ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes of laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with the spectrum of nonspecific spastic esophageal motor disorders (NSSDs) are not known. METHODS: From a prospective database of patients undergoing LARS between 1997 and 2000, those with preoperative manometry at our institution and follow-up at ?6 months were identified. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients, 35 had NSSDs. There were no differences in symptoms between groups preoperatively, but in the immediate postoperative period NSSD patients had more symptoms than nonspastic patients. At 18-month mean follow-up, NSSD patients reported significantly more heartburn (22% vs 7%), waterbrash (14% vs 4%), and medication usage (17% vs 5%) than nonspastic patients (p <0.05 for each). Despite this difference, nearly all patients reported subjective improvement postoperatively, and the degree of improvement was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NSSDs are more likely to have esophageal symptoms following LARS than subjects without these abnormalities. However, these patients still experience significant improvement in preoperative symptoms.
Subject(s)
Esophageal Motility Disorders/complications , Gastroesophageal Reflux/surgery , Laparoscopy/methods , Anti-Ulcer Agents/therapeutic use , Databases, Factual , Esophageal Motility Disorders/metabolism , Esophagus/chemistry , Esophagus/drug effects , Esophagus/pathology , Esophagus/surgery , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Fundoplication/methods , Fundoplication/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Laparoscopy/statistics & numerical data , Male , Manometry/methods , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/drug therapy , Preoperative Care/methods , Preoperative Care/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study compared clinical outcomes after laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who would be eligible for endoluminal therapies (ET) with those in patients who would be excluded from ET. METHODS: From 1995 to the present, 459 patients who underwent LARS were analyzed prospectively. Of these, 117 patients (25%) without preoperative dysphagia, stricture, esophagitis worse than grade 2 or hiatal hernia larger than 2 cm were considered potential candidates for ET (group 1). By these criteria, 342 patients (75%) were not eligible for ET (group 2). Medication use and GERD symptoms were evaluated and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Perioperative outcomes including duration of operation, morbidity, length of hospital stay and return to work were similar in the two groups. Although LARS significantly reduced medication use and GERD symptoms in both groups during a mean follow-up period longer than 2 years, there were no outcome differences between groups 1 and 2. The reported improvement in esophageal symptoms and overall satisfaction was 90% or more in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that LARS is an effective treatment option in patients with GERD whether they are candidates for ET or not. In patients with uncomplicated GERD who currently meet inclusion criteria for ET, LARS provides excellent symptom relief and marked reduction in medication use during a mean follow-up period longer than 2 years.
Subject(s)
Gastroesophageal Reflux/surgery , Laparoscopy/methods , Adult , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Fundoplication/adverse effects , Fundoplication/methods , Humans , Intraoperative Complications , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the influence of anesthetic techniques on perioperative complications after carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: Perioperative complications, the use of a carotid artery shunt, the duration of the operative procedure and postoperative hospital course were retrospectively compared in 584 consecutive patients undergoing 679 carotid endarterectomies with use of either general anesthesia (n = 361) or cervical block regional anesthesia (n = 318). There was no significant difference in the preoperative medical characteristics between the two anesthetic groups. Symptomatic carotid artery disease was the indication for surgery in 247 (68.4%) patients receiving general anesthetics, whereas 180 (56.6%) patients treated with a cervical block anesthetic had a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis (p = 0.02). RESULTS: The perioperative stroke rate and stroke-death rate for the entire series was 2.4% and 3.2%, respectively, and was not significantly different between the anesthetic groups or between patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic disease. A carotid artery shunt was used in 61 (19.2%) patients receiving a cervical block anesthetic and 152 (42.1%) patients treated with a general anesthetic (p < 0.0001). Use of cervical block anesthesia was associated with a significantly shorter operative time, fewer perioperative cardiopulmonary complications, and a shorter postoperative hospitalization when compared with general anesthesia. Multivariate risk factor analysis indicated that age greater than 75 years, operative time greater than 3 hours, and the use of a carotid artery shunt were all independent risk factors for perioperative cardiopulmonary complications. When a carotid artery shunt was not analyzed as a multivariate risk factor, then general anesthesia became a significant risk factor for perioperative cardiopulmonary complications (risk ratio 2.08; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that cervical block anesthesia is safer and results in a more efficient use of hospital resources than general anesthesia in the treatment of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.
