| Literature DB >> 33488805 |
Dan Liu1, Yue-Yuan Liu1, Jia-Xin Chen1, Lei Song2, Yang-Yang Zhou1, Saif Ullah1, Li-Xia Zhao1,3, Bin Hai3, Qing-Fen Zheng1, Dong-Ying Li1, De-Zhi He1, Bing-Rong Liu1,4.
Abstract
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is the first-line treatment of achalasia cardia (AC). However, the efficacy of POEM in treating patients with advanced AC remains to be determined. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcome of POEM in treating patients with advanced AC involving different esophageal morphologies. The study was a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients suffering from advanced AC. The primary endpoint was the Eckardt score at the follow-up examination. Secondary endpoints were procedural-related details, including the operation time and length of myotomy, adverse events (AEs) and hospital stay, as well as post-procedural gastroesophageal reflux disease. The technical success rate was 100%. All 50 patients enrolled underwent successful endoscopic myotomy (conventional POEM, n=20; modified POEM, n=30). AEs were observed in 10 patients. During a 6- to 50-month follow-up period, 41 patients achieved clinical success as evidenced by a decrease in the Eckardt score. Only 3 of 6 patients with a sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus obtained symptomatic relief. Symptomatic reflux occurred in 13 of 46 patients who completed their follow-up. In conclusion, POEM is safe, feasible and effective in treating advanced AC. Patients with a sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus are less likely to report palliation of symptoms. Copyright: © Liu et al.Entities:
Keywords: advanced achalasia cardia; esophageal morphology; peroral endoscopic myotomy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33488805 PMCID: PMC7812585 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.9629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1Flow chart illustrating the study design and criteria for patient inclusion. POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy.
Figure 2Peroral endoscopic myotomy procedures. (A) Endoscopic view of a case with a sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus (female; 58 years old). (B) Submucosal injection of saline solution. (C) Creation of the mucosal entry. (D) Establishment of the submucosal tunnel. (E) Full-thickness myotomy at the esophagogastric junction. (F) Closure of mucosal entry with endoscopic clipping.
Clinical characteristics and procedure-related parameters (n=50).
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | |
| Age (years) | 49 (21-86) |
| Sex (female/male) | 22/28 |
| Subtype | |
| Megaesophagus | 24(48) |
| Sigmoid-shaped esophagus | 19(38) |
| Sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus | 7(14) |
| Symptom duration (months) | 91 (6-600) |
| Previous treatments | |
| Dilatation | 8(16) |
| Laparoscopic Heller myotomy | 4(8) |
| Open surgery myotomy | 1(2) |
| Operation | |
| POEM | 20(40) |
| Modified POEM | 30(60) |
| Operation time (min) | |
| POEM | 43 (16-163) |
| Modified POEM | 29 (11-65) |
| Length of myotomy (cm) | 8 (5-14) |
| Depth of myotomy | |
| Full-thickness myotomy | 50(100) |
| Circular myotomy | 0 (0) |
| Length of hospital stay (days) | 5.5 (3-11) |
| Adverse events | |
| Mucosal injury | 2(4) |
| Bleeding | 3(6) |
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 3(6) |
| Chest pain | 5(10) |
| Perforation | 1(2) |
Values are expressed as n, n (%), median (range). POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy.
Figure 3Esophageal radiographic features of advanced achalasia cardia in each subgroup. (A) Group 1, megaesophagus (female; 60 years old); (B) Group 2, sigmoid-shaped esophagus (male; 72 years old); and (C) Group 3, sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus (female; 70 years old).
Clinical characteristics and procedural parameters comparing three groups classified on the basis of esophageal morphology.
| Item | Group 1: Megaesophagus (n=24) | Group 2: Sigmoid-shaped esophagus (n=19) | Group 3: Sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus (n=7) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (female/male) | 8/16 | 9/10 | 5/2 | 0.819 |
| Age (years) | 48.5 (21-82) | 48.5 (21-82) | 57 (25-74) | 0.952 |
| Symptom duration (years) | 108 | 60 | 240 | 0.202 |
| Interventions prior to POEM | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0.047 |
| Procedure time (min) | 41 (13-163) | 25 (11-62) | 41 (25-66) | 0.071 |
| Myotomy length (cm) | 8 (6-14) | 7 (5-12) | 8 (5-12) | 0.201 |
| Hospital stay (days) | 6 (3-9) | 5 (3-11) | 7 (4-9) | 0.524 |
| Adverse events | ||||
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.256 |
| Bleeding | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.074 |
| Mucosal injuries | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.749 |
| Perforation | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.813 |
| Chest pain | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0.435 |
| Eckardt score[ | ||||
| Pre-treatment | 7 (3-11) | 8 (3-10) | 9 (4-10) | 6.71x10-9 |
| Post-treatment | 1 (0-9) | 1 (0-4) | 3 (0-11) | |
| GERD score | 0 (0-3) | 0 (0-2) | 1 (0-3) | 0.202 |
| Clinical success[ | 23 (95.8%) | 15 (93.7%) | 3 (50%) | 0.004 |
| Last follow-up visit (months) | 22.5 | 26.5 | 22.2 | 0.691 |
aPost-operative Eckardt score and clinical success for 46 patients who completed their follow-up visit. Values are expressed as n, n (%), median (range). POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Figure 4Eckardt scores. (A) Pre- and post-operative Eckardt scores for all patients. (B) Pre- and post-operative Eckardt scores for patients with sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus alone. Statistically significant differences between pre- and post-operative scores were determined by the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank-sum test.