BACKGROUND: For laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), the optimal myotomy length proximal to the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is unknown. In this study, we used a functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) to measure EGJ distensibility changes resulting from variable proximal myotomy lengths during LHM and peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM). METHODS: Distensibility index (DI) (defined as the minimum cross-sectional area at the EGJ divided by pressure) was measured with FLIP after each operative step. During LHM and POEM, each patient's myotomy was performed in two stages: first, a myotomy ablating only the EGJ complex was created (EGJ-M), extending from 2 cm proximal to the EGJ, to 3 cm distal to it. Next, the myotomy was lengthened 4 cm further cephalad to create an extended proximal myotomy (EP-M). RESULTS: Measurements were performed in 12 patients undergoing LHM and 19 undergoing POEM. LHM resulted in an overall increase in DI (1.6 ± 1 vs. 6.3 ± 3.4 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.001). Creation of an EGJ-M resulted in a small increase (1.6-2.3 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.01) and extension to an EP-M resulted in a larger increase (2.3-4.9 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.001). This effect was consistent, with 11 (92%) patients experiencing a larger increase after EP-M than after EGJ-M. Fundoplication resulted in a decrease in DI and deinsufflation an increase. POEM resulted in an increase in DI (1.3 ± 1 vs. 9.2 ± 3.9 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.001). Both creation of the submucosal tunnel and performing an EGJ-M increased DI, whereas lengthening of the myotomy to an EP-M had no additional effect. POEM resulted in a larger overall increase from baseline than LHM (7.9 ± 3.5 vs. 4.7 ± 3.3 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During LHM, an EP-M was necessary to normalize distensibility, whereas during POEM, a myotomy confined to the EGJ complex was sufficient. In this cohort, POEM resulted in a larger overall increase in EGJ distensibility.
BACKGROUND: For laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), the optimal myotomy length proximal to the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is unknown. In this study, we used a functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) to measure EGJ distensibility changes resulting from variable proximal myotomy lengths during LHM and peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM). METHODS: Distensibility index (DI) (defined as the minimum cross-sectional area at the EGJ divided by pressure) was measured with FLIP after each operative step. During LHM and POEM, each patient's myotomy was performed in two stages: first, a myotomy ablating only the EGJ complex was created (EGJ-M), extending from 2 cm proximal to the EGJ, to 3 cm distal to it. Next, the myotomy was lengthened 4 cm further cephalad to create an extended proximal myotomy (EP-M). RESULTS: Measurements were performed in 12 patients undergoing LHM and 19 undergoing POEM. LHM resulted in an overall increase in DI (1.6 ± 1 vs. 6.3 ± 3.4 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.001). Creation of an EGJ-M resulted in a small increase (1.6-2.3 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.01) and extension to an EP-M resulted in a larger increase (2.3-4.9 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.001). This effect was consistent, with 11 (92%) patients experiencing a larger increase after EP-M than after EGJ-M. Fundoplication resulted in a decrease in DI and deinsufflation an increase. POEM resulted in an increase in DI (1.3 ± 1 vs. 9.2 ± 3.9 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.001). Both creation of the submucosal tunnel and performing an EGJ-M increased DI, whereas lengthening of the myotomy to an EP-M had no additional effect. POEM resulted in a larger overall increase from baseline than LHM (7.9 ± 3.5 vs. 4.7 ± 3.3 mm(2)/mmHg, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During LHM, an EP-M was necessary to normalize distensibility, whereas during POEM, a myotomy confined to the EGJ complex was sufficient. In this cohort, POEM resulted in a larger overall increase in EGJ distensibility.
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Sudip K Ghosh; Qing Zhang; Andrew Jarosz; Nimeesh Shah; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: H Inoue; H Minami; Y Kobayashi; Y Sato; M Kaga; M Suzuki; H Satodate; N Odaka; H Itoh; S Kudo Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Barry P McMahon; Jens B Frøkjaer; Peter Kunwald; Donghua Liao; Peter Funch-Jensen; Asbjørn M Drewes; Hans Gregersen Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Giovanni Zaninotto; Vito Annese; Mario Costantini; Alberto Del Genio; Michela Costantino; Magdalena Epifani; Giovanni Gatto; Vittorio D'onofrio; Luigi Benini; Sandro Contini; Daniela Molena; Giorgio Battaglia; Berardino Tardio; Angelo Andriulli; Ermanno Ancona Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Guilherme M Campos; Eric Vittinghoff; Charlotte Rabl; Mark Takata; Michael Gadenstätter; Feng Lin; Ruxandra Ciovica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Neil H Bhayani; Ashwin A Kurian; Christy M Dunst; Ahmed M Sharata; Erwin Rieder; Lee L Swanstrom Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Oscar M Crespin; Louis W C Liu; Ambica Parmar; Timothy D Jackson; Jemila Hamid; Eran Shlomovitz; Allan Okrainec Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ryan A J Campagna; Dustin A Carlson; Eric S Hungness; Amy L Holmstrom; John E Pandolfino; Nathaniel J Soper; Ezra N Teitelbaum Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 4.584