胃镜下球囊扩张与植入覆膜支架治疗贲门失弛缓症临床疗效对比分析  

Comparative Analysis on Covered-Stent Insertion vs Pneumatic Dilation in the Treatment of Achalasia

作　　者：马松炎[1] 徐永辉[1] 曹辉琼[1] 刘旭华[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省惠州市第三人民医院消化内科,广东惠州516002

出　　处：《临床医学工程》2013年第7期789-790,共2页Clinical Medicine & Engineering

摘　　要：目的对比研究胃镜下球囊扩张术与植入覆膜支架治疗贲门失弛缓症的临床疗效。方法我院于2001年1月至2013年2月收治的贲门失弛缓症患者130例,按治疗方式分为对照组(胃镜下球囊扩张)和实验组(植入覆膜支架),比较两组病例临床疗效。结果对照组65例共行87次球囊扩张,实验组65例共行71次覆膜支架置入;术后12个月,实验组患者治疗有效率为95.4%,明显高于对照组(70.8%)(P<0.05);对照组出现疼痛、出血、反流等并发症共19例(29.2%),实验组共8例(12.3%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论植入食管覆膜支架用于治疗贲门失弛缓症效果显著,并且具有成功率高、并发症少等优点,临床疗效优于胃镜下球囊扩张术。Objective To compare the clinical efficacy between pneumatic dilation and covered-stem insertion in the treatment of achalasia. Methods 130 patients with achalasia admitted to our hospital from January 2001 to February 2013 were divided into the control group （treated with pneumatic dilation） and the experimental group （treated with covered-stent）, and the efficacy of two groups were compared after 12 months. Results 87 pneumatic dilations were performed in control group （65 cases）, while 71 covered-stent insertions were performed in experimental group （65 cases）; the effective rate of experimental group （95.4%） was higher than that of control group （70.8%） （P 〈0.05）; the incidence of postoperative complications of experimental group was 12.3%, while that of control group was 29.2%; the difference was significant （P 〈0.05）. Conclusions Covered-stent insertion has a good effect on treating achalasia, and it is better than the pneumatic dilation treatment.

关 键 词：胃镜球囊扩张 覆膜支架 贲门失弛缓症 

分 类 号：R571[医药卫生—消化系统]