Jocelyn de Heer1, Madhav Desai2, Guy Boeckxstaens3, Giovanni Zaninotto4, Karl-Hermann Fuchs1, Prateek Sharma2, Guido Schachschal1, Oliver Mann5, Thomas Rösch6, Yuki Werner1. 1. Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Motility, University of Kansas School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Kansas, MO, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Department of General and Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. t.roesch@uke.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The advent of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) shed some light on the role of the current standards in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia, namely endoscopic pneumatic dilatation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). We analyzed the quality of the current evidence comparing LHM and PD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane for meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing PD and LHM or open surgery, limited to English language full-text articles. After a detailed review of these meta-analyses, all studies included were analyzed further in depth with respect to treatment protocol, assessment of success, complications and sequelae such as gastroesophageal reflux (GER), as well as follow-up details. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCT), 5 with LHM and 1 with open surgery, were found, published in 10 papers. In contrast to a rather homogeneous LHM technique, PD regimens as well as the clinical dysphagia scores were different in every RCT; most RCTs also showed methodological limitations. There were nine meta-analyses which included a variable number of these RCTs or other cohort studies. Meta-analyses between 2009 and 2013 favored surgery, while the 4 most recent ones reached divergent conclusions. The main difference might have been whether repeated dilatation was regarded as part of the PD protocol or as failure. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in PD techniques and in definition of clinical success utilized in the achalasia RCTs on PD versus LHM render the conclusions of meta-analyses unreliable. Further randomized studies should be based on uniform criteria; in the meantime, publication of even more meta-analyses should be avoided.
INTRODUCTION: The advent of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) shed some light on the role of the current standards in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia, namely endoscopic pneumatic dilatation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). We analyzed the quality of the current evidence comparing LHM and PD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane for meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing PD and LHM or open surgery, limited to English language full-text articles. After a detailed review of these meta-analyses, all studies included were analyzed further in depth with respect to treatment protocol, assessment of success, complications and sequelae such as gastroesophageal reflux (GER), as well as follow-up details. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCT), 5 with LHM and 1 with open surgery, were found, published in 10 papers. In contrast to a rather homogeneous LHM technique, PD regimens as well as the clinical dysphagia scores were different in every RCT; most RCTs also showed methodological limitations. There were nine meta-analyses which included a variable number of these RCTs or other cohort studies. Meta-analyses between 2009 and 2013 favored surgery, while the 4 most recent ones reached divergent conclusions. The main difference might have been whether repeated dilatation was regarded as part of the PD protocol or as failure. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in PD techniques and in definition of clinical success utilized in the achalasia RCTs on PD versus LHM render the conclusions of meta-analyses unreliable. Further randomized studies should be based on uniform criteria; in the meantime, publication of even more meta-analyses should be avoided.
Authors: Guy E Boeckxstaens; Vito Annese; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Stanislas Chaussade; Mario Costantini; Antonello Cuttitta; J Ignasi Elizalde; Uberto Fumagalli; Marianne Gaudric; Wout O Rohof; André J Smout; Jan Tack; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Giovanni Zaninotto; Olivier R Busch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cynthia E Weber; Christopher S Davis; Holly J Kramer; Jeff T Gibbs; Lourdes Robles; Piero Marco Fisichella Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: An Moonen; Vito Annese; Ann Belmans; Albert J Bredenoord; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Mario Costantini; Bertrand Dousset; J I Elizalde; Uberto Fumagalli; Marianne Gaudric; Antonio Merla; Andre J Smout; Jan Tack; Giovanni Zaninotto; Olivier R Busch; Guy E Boeckxstaens Journal: Gut Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Guilherme M Campos; Eric Vittinghoff; Charlotte Rabl; Mark Takata; Michael Gadenstätter; Feng Lin; Ruxandra Ciovica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-01 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