切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2024, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (05) : 494 -500. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2024.05.004

论著

不同检查方法对巨大食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病的诊断价值及各检查指标间的相关性分析
王浩1, 艾克拜尔·艾力2,3,4, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明2,3,4, 李义亮2,3,4, 克力木·阿不都热依木2,3,4,()   
  1. 1.830054 乌鲁木齐,新疆医科大学研究生学院
    2.830002 乌鲁木齐,新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院微创、疝和腹壁外科
    3.830002 乌鲁木齐,新疆胃食管反流病与减重代谢外科临床医学研究中心
    4.830002 乌鲁木齐,新疆维吾尔自治区普外微创研究所
  • 收稿日期:2024-06-18 出版日期:2024-10-18
  • 通信作者: 克力木·阿不都热依木
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(82060166)新疆维吾尔自治区重点研发任务专项-厅厅联动项目(2023B03010)

The diagnostic value of different examination methods for giant hiatal hernia complicated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and correlation analysis of each examination index

Hao Wang1, Aili Aikebaier2,3,4, Maimaitiming Maimaitiaili2,3,4, Yiliang Li2,3,4, Abudureyimu Kelimu,2,3,4()   

  1. 1.Graduate School of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830054,China
    2.Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery,Hernias and Abdominal Wall Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region,Urumqi 830002, China
    3.Clinical Research Center for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Bariatric Metabolic Surgery, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830002, China
    4.Research Institute of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830002, China
  • Received:2024-06-18 Published:2024-10-18
  • Corresponding author: Abudureyimu Kelimu
引用本文:

王浩, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 李义亮, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 不同检查方法对巨大食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病的诊断价值及各检查指标间的相关性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 494-500.

Hao Wang, Aili Aikebaier, Maimaitiming Maimaitiaili, Yiliang Li, Abudureyimu Kelimu. The diagnostic value of different examination methods for giant hiatal hernia complicated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and correlation analysis of each examination index[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 494-500.

目的

探讨不同检查方法对巨大食管裂孔疝(GHH)合并胃食管反流病的诊断价值及各检查指标间的相关性。

方法

纳入2022 年1 月至2023 年12 月,新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院微创外科、疝与腹壁外科收治的44 例GHH 患者,回顾性分析其术前各项检查结果[胃镜、腹部CT、高分辨率食管测压(HREM)、食管动态24 h pH 监测]。并据DeMeester 评分和胃食管反流病问卷量表(Gerd Q)评分将患者分为反流组[合并GERD,即DeMeester 评分≥14.72,Gerd Q 评分≥8] 27例,非反流组(不合并GERD,即DeMeester 评分<14.72,Gerd Q 评分<8) 17 例。进一步分析不同检查指标在2组患者中的差异及对GHH 合并GERD 的诊断价值。

结果

Pearson 相关性分析得出,腹部CT检查的HH横径与疝囊容积、HREM的HH直径正相关(R=0.502,P=0.001;R=0.357,P=0.017);DeMeester 评分与Gerd Q 评分、腹部CT 检查的HH 横径均呈正相关(R=0.422,P=0.004;R=0.372,P=0.013);食管下括约肌静息压(LESP)与Gerd Q 评分,胃镜检查胃食管阀瓣(GEFV)的Hill分级,腹部CT 检查的HH 横径、疝囊容积,HREM 所得HH 直径,DeMeester 评分均无相关性。反流组与非反流组比较仅Gerd Q 评分较高,差异有统计学意义(t=2.424,P=0.02);上消化道造影、腹部CT 检查的HH 横径、疝囊容积、LESP、胃镜GEFV 的Hill 分级、HREM 的HH 直径比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)显示上消化道造影(AUC=0.500,P=1.000)、胃镜检查GEFV 的Hill 分级(AUC=0.572,P=0.426,敏感度40.7%,特异度76.5%)、腹部CT 检查的疝囊容积(AUC=0.516,P=0.857,敏感度92.6%,特异度29.4%)、HH 横径(AUC=0.661,P=0.074,敏感度100%,特异度35.3%)、LESP(AUC=0.422,P =0.386,敏感度22.2%,特异度82.4%)、HREM 的HH 直径(AUC=0.601,P =0.262,敏感度55.6%,特异度76.5%)、Gerd Q 评分(AUC=0.714,P=0.018,敏感度66.7%,特异度70.6%)。

结论

HH 横径及Gerd Q 评分对诊断GHH 合并GERD 价值较高,而LESP 降低不是GHH 的决定性的因素,测压作用主要是排除食管动力障碍性疾病,对GHH 合并GERD 的诊断价值不高。

Objective

To explore the diagnostic value of different examination methods for giant hiatal hernia (GHH) complicated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and the correlation between the examination indexes.

