Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2015; 7(5): 481-495
Published online May 16, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.481
Published online May 16, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.481
Table 1 Series reporting Eckardt post Per-oral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia
Ref. | Country | No. of patients | Success rate (%) | Complications (%) | Mean follow-up (mo) |
inoue et al[82] 2010a | Japan | 17 | 100 | 0 | 5 |
von Renteln et al[79] 2012 | Germany | 16 | 94 | 12.5 | 3 |
Swanstrom et al[67] 2012 | United States | 18 | 100 | 16.7 | 11 |
Ren et al[85] 2012 | China | 119 | 94 | 55 | 3 |
Costamagna et al[65] 2012 | Italy | 11 | 100 | 0 | 3 |
Lee et al[66] 2013 | South Korea | 13 | 100 | 0 | 7 |
Hungness et al[76] 2013 | United States | 18 | 89 | 22 | 6 |
Teitelbaum et al[77] 2013 | United States | 12 | 100 | NR | 9 |
Zhou et al[83] 2013b | China | 12 | 92 | 16.7 | 10 |
Von Renteln et al[64] 2013c | International | 70 | 82.4 | 14.3 | 12 |
Sharata et al[84] 2013d | United States | 31 | 100 | 12.5 | 6 |
Freidel et al[68] 2013 | United States | 45 | 95 | 33 | 3 |
Inoue et al[80] 2013 | Japan | 300 | 100 | 6 | 12 |
Sharata et al[73] 2014 | United States | 75 | 98 | 11 | 16 |
Bhayani et al[78] 2014 | United States | 37 | 100 | 13.5 | 6 |
Minami et al[63] 2014 | Japan | 28 | 96 | 0 | 3 |
Table 2 Series reporting on safety and efficacy of per-oral endoscopic tumor resection
Ref. | Country | No. of patients | Mean tumor size (mm) | Complete resectionb (%) | Piecemeal or disrupted capsule (%) | Complications(%) |
Inoue et al[97] 2011a | Japan | 9 | 29.4 | 100 (7/9) | 0 | 0 |
Cai et al[105] 2012 | China | 1 | 20 | 100 | NS | 100 |
Gong et al[106] 2012 | China | 12 | 19.5 | 83.3 (10/12) | 16.7 (2/12) | 16.7 |
Xu et al[107] 2012 | China | 15 | 19 | 100 | 0 | 13.3 |
Liu et al[103] 2013 | China | 12 | 18.5 | 100 | 0 | 66.7 |
Xu et al[108] 2013 | China | 23 | 21 | 100 | 0 | 39 |
Wang et al[99] 2013 | China | 18 | 33 | NS | NS | 16.7 |
Chen et al[109] 2014 | China | 1 | #1 = 25 #2 = 30 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Kumbhari et al[100] 2014 | United States | 1 | 60 | 0 | 100 | NS |
Lu et al[110] 2014 | China | 42 | 12.1 | 97.7 (44/45) | 2.3 (1/45) | 15.6 |
Ye et al[104] 2014 | China | 85 | 19.2 | 100 | 0 | 9.4 |
Wang et al[98] 2014 | China | 57 | 21.5 | 100 | 0 | 21 |
Lu et al[111] 2014c | China | 18 | 21 | 100 | 0 | 11.1 |
Table 3 General differences between stents for benign esophageal disease
Stent type | Advantages | Disadvantages |
FCSEMS | No requirement for pre-dilation Recapture is possible | Expensive High migration risk Increased tissue hyperplasia |
SEPS | Cheaper than other covered stents Decreased tissue hyperplasia | High migration risk (potentially more than FCSEMS) Require manual loading Require pre-dilation |
BDS | No need to remove Less migration risk | Expensive Increased risk of post-procedure pain Require manual loading Require pre-dilation |
- Citation: Bechara R, Inoue H. Recent advancement of therapeutic endoscopy in the esophageal benign diseases. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7(5): 481-495
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v7/i5/481.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.481