A comparison of clinical effects of removing foreign bodies from esophagus by rigid esophagoscope and flexible esophagoscope
- VernacularTitle:硬质食管镜和电子胃镜取出食管异物临床疗效的对照研究
- Author:
GOU Yunjiu
1
,
2
;
MA Jilong
1
,
2
;
HAN Songchen
1
,
2
;
JIN Dacheng
1
,
2
;
CHEN Meng
1
,
2
;
WANG Bing
1
,
2
;
BAI Qizhou
1
,
2
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000,
2. P.R.China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Rigid esophagoscopy;
flexible esophagoscope;
esophageal foreign body;
clinical study;
case control
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2019;26(12):1180-1184
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To collect the data of esophageal foreign body patients, and to evaluate the clinical effects of two different surgical methods in our hospital. Methods The clinical data of 294 patients who were treated in Gansu Provincal Hospital from January 2012 to June 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. The clinical data were collected and analyzed by SPSS 22.0. In order to to evaluate the efficacy of flexible esophagoscope (FE) and rigid esophagoscope (RE) in the treatment of esophageal foreign bodies.The patients were divided into two groups: a RE group including 118 patients with 62 males and 56 females at age of 6 (3-37) years and a FE group including 176 patients with 84 males and 92 females at age of 6 (3-59) years. Results There was no significant difference in age, age stratification, gender and foreign body type between the two groups. There was a statistical difference in the initial clinical symptoms (P=0.041) or in esophageal foreign bodies position (P=0.037) between the two groups. The success rate of foreign body removal was similar between the two groups (P=0.632). The success rate was 88.9% (105/118) in the RE group, 87.5% (154/176) in the FE group. The operation time was significantly longer in the RE group than that in the FE group (10.8 ±17.4 min vs. 17.5±21.6 min, P<0.001). The postoperative hospitalization time in the RE groups was longer than that in the FE group (21.5 ±24.2 hours vs. 12.5 ±21.3 hours, P<0.05). There was a statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P=0.034). In the RE group, the main complication was mucosal edema (15.3%). And the rate of bleeding was higher (15.9%) in the FE group. There were 30 patients (25.5%) in the RE group with minor postoperative complications versus the FE group with 40 patients (22.7%); and 1 patient (0.8%) in the RE group with severe complications versus the FE group with 5 paients (2.8%). Conclusion Based on the analysis of this study, it is found that RE has higher safety. But the indications are strict, the professional requirements of the operator and the selection of patients are stronger. The FE is convenient to use, the operation crowd is wide, and the suitable crowd is wide. Therefore, for specific patients, after improving the relevant examination and preoperative evaluation of patients, clinicians need to choose appropriate surgical methods to ensure the success of the operation, and reduce the postoperative complications as far as possible.