Methods

A total of 44 patients with GHH admitted to Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery in the People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region from January 2022 to December 2023 were included, and the preoperative examination results [gastroscopy, abdominal CT, high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM),dynamic esophageal pH monitoring for 24h] were retrospectively analyzed. According to DeMeester score and Gerd Q score, 27 patients were divided into reflux group [combined GERD, DeMeester score ≥14.72,Gerd Q score ≥8], and non-reflux group (without GERD, DeMeester score<14.72, Gerd Q score<8), 17 cases. Further analysis was made on the difference of different examination indexes in the two groups and the diagnostic value of GHH combined with GERD.

Results

Pearson correlation analysis showed that the transverse diameter of HH examined by abdominal CT was positively correlated with the volume of hernia sac and HH diameter of HREM (R=0.502, P=0.001; R=0.357, P=0.017); the DeMeester score was positively correlated with the Gerd Q score and HH transverse diameter of abdominal CT examination(R=0.422, P=0.004; R=0.372, P=0.013); Lower esophageal sphincter rest pressure(LESP) had no correlation with the Gerd Q score, Hill grade of GEFV in gastroscopy, volume of herniated sac, transverse diameter of HH in abdominal CT, diameter of HH in HREM, and DeMeester score. Only the Gerd Q score of the reflux group was higher than that of the non-reflux group, and the difference was statistically significant (t=2.424, P=0.020). There were no significant differences in the transverse diameter of HH,LESP, Hill grade of GEFV by gastroscopy, volume of herniated sac and HH diameter of HREM by upper digestive tract angiography and abdominal CT (P>0.05). Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC)obtained upper gastrointestinal angiography (AUC=0.500, P=1.000), Hill grade of GEFV in gastroscopy(AUC=0.572, P=0.426, sensitivity 40.7%, specificity 76.5%), and hernial sac volume in abdominal CT examination (AUC=0.516, P=0.857, sensitivity 92.6%, specificity 29.4%), HH transverse diameter(AUC=0.661, P=0.074, sensitivity 100%, specificity 35.3%), LESP (AUC=0.422, P=0.386, sensitivity 22.2%, specificity 82.4%), HH diameter of HREM (AUC=0.601, P=0.262, sensitivity 55.6%, specificity 76.5%); Gerd Q score (AUC=0.714, P=0.018, sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 70.6%).

Conclusion

HH transverse diameter and Gerd Q score are of high value in the diagnosis of GHH combined with GERD,while the decrease of LESP is not a decisive factor in GHH. The manometry is mainly to exclude esophageal motility disorders, and is not of high value in the diagnosis of GHH combined with GERD.

