PS01.102: MINIMALLY INVASIVE ENUCLEATION OF ESOPHAGEAL LEIOMYOMA: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES WITH FOCUS ON QUALITY OF LIFE AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Minimally invasive enucleation of esophageal leiomyoma may induce or aggravate gastroesophageal reflux disease, but scarce data are available in literature. Methods We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional single-center study investigating long-term outcomes of laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, and endoscopic enucleation with focus on quality of life and gastroesophageal reflux. Postoperative clinical and endoscopic data were compared to baseline. All patients underwent barium swallow study, endoscopy and completed the GERD-HRQL questionnaire after a minimum 1-year follow-up. Results Thirty patients were included in the study. There were 19 females and 11 males, median age 48 years (range 28–67). Thirteen (43.3%) patients underwent laparoscopic enucleation plus fundoplication (9 Toupet, 3 Nissen, 1 Dor), 12 (40%) patients thoracoscopic enucleation, and 5 (16.7%) patients endoscopic enucleation. Mean operative time was 149.1 ± 62.6 min. Mean tumor diameter was 5.4 ± 3.2 cm. There was no operative mortality. Overall morbidity rate was 16.6%, and no mucosal perforations occurred. Mean hospital stay was 4.0 ± 1.8 days. The mean baseline GERD-HRQL score was 4.25 (range 0–21) in the laparoscopic group, 3.4 (range 0–12) in the thoracoscopic group, and 5.7 (range 0–13) in the endoscopic group. Preoperatively, hiatal hernia was present in 6 patients (46.1%) in the laparoscopic group, in 4 patients (33.3%) in the thoracoscopic group, and in 2 patients (40%) in the endoscopic group. The mean follow-up was 58 months (range 3–192) (Table 1). Conclusion GERD symptoms were more common in patients after endoscopic enucleation. Primary laparoscopic enucleation combined with fundoplication allows effective long-term reflux control. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.