| Title |
Factors predicting the technical difficulty of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-015-4673-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaowei Tang, Yutang Ren, Zhengjie Wei, Jieqiong Zhou, Zhiliang Deng, Zhenyu Chen, Bo Jiang, Wei Gong |
| Abstract |
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been described as a novel treatment for esophageal achalasia. Owing to its technical difficulty, POEM is not widely performed. This study was aimed to prospectively assess the factor predicting technical difficulty of POEM in a single center with large volume cases. A total of 105 cases of achalasia treated by POEM from April 2011 to September 2014 were analyzed. Difficult cases of POEM were defined as procedure time ≥90 min and occurrence of adverse events, including mucosal perforation, pneumothorax, and major bleeding. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the predictive factors of difficult POEM. POEM was successfully completed in all the patients, and no one was converted to laparoscopy. The number of cases with procedure time ≥90 min was 17. Mucosal perforations occurred in six (5.7 %) patients during submucosal tunnel creation, major bleeding occurred in seven (6.7 %) patients, and pneumothorax occurred in six (5.7 %) patients immediately after procedure. All the complications were managed conservatively. No other intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications, including infections and pneumoperitoneum, occurred. Multivariate analysis showed that early period (odds ratio [OR] 4.173, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI] 1.36-6.829, P = 0.023) and triangular tip knife ([OR] 6.712, [95 % CI] 1.479-30.460, P = 0.014) were independent factors associated with technical difficulty regarding longer procedure time (procedure time ≥90 min). POEM is safe for the treatment of esophageal achalasia. Triangular tip knife and early period were independent risk factors for longer procedural time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 58% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,778,896
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,381
of 6,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,397
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#75
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,039 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.