RESUMEN
Background: Nowadays the question persists whether to choose the endoscopic or surgical method as the first treatment of choice for achalasia. Another debate topic is about the differences between the outcomes of the two approaches of minimally invasive surgical treatment and their feasibility. Material and Methods: This retrospective observational study included 193 patients with achalasia treated between 2008 and 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups (A and B): 152 with minimally invasive heller myotomy (HM), and 41 with pneumatic dilation (PD). Patients surgically treated were then subdivided into robotic group (RG) and laparoscopic group (LG). Results: The recurrence rate was significantly higher in PD group (Ã?2 = 16.81, DF = 1, p 0.0001), with a success rate of 63,4%, comparing with 92,7% in HM group. No significant difference was obtained between the 2 groups concerning symptom relief on patients successfully treated. The success rate was comparable between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = 1). Significant difference was obtained in length of hospital stay between the 2 groups, with a mean of 4.78 +-1.59 days in the RG and, respectively, 5.52 +-2.1 days in the LG (t = 2.40, DF = 124.34, p = 0.0177). Postprocedural esophagitis rates were higher in patients with no fundoplication (6 out of 37 - 16.2%) and in patients treated with pneumatic dilation (4 out of 26 - 15.4%) than in patients with fundoplication (4 out of 46 - 8.5%). Conclusion: The present study indicates that surgery may be a better choice in fit patients for the treatment of achalasia. The procedure has a better success rate, even if the long-term outcomes are comparable in patients successfully treated. The success rate and long-term results were comparable between laparoscopy and robotic surgery.
Asunto(s)
Acalasia del Esófago , Esofagoplastia , Laparoscopía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Humanos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Acalasia del Esófago/cirugía , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Background and Objectives: Inflammatory bowel diseases are a main focus in current research, with diet being an emerging therapeutic line due to its links in both onset and progression. A Western-style diet high in processed foods, food additives, red meat, and animal fat has been linked to a higher risk of developing IBD. The aim of this study was to establish an association between an anti-inflammatory exclusion diet and maintenance of remission in IBD. Also, we assessed the efficacy and safety of this diet compared to a non-dietary group and the possible therapeutic effect of this diet in the maintenance of IBD remission. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 patients with IBD were screened for inclusion, but 21 did not met the inclusion criteria. Thus, 139 patients were assigned to either an exclusion diet or a regular diet according to their choice. Results: Clinical remission after six months was maintained in the exclusion diet arm (100%). In the control arm, four patients had clinically active disease (one patient with UC and three with CD), and 90 patients maintained the clinical remission state (95.7%) (p-value = 0.157). Regarding biochemical markers, ESR at baseline was higher in the exclusion diet arm: 29 (5-62) versus in the control arm 16 (4-48) (p-value = 0.019), but six months after, the groups were similar (p-value = 0.440). Conclusions: Patients who followed an exclusion diet maintained clinical remission more frequently. However, the threshold for statistical significance was not achieved. There was also a trend of improvement in inflammation tests in the intervention group.