Rupjyoti Talukdar1,2, Haruhiro Inoue3, D Nageshwar Reddy4. 1. Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, 6-3-661, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, 500082, India. rup_talukdar@yahoo.com. 2. Asian Healthcare Foundation, Hyderabad, India. rup_talukdar@yahoo.com. 3. Digestive Disease Center, Showa University, Yokohama, Japan. 4. Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, 6-3-661, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, 500082, India. aigindia@yahoo.co.in.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an evolving therapeutic modality for achalasia. We aim to determine efficacy of POEM for the treatment of achalasia and compare it with laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses was conducted on 19 studies using POEM for achalasia. Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and Ovid databases, were searched using the terms 'achalasia', 'POEM', 'peroral endoscopic myotomy', 'per oral endoscopic myotomy', and 'per-oral endoscopic myotomy'. Reduction in Eckhart's score and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1,045 patients underwent POEM in 29 studies. Ninety patients undergoing POEM was compared with 160 undergoing LHM in five studies. Nineteen and 14 studies, respectively, evaluated for Eckhart's score and LES pressure. There was significant reduction in Eckhart's score and LES pressure with effect sizes of -7.95 (p < 0.0001) and -7.28 (p < 0.0001), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies [(Q = 83.06; I (2) = 78.33 %; p < 0.0001) for Eckhart's score and (Q = 61.44; I (2) = 75.68 %; p < 0.0001) for LES pressure]. There were no differences between POEM and LHM in reduction in Eckhart's score, post-operative pain scores and analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, adverse events, and symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux/reflux esophagitis. Operative time was significantly lower for POEM. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is effective for achalasia and has similar outcomes as LHM. Multicenter randomized trials need to be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of POEM between treatment naïve achalasia patients and those who failed treatment.
BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an evolving therapeutic modality for achalasia. We aim to determine efficacy of POEM for the treatment of achalasia and compare it with laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses was conducted on 19 studies using POEM for achalasia. Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and Ovid databases, were searched using the terms 'achalasia', 'POEM', 'peroral endoscopic myotomy', 'per oral endoscopic myotomy', and 'per-oral endoscopic myotomy'. Reduction in Eckhart's score and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1,045 patients underwent POEM in 29 studies. Ninety patients undergoing POEM was compared with 160 undergoing LHM in five studies. Nineteen and 14 studies, respectively, evaluated for Eckhart's score and LES pressure. There was significant reduction in Eckhart's score and LES pressure with effect sizes of -7.95 (p < 0.0001) and -7.28 (p < 0.0001), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies [(Q = 83.06; I (2) = 78.33 %; p < 0.0001) for Eckhart's score and (Q = 61.44; I (2) = 75.68 %; p < 0.0001) for LES pressure]. There were no differences between POEM and LHM in reduction in Eckhart's score, post-operative pain scores and analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, adverse events, and symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux/reflux esophagitis. Operative time was significantly lower for POEM. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is effective for achalasia and has similar outcomes as LHM. Multicenter randomized trials need to be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of POEM between treatment naïve achalasiapatients and those who failed treatment.
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: Daniel Von Renteln; Karl-Hermann Fuchs; Paul Fockens; Peter Bauerfeind; Melina C Vassiliou; Yuki B Werner; Gerald Fried; Wolfram Breithaupt; Henriette Heinrich; Albert J Bredenoord; Jan F Kersten; Tessa Verlaan; Michael Trevisonno; Thomas Rösch Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: P H Zhou; Q L Li; L Q Yao; M D Xu; W F Chen; M Y Cai; J W Hu; L Li; Y Q Zhang; Y S Zhong; L L Ma; W Z Qin; Z Cui Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ezra N Teitelbaum; Nathaniel J Soper; Byron F Santos; Fahd O Arafat; John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas; Ikuo Hirano; Eric S Hungness Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Lee L Swanstrom; Ashwin Kurian; Christy M Dunst; Ahmed Sharata; Neil Bhayani; Erwin Rieder Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-10 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: Erin K Greenleaf; Joshua S Winder; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Randy S Haluck; Abraham Mathew; Eric M Pauli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jan Friso Nast; Christoph Berliner; Thomas Rösch; Daniel von Renteln; Tania Noder; Guido Schachschal; Stefan Groth; Harald Ittrich; Jan F Kersten; Gerhard Adam; Yuki B Werner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.584