Rym El Khoury1, Ezra N Teitelbaum2, Joel M Sternbach2, Nathaniel J Soper2, Carla B Harmath3, John E Pandolfino4, Peter J Kahrilas4, Eric S Hungness2. 1. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 North Saint Clair Street, Suite 650, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. rymelkhoury@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 North Saint Clair Street, Suite 650, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel surgical option for the treatment of achalasia. Most centers perform a routine esophagram on postoperative day (POD) #1 to rule esophageal perforation and leaks. In this study, we sought to determine the clinical utility of routine contrast studies post-POEM. METHODS: POEM was performed using an anterior submucosal tunnel and selective myotomy of the circular muscle layer. A routine contrast esophagram was obtained on POD #1. We conducted a retrospective review of the radiologists' interpretations of these studies and compared them to patient's clinical course. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included. Among these, two complications occurred. One patient was non-compliant with postoperative nil per os orders and developed epigastric pain suspicious for a leak that was demonstrated on esophagram. Another patient had subcutaneous emphysema on POD #1 esophagram, a finding that was also present on physical examination, without esophageal leakage. Another esophagram in an asymptomatic patient was suspicious for submucosal tunnel hematoma which prompted a return to the operating room with negative results. Overall, 56 patients had abnormal studies. POD #1 esophagram demonstrated a sensitivity of 100 % and specificity of 45 % in identifying clinically significant complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, we found routine esophagram to have a high sensitivity but a very low specificity in detecting clinically significant complications. Routine esophagram after POEM may not be necessary.
BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel surgical option for the treatment of achalasia. Most centers perform a routine esophagram on postoperative day (POD) #1 to rule esophageal perforation and leaks. In this study, we sought to determine the clinical utility of routine contrast studies post-POEM. METHODS: POEM was performed using an anterior submucosal tunnel and selective myotomy of the circular muscle layer. A routine contrast esophagram was obtained on POD #1. We conducted a retrospective review of the radiologists' interpretations of these studies and compared them to patient's clinical course. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included. Among these, two complications occurred. One patient was non-compliant with postoperative nil per os orders and developed epigastric pain suspicious for a leak that was demonstrated on esophagram. Another patient had subcutaneous emphysema on POD #1 esophagram, a finding that was also present on physical examination, without esophageal leakage. Another esophagram in an asymptomatic patient was suspicious for submucosal tunnel hematoma which prompted a return to the operating room with negative results. Overall, 56 patients had abnormal studies. POD #1 esophagram demonstrated a sensitivity of 100 % and specificity of 45 % in identifying clinically significant complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, we found routine esophagram to have a high sensitivity but a very low specificity in detecting clinically significant complications. Routine esophagram after POEM may not be necessary.
Authors: Pietro Familiari; Giovanni Gigante; Michele Marchese; Ivo Boskoski; Andrea Tringali; Vincenzo Perri; Guido Costamagna Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Stavros N Stavropoulos; David J Desilets; Karl-Hermann Fuchs; Christopher J Gostout; Gregory Haber; Haruhiro Inoue; Michael L Kochman; Rani Modayil; Thomas Savides; Daniel J Scott; Lee L Swanstrom; Melina C Vassiliou Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ezra N Teitelbaum; Nathaniel J Soper; Fahd O Arafat; Byron F Santos; Peter J Kahrilas; John E Pandolfino; Eric S Hungness Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Lora Melman; Jessica A Quinlan; Bruce L Hall; L Michael Brunt; Richard A Pierce; Valerie Halpin; J Christopher Eagon; Brian Robertson; Margaret Frisella; Brent D Matthews Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-06-14 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
Authors: Mikhail Attaar; Bailey Su; Harry J Wong; Kristine Kuchta; Woody Denham; Stephen P Haggerty; John Linn; Michael B Ujiki Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Chanakyaram A Reddy; Anna Tavakkoli; Mustafa Abdul-Hussein; Erik Almazan; Kia Vosoughi; Yervant Ichkhanian; Mahmoud Al-Hawary; Andrew C Chang; Joan W Chen; Sheryl Korsnes; B Joseph Elmunzer; Mouen A Khashab; Ryan Law Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 9.427