity score: A retrospective observational study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) is a progressive condition that can cause dysphagia and aspiration. Endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy (ECPM) is the gold standard treatment for ZD, but there are various techniques available. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the ultrasonic harmonic scalpel (UHS) versus the CO2 laser (CO2L) for ECPM in ZD.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>We led an observational study. The main composite outcome consisted in persistence of postoperative dysphagia OR recurrence/reoperation of symptomatic ZD within two years postoperatively. Surgery was considered effective when no dysphagia within two years postoperatively. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of acute mediastinitis within 72 h postoperatively. A propensity score was built to adjust for differences observed between non-randomized groups. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>All patients with ECPM surgery for ZD were included from 2011 to 2018 in a single tertiary center. Patients with failure of endoscopic exposition were excluded.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>The study included 86 patients who underwent ECPM with either the CO2L (<em>n</em> = 53) or UHS (<em>n</em> = 33) technique. ZD size and other demographic variables were comparable between the groups.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>UHS had superior efficacy compared to CO2L (relative risk of failure = 0.29; 95 % confidence interval: 0.05–1.0; <em>p</em> = 0.05), but there was a higher incidence of mediastinitis in the UHS group (12 % vs. 4 %), although this was not statistically significant.</p></div><div><h3>Results and conclusion</h3><p>The UHS technique appears to be an effective technique for ECPM in ZD patients but its safety remains to explore by further larger studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7591,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Otolaryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196070924002217","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) is a progressive condition that can cause dysphagia and aspiration. Endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy (ECPM) is the gold standard treatment for ZD, but there are various techniques available. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the ultrasonic harmonic scalpel (UHS) versus the CO2 laser (CO2L) for ECPM in ZD.

Design

We led an observational study. The main composite outcome consisted in persistence of postoperative dysphagia OR recurrence/reoperation of symptomatic ZD within two years postoperatively. Surgery was considered effective when no dysphagia within two years postoperatively. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of acute mediastinitis within 72 h postoperatively. A propensity score was built to adjust for differences observed between non-randomized groups. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed.

Setting

All patients with ECPM surgery for ZD were included from 2011 to 2018 in a single tertiary center. Patients with failure of endoscopic exposition were excluded.

Participants

The study included 86 patients who underwent ECPM with either the CO2L (n = 53) or UHS (n = 33) technique. ZD size and other demographic variables were comparable between the groups.

Main outcome measures

UHS had superior efficacy compared to CO2L (relative risk of failure = 0.29; 95 % confidence interval: 0.05–1.0; p = 0.05), but there was a higher incidence of mediastinitis in the UHS group (12 % vs. 4 %), although this was not statistically significant.

Results and conclusion

The UHS technique appears to be an effective technique for ECPM in ZD patients but its safety remains to explore by further larger studies.

使用倾向性评分对二氧化碳激光和超声波谐波手术刀治疗禅克氏憩室进行内窥镜治疗的比较分析:回顾性观察研究
目的曾克氏憩室(ZD)是一种进展性疾病,可导致吞咽困难和误吸。内镜环咽肌切开术(ECPM)是治疗 ZD 的金标准,但目前有多种技术可供选择。我们旨在比较超声波谐波手术刀(UHS)与二氧化碳激光(CO2L)用于环咽肌切开术治疗浙大的疗效和安全性。主要综合结果包括术后持续吞咽困难或术后两年内症状性浙大复发/手术。如果术后两年内无吞咽困难,则认为手术有效。次要结果是术后 72 小时内发生急性纵隔炎。该研究建立了倾向评分,以调整非随机分组之间的差异。研究还进行了其他敏感性分析。研究背景2011年至2018年,一家三级医疗中心纳入了所有接受ECPM手术治疗ZD的患者。排除了内镜暴露失败的患者。参与者该研究纳入了86名患者,他们接受了CO2L(n = 53)或UHS(n = 33)技术的ECPM手术。主要结果测量UHS的疗效优于CO2L(失败的相对风险=0.29;95%置信区间:0.05-1.0;P=0.05),但UHS组纵隔炎的发生率较高(12%对4%),但无统计学意义。结果和结论UHS技术似乎是ZD患者进行ECPM的有效技术,但其安全性仍有待进一步的大型研究来探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Otolaryngology
American Journal of Otolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
378
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Be fully informed about developments in otology, neurotology, audiology, rhinology, allergy, laryngology, speech science, bronchoesophagology, facial plastic surgery, and head and neck surgery. Featured sections include original contributions, grand rounds, current reviews, case reports and socioeconomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信