| Literature DB >> 27895430 |
Xue-Hong Wang1, Yu-Yong Tan1, Hong-Yi Zhu1, Chen-Jie Li1, De-Liang Liu1.
Abstract
AIM: To compare long-term occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) between two different types of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia.Entities:
Keywords: Achalasia; Circular myotomy; Full-thickness myotomy; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Peroral endoscopic myotomy
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27895430 PMCID: PMC5107706 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i42.9419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Case illustration of peroral endoscopic circular myotomy. A: Endoscopy showing dilated esophagus; B: Longitudinal mucosal incision was made to create a tunnel entry; C: Submucosal tunnel; D: Endoscopic image of the circular muscle; E. Circular myotomy; F: Tunnel entry was closed with several clips.
Figure 2Case illustration of peroral endoscopic full-thickness myotomy. A: Endoscopy showing dilated esophagus; B: Longitudinal mucosal incision was made to create a tunnel entry; C: Submucosal tunnel; D: Circular myotomy was initially performed; E: Full-thickness myotomy was performed; F: Tunnel entry was closed with several clips.
Figure 3Patient selection and enrollment. POEM: Peroral endoscopic myotomy; GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Comparison of characteristics between the two groups
| Sex, M/F | 13/19 | 11/13 | 0.315 | |
| Age (yr) | 41.5 ± 10.8 | 44.5 ± 14.5 | 0.375 | |
| Disease course (yr) | 5.3 ± 7.0 | 6.6 ± 8.4 | 0.535 | |
| Esophagus type, S/non-S | 1/31 | 3/21 | 0.303 | |
| Previous therapy, Yes/No | 6/26 | 5/19 | 0.846 | |
| Achalasia type, I/II/III | 5/24/3 | 4/18/2 | 0.987 | |
| Pre- | Eckardt score | 6.4 ± 1.3 | 6.5 ± 1.6 | 0.784 |
| POEM | LESP, mmHg | 39.5 ± 7.1 | 38.3 ± 6.0 | 0.502 |
| 4sIRP, mmHg | 28.4 ± 5.0 | 28.7 ± 5.3 | 0.849 | |
| Follow-up, mo | 39.8 ± 4.2 | 38.6 ± 1.8 | 0.201 | |
| Post- | Eckardt score | 0.47 ± 0.67 | 0.38 ± 0.65 | 0.602 |
| POEM | LESP (mmHg) | 14.6 ± 3.7 | 14.0 ± 3.0 | 0.500 |
| 4sIRP (mmHg) | 10.6 ± 2.8 | 10.2 ± 2.2 | 0.545 | |
| GERD symptoms | 15.6% (5/32) | 33.3% (8/24) | 0.12 | |
| pH test + | 40.6% (13/32) | 50% (12/24) | 0.485 | |
| Esophagitis (%) | 15.6% (5/32) | 29.2% (7/24) | 0.222 | |
| Clinically relevant GERD | 12.5% (4/32) | 37.5% (9/24) | 0.028 | |
S/non-S: Sigmoid-type/non-sigmoid-type; GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; pH test +: Abnormal esophageal acid exposure.
Figure 4Endoscopic images of esophagitis after peroral endoscopic myotomy. A: Los Angeles Grade A esophagitis; B: Los Angeles Grade B esophagitis.
Multivariate analyses for risk factors of clinically relevant gastroesophageal reflux disease
| Constant | 8.810 | 3.261 | 0.007 | 0.000 | |
| Full-thickness myotomy | 1.835 | 0.806 | 0.023 | 6.262 | 1.289, 30.413 |
| Postoperative 4sIRP | 0.769 | 0.299 | 6.628 | 2.158 | 1.202, 3.877 |
4sIRP: 4-s integrated relaxation pressure; OR: Odds ratio.