图1 巨大食管裂孔疝患者在各项检查中的表现及术中、术后的情况 注:红色箭头所示为巨大食管裂孔疝。1A 上消化道造影显示胸腔胃; 1B 电子胃镜显示巨大疝囊;1C 腹部CT 显示进入胸腔胃组织;1D 高分辨率食管测压显示不连续片段;1E 术中探查见巨大疝囊;1F 手术修补后关闭食管裂孔。
表1 巨大食管裂孔疝患者Pearson 相关性分析(R 值)(n=44)
表2 2组巨大食管裂孔疝患者一般情况比较
表3 2组巨大食管裂孔疝患者术前各项检查结果比较
表4 不同检查方法对反流组巨大食管裂孔疝患者的诊断价值分析(n=27)
图2 反流组巨大食管裂孔疝患者的各项检查诊断价值的ROC 曲线
[1]
Kohn GP, Price RR, Demeester SR, et al. Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(12): 4409-4428.
[2]
王辉, 赫娟, 艾散江, 等. 高分辨率食管测压与X 线钡餐造影对食管裂孔疝诊断价值的评价[J]. 医学影像学杂志, 2021, 31(4): 611-615.
[3]
Mani VR, Kalabin A, Nwakanama C, et al. Preoperative versus intraoperative diagnosis of hiatal hernia in bariatric population[J].Surg Obes Relat Dis, 2019, 15(11): 1949-1955.
[4]
中华医学会消化病学分会胃肠动力学组, 大中华区消化动力联盟. 食管动态反流监测临床操作指南(成人)[J]. 中华消化杂志,2021, 41(3): 149-158.
[5]
王志, 张成, 王俭, 等. Gerd Q 量表在胃食管反流病诊断中的应用[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2014, 1(1): 36-38.
[6]
郭子皓, 武彦红, 冯跃, 等. 胃镜下胃食管阀瓣分级与基于里昂共识的胃食管反流病证据等级及反流新参数的相关性[J]. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志, 2022, 31(2): 177-181.
[7]
Baiu I, Lau J. What Is a Paraesophageal Hernia?[J]. JAMA, 2019,322(21): 2146.
[8]
Merzlikin OV, Louie BE, Farivar AS, et al. Repair of sympt-omatic paraesophageal hernias in elderly(>70 years) patientsresults in sustained quality of life at 5 years and beyond[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017,31(10): 3979-3984.
[9]
Pauwels A, Boecxstaens V, Andrews CN, et al. How to select patients for antireflux surgery? The ICARUS guidelines(intern-ational consensus regarding preoperative examinations and clinical characteristics assessment to select adult patients forantireflux surgery)[J]. Gut, 2019, 68(11): 1928-1941.
[10]
Duranceau A. Massive hiatal hernia: a review[J]. Dis Esophagus,2016, 29(4): 350- 366.
[11]
胡志伟, 许辉, 湛莹, 等.胃食管反流病的酸反流程度与食管动力、食管炎及贲门形态的相互关系[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2019,99(44): 3494-3499.
[12]
Kao AM, Ross SW, Otero J, et al. Use of computed tomography volumetric measurements to predict operative techniques in paraesophageal hernia repair[J]. Surg Endosc, 2020, 34(4):1785-1794.
[13]
胡志伟, 汪忠镐, 吴继敏. 巨大食管裂孔疝的微创外科治疗[J/OL]. 中国医学前沿杂志(电子版), 2020, 12(4): 7-15.
[14]
Wirsching A, Zhang Q, McCormick SE, et al. Abnormal High-Resolution Manometry Findings and Outcomes after Paraesophageal Hernia Repair[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2018, 227(2):181-188.
[15]
Strate U, Emmermann A, Fibbe C, et al. Laparoscopic fundoplication: Nissen versus Toupet two-year outcome of a prospective randomized study of 200 patients regarding preoperative esophageal motility[J]. Surg Endosc, 2008, 22(1): 21-30.
[1] 李海云, 赵敏娴, 申英末, 杨慧琪. 胃底折叠术预防食管裂孔疝术后并发症的研究进展[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 485-490.
[2] 仝聪, 周哲琦, 阎立昆. 食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病治疗现状及与胃食管结合部肿瘤的关系[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 491-493.
[3] 玉素江·图荪托合提, 韩琦, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 黄旭东, 王浩, 克力木·阿不都热依木, 艾克拜尔·艾力. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除或联合食管裂孔疝修补术对肥胖症合并胃食管反流病的中期疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 501-506.
[4] 任传富, 杨志, 徐恩, 何梓芸, 罗板鑫, 陈新, 夏雪峰. 腹腔镜疝修补术联合胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病40 例临床分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 507-511.
[5] 李义亮, 苏拉依曼·牙库甫, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 机器人与腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术联合Nissen 胃底折叠术短期疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 512-517.
[6] 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 王浩, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 短食管型食管裂孔疝临床特点及疗效分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 518-522.
[7] 杜晨阳, 王勇, 段鑫, 柯文杰, 石念, 武英翔, 罗文. 腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补术后吞咽困难的危险因素分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 523-527.
[8] 周艳, 李盈, 周小兵, 程发辉, 何恒正. 不同类型补片联合Nissen 胃底折叠术修补食管裂孔疝的疗效及复发潜在危险因素[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 528-533.
[9] 蒋凤茹, 朱熠林. 双腔造瘘口旁疝诊疗经验[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 534-537.
[10] 王小琴, 汪丽, 崔建英. 无张力疝修补术治疗慢性肾功能衰竭合并腹股沟疝患者的疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 538-542.
[11] 丁佳宝, 梁晓辉, 武敬维, 张福. 腹腔镜疝囊高位结扎术在腹股沟嵌顿斜疝患者中的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 543-547.
[12] 陈金水, 陈金福, 郑开福, 祝晓路, 王铁虎, 谭俊, 李正平. 腹腔镜疝修补术治疗原发性耻骨上疝七例的临床体会[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 548-551.
[13] 闫亚飞, 范学圣, 张舰, 吴勇. 经腹腹膜前疝修补术治疗复发腹股沟疝的临床效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 552-556.
[14] 袁志静, 黄杰, 何国安, 方辉强. 罗哌卡因联合右美托咪定局部阻滞麻醉在老年腹腔镜下无张力疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 557-561.
[15] 张锋, 孙孟奇, 方秀春. 静注右美托咪定、利多卡因对腹腔镜疝修补术患者围手术期心率、麻醉苏醒质量的比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 562-565.
阅读次数
全文


摘要