BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for treating achalasia. Two approaches-anterior myotomy and posterior myotomy-are used during POEM. However, little is known about the comparison between the 2 different approaches. The objective of the study is to compare the safety and short-term efficacy of the 2 approaches for treating achalasia. METHODS:From October 2015 to December 2016, 63 consecutive patients with achalasia without prior treatment or sigmoid-type esophagus were prospectively recruited. They were randomly assigned to an anterior or posterior myotomy group. Clinical data about general characteristics, operative parameters, pre- and postoperative Eckardt score, esophageal manometry results, 24-hour pH test, and adverse events were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The anterior group included 31 patients and the posterior group 32 patients. All patients underwent POEM successfully, and treatment success (defined as an Eckardt score ≤3) was achieved in all patients during a mean follow-up of 15.5 months. Mean Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and 4-second integrated relaxation pressure were significantly decreased (6.2 ± 1.3, 37.5 ± 6.7 mm Hg, and 27.3 ± 4.9 mm Hg vs .70 ± .70, 12.8 ± 2.8 mm Hg, and 11.1 ± 2.3 mm Hg, respectively; P < .01). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of general characteristics, treatment success, pre- and postoperative esophageal manometry, Eckardt score, and adverse events (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The short-term treatment efficacy, manometry outcomes, and adverse events were comparable between the anterior and posterior myotomy groups. Large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are warranted for a more definitive conclusion. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR-ICR-15007211.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for treating achalasia. Two approaches-anterior myotomy and posterior myotomy-are used during POEM. However, little is known about the comparison between the 2 different approaches. The objective of the study is to compare the safety and short-term efficacy of the 2 approaches for treating achalasia. METHODS: From October 2015 to December 2016, 63 consecutive patients with achalasia without prior treatment or sigmoid-type esophagus were prospectively recruited. They were randomly assigned to an anterior or posterior myotomy group. Clinical data about general characteristics, operative parameters, pre- and postoperative Eckardt score, esophageal manometry results, 24-hour pH test, and adverse events were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The anterior group included 31 patients and the posterior group 32 patients. All patients underwent POEM successfully, and treatment success (defined as an Eckardt score ≤3) was achieved in all patients during a mean follow-up of 15.5 months. Mean Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and 4-second integrated relaxation pressure were significantly decreased (6.2 ± 1.3, 37.5 ± 6.7 mm Hg, and 27.3 ± 4.9 mm Hg vs .70 ± .70, 12.8 ± 2.8 mm Hg, and 11.1 ± 2.3 mm Hg, respectively; P < .01). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of general characteristics, treatment success, pre- and postoperative esophageal manometry, Eckardt score, and adverse events (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The short-term treatment efficacy, manometry outcomes, and adverse events were comparable between the anterior and posterior myotomy groups. Large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are warranted for a more definitive conclusion. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR-ICR-15007211.).
Authors: Jun Liang Teh; Hui Yu Tham; Alex Yu Sen Soh; Corrisa Chee; Guowei Kim; Asim Shabbir; Reuben Kong Min Wong; Jimmy Bok Yan So Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Fabian Emura; Rene Gomez-Esquivel; Carlos Rodriguez-Reyes; Petros Benias; Javier Preciado; Michael Wallace; Luis Giraldo-Cadavid Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742