OBJECTIVE: Pseudoachalasia frequently cannot be distinguished from idiopathic achalasia by manometry, radiologic examination or endoscopy. Mechanisms proposed to explain the clinical features of pseudoachalasia include a circumferential mechanical obstruction of the distal esophagus or a malignant infiltration of inhibitory neurons within the myenteric plexus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1980 and December 2002, the clinical features of 5 patients with pseudoachalasia and 174 patients with primary achalasia, diagnosed in a single center, were compared. A literature analysis of the etiology of pseudoachalasia for the time period 1968 to December 2002 was performed. The search concentrated on the databases and online catalogues PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Current Contents Connect. RESULTS: In our case series, patients with pseudoachalasia reported a shorter duration of symptoms and tended to be older than patients with primary achalasia. Conventional manometry, endoscopy and radiologic examination of the esophagus proved to be of little value in distinguishing between the diseases. In the majority of cases only surgical exploration revealed the underlying cause. A coincidence of primary achalasia and disorders of the gastroesophageal junction was excluded by showing return of peristalsis following treatment. The analysis of the literature showed a total of 264 cases of pseudoachalasia in 122 publications. Most cases of were due to malignant disease (53.9% primary and 14.9% secondary malignancy), followed by benign lesions (12.6%) and sequelae of surgical procedures at the distal esophagus or proximal stomach (11.9%). In rare instances, the disease was an expression of a paraneoplastic process due to distant neuronal involvement rather than to local invasion with destruction of the myenteric plexus (2.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of pseudoachalasia is difficult to establish by conventional diagnostic measures. The main distinguishing feature of secondary versus primary achalasia is the complete reversal of pathologic motor phenomena following successful therapy of the underlying disorder.
OBJECTIVE: Pseudoachalasia frequently cannot be distinguished from idiopathic achalasia by manometry, radiologic examination or endoscopy. Mechanisms proposed to explain the clinical features of pseudoachalasia include a circumferential mechanical obstruction of the distal esophagus or a malignant infiltration of inhibitory neurons within the myenteric plexus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1980 and December 2002, the clinical features of 5 patients with pseudoachalasia and 174 patients with primary achalasia, diagnosed in a single center, were compared. A literature analysis of the etiology of pseudoachalasia for the time period 1968 to December 2002 was performed. The search concentrated on the databases and online catalogues PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Current Contents Connect. RESULTS: In our case series, patients with pseudoachalasia reported a shorter duration of symptoms and tended to be older than patients with primary achalasia. Conventional manometry, endoscopy and radiologic examination of the esophagus proved to be of little value in distinguishing between the diseases. In the majority of cases only surgical exploration revealed the underlying cause. A coincidence of primary achalasia and disorders of the gastroesophageal junction was excluded by showing return of peristalsis following treatment. The analysis of the literature showed a total of 264 cases of pseudoachalasia in 122 publications. Most cases of were due to malignant disease (53.9% primary and 14.9% secondary malignancy), followed by benign lesions (12.6%) and sequelae of surgical procedures at the distal esophagus or proximal stomach (11.9%). In rare instances, the disease was an expression of a paraneoplastic process due to distant neuronal involvement rather than to local invasion with destruction of the myenteric plexus (2.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of pseudoachalasia is difficult to establish by conventional diagnostic measures. The main distinguishing feature of secondary versus primary achalasia is the complete reversal of pathologic motor phenomena following successful therapy of the underlying disorder.
Authors: Salvatore Maria Antonio Campo; Angelo Zullo; Chiara Maria Scandavini; Barbara Frezza; Paola Cerro; Genoveffa Balducci Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-09-16