Oscar M Crespin1,2, Louis W C Liu3, Ambica Parmar4, Timothy D Jackson5,6, Jemila Hamid7,8, Eran Shlomovitz5,6,9, Allan Okrainec5,6. 1. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. crespinmax@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. crespinmax@gmail.com. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 9. Division of Interventional Radiology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel intervention for the treatment of achalasia, which combines the advantages of endoscopic access and myotomy. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of POEM. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE (R) including in-process and non-indexed citations were searched for POEM studies using the keywords: esophageal achalasia, POEM, endoscopy, natural orifice surgery, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), and related terms. Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, and reported complications were the main outcomes. Two authors reviewed the search result independently. A third reviewer resolved all disagreements. Data abstraction was pilot-tested and approved by all authors. Data were examined for clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity with the aim of determining whether evidence synthesis using meta- analysis was possible. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 2894 citations. After removing duplicates and applying the exclusion criteria, 54 studies were selected for full-text review of which a total of 19 studies were considered eligible for further analysis. There were 10 retrospective and 9 prospective studies, including 1299 POEM procedures. No randomized control trial (RCT) was identified. Overall, the pre- and post-POEM Eckardt scores and LES pressure were significantly different. The most frequently reported complications were mucosal perforation, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumoperitoneum, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pleural effusion, and pneumonia. The median follow-up was 13 months (range 3-24). CONCLUSION: POEM is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of achalasia. However, only short-term follow-up data compared with LHM are available. RCTs and long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of POEM in the management of patients with achalasia.
INTRODUCTION: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel intervention for the treatment of achalasia, which combines the advantages of endoscopic access and myotomy. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of POEM. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE (R) including in-process and non-indexed citations were searched for POEM studies using the keywords: esophageal achalasia, POEM, endoscopy, natural orifice surgery, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), and related terms. Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, and reported complications were the main outcomes. Two authors reviewed the search result independently. A third reviewer resolved all disagreements. Data abstraction was pilot-tested and approved by all authors. Data were examined for clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity with the aim of determining whether evidence synthesis using meta- analysis was possible. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 2894 citations. After removing duplicates and applying the exclusion criteria, 54 studies were selected for full-text review of which a total of 19 studies were considered eligible for further analysis. There were 10 retrospective and 9 prospective studies, including 1299 POEM procedures. No randomized control trial (RCT) was identified. Overall, the pre- and post-POEM Eckardt scores and LES pressure were significantly different. The most frequently reported complications were mucosal perforation, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumoperitoneum, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pleural effusion, and pneumonia. The median follow-up was 13 months (range 3-24). CONCLUSION: POEM is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of achalasia. However, only short-term follow-up data compared with LHM are available. RCTs and long-term follow-up studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of POEM in the management of patients with achalasia.
Authors: Mouen A Khashab; Ahmed A Messallam; Manabu Onimaru; Ezra N Teitelbaum; Michael B Ujiki; Matthew E Gitelis; Rani J Modayil; Eric S Hungness; Stavros N Stavropoulos; Mohamad H El Zein; Hironari Shiwaku; Rastislav Kunda; Alessandro Repici; Hitomi Minami; Philip W Chiu; Jeffrey Ponsky; Vivek Kumbhari; Payal Saxena; Amit P Maydeo; Haruhiro Inoue Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Ahmed M Sharata; Christy M Dunst; Radu Pescarus; Eran Shlomovitz; Aaron J T Wille; Kevin M Reavis; Lee L Swanström Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Markus B Schoenberg; Svetlana Marx; Jan F Kersten; Thomas Rösch; Sebastian Belle; Georg Kähler; Melina C Vassiliou; Stefan Lüth; Daniel von Renteln Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Oscar Maximiliano Crespin; Roger Perry Tatum; Keliang Xiao; Ana Valeria Martin; Saurabh Khandelwal; Carlos Alberto Pellegrini; Brant Kurt Oelschlager Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-04-27 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: Jocelyn de Heer; Madhav Desai; Guy Boeckxstaens; Giovanni Zaninotto; Karl-Hermann Fuchs; Prateek Sharma; Guido Schachschal; Oliver Mann; Thomas Rösch; Yuki Werner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ryan A J Campagna; Arturo Cirera; Amy L Holmstrom; Joseph R Triggs; Ezra N Teitelbaum; Dustin A Carlson; John E Pandolfino; Eric S Hungness Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.787