Background

Traumatic esophageal perforations (TEP) are a grave medical condition and require immediate intervention. Techniques such as Esophageal Self-Expandable Metal Stent (E-SEMS) and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) show promise in reducing tissue damage and controlling esophageal leakage. The present study aims to compare the application of EVT to E-SEMS placement in TEP.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study valuated 30 patients with TEP. The E-SEMS and EVT groups were assessed for time of hospitalization, treatment duration, costs, and clinical outcome.

Results

Patients treated with EVT (24.4 ± 13.2) demonstrated significantly shorter treatment duration (p < 0.005) compared to the group treated with E-SEMS (45.8 ± 12.9) and patients submitted to E-SEMS demonstrated a significant reduction (p = 0.02) in the time of hospitalization compared to the EVT (34 ± 2 vs 82 ± 5 days). Both groups demonstrated a satisfactory discharge rate (E-SEMS 93.7% vs EVT 71.4%) but did not show statistically significant difference (p = 0.3155). E-SEMS treatment had a lower mean cost than EVT (p < 0.05). Descriptive statistics were utilized, arranged in table form, where frequencies, percentages, mean, median, and standard deviation of the study variables were calculated and counted. The Fisher's Exact Test was used to evaluate the relationship between two categorical variables. To evaluate differences between means and central points, the parametric t-test was utilized. Comparisons with p value up to 0.05 were considered significant.

Conclusion

E-SEMS showed a shorter time of hospitalization, but a longer duration of treatment compared to EVT. The placement of E-SEMS and EVT had the same clinical outcome. Treatment with E-SEMS had a lower cost compared with EVT.

中文翻译：

---

内镜自膨式金属支架与内镜真空治疗创伤性食管穿孔的回顾性队列研究

背景

外伤性食管穿孔 (TEP) 是一种严重的疾病，需要立即干预。食管自扩张金属支架 (E-SEMS) 和内窥镜真空治疗 (EVT) 等技术在减少组织损伤和控制食管渗漏方面显示出希望。本研究旨在比较 EVT 与 E-SEMS 在 TEP 中的应用。

方法

回顾性队列研究评估了 30 名 TEP 患者。对 E-SEMS 和 EVT 组的住院时间、治疗持续时间、费用和临床结果进行了评估。

结果

与 E-SEMS治疗组 (45.8 ± 12.9) 相比，接受 EVT 治疗的患者 (24.4 ± 13.2) 表现出明显更短的治疗持续时间 ( p  < 0.005)，并且接受 E-SEMS 治疗的患者表现出显着减少 ( p  = 0.02)住院时间与 EVT 相比（34 ± 2 天 vs 82 ± 5 天）。两组均表现出令人满意的出院率（E-SEMS 93.7% vs EVT 71.4%），但没有显示出统计学上的显着差异（p  = 0.3155）。E-SEMS 治疗的平均成本低于 EVT ( p  < 0.05)。使用描述性统计数据，以表格形式排列，计算和计数研究变量的频率、百分比、平均值、中位数和标准差。Fisher 精确检验用于评估两个分类变量之间的关系。为了评估平均值和中心点之间的差异，使用了参数 t 检验。p 值高达 0.05 的比较被认为是显着的。

结论

E-SEMS 显示与 EVT 相比，住院时间较短，但治疗持续时间较长。E-SEMS 和 EVT 的放置具有相同的临床结果。与 EVT 相比，E-SEMS 治疗的成本较低。