埋入式保险杠综合征的治疗:一项纳入 160 例病例的多中心回顾性研究。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Ingo Steinbrück, Jürgen Pohl, Matthias Friesicke, Johannes Grothaus, Thomas von Hahn, Jan Drews, Siegbert Faiss, Armin Kuellmer, Helge Otto, Hans-Peter Allgaier
{"title":"埋入式保险杠综合征的治疗:一项纳入 160 例病例的多中心回顾性研究。","authors":"Ingo Steinbrück, Jürgen Pohl, Matthias Friesicke, Johannes Grothaus, Thomas von Hahn, Jan Drews, Siegbert Faiss, Armin Kuellmer, Helge Otto, Hans-Peter Allgaier","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and goals: </strong>The therapy of buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is difficult. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to analyze the treatment methods with focus on effectiveness and safety of endoscopic techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis of all therapies and a comparison of the papillotome technique (PT) and needle knife-based nonpapillotome technique (NPT) were performed. Primary endpoint was technical success in one session, secondary endpoints overall technical success, number and duration of treatment sessions, SAE, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary treatment of 160 BBS cases, diagnosed between 2003 and 2021, was NPT in 60 (37.5%), PT in 43 (26.9%), push/pull technique (PPT) in 40 (25.0%), no removal in 9 (5.6%), laparotomy in 7 (4.4%) cases, and external incision in 1 (0.6%) case. For PT and NPT rates of technical success in one session were 95.5% and 45.0% (P<0.01), rates of overall technical success 100% and 88.3% (P=0.02), and mean number and duration of treatment sessions 1.05 (±0.21) versus 1.70 (±0.91) (P<0.01) and 32.17 (±21.73) versus 98,00 (±62.28) minutes (P<0.01), respectively. No significant differences between PT and NPT were found for SAE (15.9% vs. 25.0%) and mortality (2.3% vs. 1.7%). For PPT, laparotomy and external incision rates of technical success in one session and overall technical success were 100%, rates of SAE 2.5%, 50.0%, and 0% and mortality 0%, 10.0%, and 0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopic therapy of BBS is treatment of choice in most cases with removal of incomplete BB by PPT. In case of complete BB PT appears more effective than NPT.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment of the Buried Bumper Syndrome​​​​​: A Retrospective Multicenter Study With Inclusion of 160 Cases.\",\"authors\":\"Ingo Steinbrück, Jürgen Pohl, Matthias Friesicke, Johannes Grothaus, Thomas von Hahn, Jan Drews, Siegbert Faiss, Armin Kuellmer, Helge Otto, Hans-Peter Allgaier\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and goals: </strong>The therapy of buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is difficult. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to analyze the treatment methods with focus on effectiveness and safety of endoscopic techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis of all therapies and a comparison of the papillotome technique (PT) and needle knife-based nonpapillotome technique (NPT) were performed. Primary endpoint was technical success in one session, secondary endpoints overall technical success, number and duration of treatment sessions, SAE, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary treatment of 160 BBS cases, diagnosed between 2003 and 2021, was NPT in 60 (37.5%), PT in 43 (26.9%), push/pull technique (PPT) in 40 (25.0%), no removal in 9 (5.6%), laparotomy in 7 (4.4%) cases, and external incision in 1 (0.6%) case. For PT and NPT rates of technical success in one session were 95.5% and 45.0% (P<0.01), rates of overall technical success 100% and 88.3% (P=0.02), and mean number and duration of treatment sessions 1.05 (±0.21) versus 1.70 (±0.91) (P<0.01) and 32.17 (±21.73) versus 98,00 (±62.28) minutes (P<0.01), respectively. No significant differences between PT and NPT were found for SAE (15.9% vs. 25.0%) and mortality (2.3% vs. 1.7%). For PPT, laparotomy and external incision rates of technical success in one session and overall technical success were 100%, rates of SAE 2.5%, 50.0%, and 0% and mortality 0%, 10.0%, and 0%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopic therapy of BBS is treatment of choice in most cases with removal of incomplete BB by PPT. In case of complete BB PT appears more effective than NPT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002018\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目标:埋藏包块综合征(BBS)的治疗非常困难。这项回顾性多中心研究旨在分析治疗方法,重点关注内窥镜技术的有效性和安全性:方法:对所有治疗方法进行了分析,并比较了乳头切开术(PT)和针刀非乳头切开术(NPT)。主要终点是一次治疗的技术成功率,次要终点是总体技术成功率、治疗次数和持续时间、SAE和死亡率:2003年至2021年期间确诊的160例BBS病例的主要治疗方法为:NPT 60例(37.5%)、PT 43例(26.9%)、推/拉技术(PPT)40例(25.0%)、不切除9例(5.6%)、开腹手术7例(4.4%)和外切口1例(0.6%)。PT和NPT一次治疗的技术成功率分别为95.5%和45.0%(PC结论:在大多数病例中,BBS 的内窥镜疗法是通过 PPT 清除不完全 BB 的首选疗法。对于完全性 BB,PT 似乎比 NPT 更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment of the Buried Bumper Syndrome​​​​​: A Retrospective Multicenter Study With Inclusion of 160 Cases.

Background and goals: The therapy of buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is difficult. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to analyze the treatment methods with focus on effectiveness and safety of endoscopic techniques.

Methods: The analysis of all therapies and a comparison of the papillotome technique (PT) and needle knife-based nonpapillotome technique (NPT) were performed. Primary endpoint was technical success in one session, secondary endpoints overall technical success, number and duration of treatment sessions, SAE, and mortality.

Results: The primary treatment of 160 BBS cases, diagnosed between 2003 and 2021, was NPT in 60 (37.5%), PT in 43 (26.9%), push/pull technique (PPT) in 40 (25.0%), no removal in 9 (5.6%), laparotomy in 7 (4.4%) cases, and external incision in 1 (0.6%) case. For PT and NPT rates of technical success in one session were 95.5% and 45.0% (P<0.01), rates of overall technical success 100% and 88.3% (P=0.02), and mean number and duration of treatment sessions 1.05 (±0.21) versus 1.70 (±0.91) (P<0.01) and 32.17 (±21.73) versus 98,00 (±62.28) minutes (P<0.01), respectively. No significant differences between PT and NPT were found for SAE (15.9% vs. 25.0%) and mortality (2.3% vs. 1.7%). For PPT, laparotomy and external incision rates of technical success in one session and overall technical success were 100%, rates of SAE 2.5%, 50.0%, and 0% and mortality 0%, 10.0%, and 0%.

Conclusions: Endoscopic therapy of BBS is treatment of choice in most cases with removal of incomplete BB by PPT. In case of complete BB PT appears more effective than NPT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
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