Clinical Research
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2004.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 15, 2004; 10(22): 3322-3327
Published online Nov 15, 2004. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v10.i22.3322
Table 1 Clinical characteristics and demographic data of patients [mean ± SD, (min-max)]
Age (yr)44 ± 16 (19-73)
Gender (M/F)23/20
Dysphagia43 (100%)
Chest pain5 (11%)
Regurgitation34 (79%)
Pulmonary aspiration9 (21%)
Mean duration of symptoms (mo)35 ± 21 (6-72)
Mean weight loss (kg)7.7 ± 2 (4-11)
LES pressure (mmHg)
Before dilation38.6 ± 12 (19-66)
After dilation11.8 ± 8 (0-16)
Vigorous achalasia1 (2.3%)
Esophagus diameter (cm)3.8 (2-6.5)
Table 2 Results of rigiflex balloon dilation under endoscopic control
Inflation pressure (psi)15
Dilation time per session (s)2 × 60
Success with 3.0 cm balloon24/42(56%)
Success with 3.5 cm balloon14/18(78%)
Overall success rate at first year119/24(80%)
Overall success rate at 5 years17/13(54%)
Complications
Perforation1(2.3%)
Bleeding-
Mortality-
Table 3 Effect of age, LES pressure and esophageal diameter on the clinical benefit of the initial pneumatic dilation. 1With 3 cm balloon
Patients with successful initial pneumatic dilation (n = 24)Patients with successful initial pneumatic dilation (%)P
Age (yr)
< 354/1428< 0.01
35-5511/1765
> 559/1182
LES pressure (mmHg)
< 306/1250
30-4513/2162NS
> 455/955
Esophageal diameter (cm)
< 34/757
3-411/2152NS
> 49/1464
Table 4 Cumulative effectiveness of graded pneumatic dilators for achalasia
AuthorPt. #Study designDilator % (size/cm)Decrease of LESP% Improvement Excellent/GoodFollow-up (yr) Mean (range)Perforation (%)
Barkin(11)50Prospec.3.5-901.3 (1–3.4)0
Levine(12)62Retrosp.3-3.5-85-88-0
Wehrmann(15)40Retrosp.3–3.542892–52.5
Lee(9)28Prospec.3–3.5-4---7
Gelfand(10)24Prospec.3–460-6870–93-0
Kadakia(13)29Prospec.3–3.5–46762–79–934 (3–6)0
Abid(14)36Retrosp.3.5–4-88–892.3 (1–4)6.6
Lambroza(16)27Retrosp.3-671.8 (0.1–4.8)0
Bhatnagar(17)15Prospec.3–3.5-73-931.2 (0.3–3)0