| Literature DB >> 35444970 |
Dongzi Peng1,2, Yuyong Tan1,2, Chenjie Li1,2, Liang Lv1,2, Hongyi Zhu1,2, Chengbai Liang1,2, Rong Li1,2, Deliang Liu1,2.
Abstract
Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has shown promising short-term safety and efficacy in pediatric patients, while long-term outcomes are largely unknown. This study aimed to assess the clinical effects of POEM for pediatric achalasia who had a follow-up of at least 5 years.Entities:
Keywords: POEM; achalasia; endoscopic surgery; long-term outcomes; pediatric; peroral endoscopic myotomy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35444970 PMCID: PMC9013798 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.845103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.569
FIGURE 1Technique of peroral endoscopic myotomy. (A) A dilated esophagus. (B) Submucosal injection. (C) Create tunnel entry. (D) Submucosal tunnel. (E) Circular myotomy. (F) Close the tunnel entry with metal clips.
Characteristics of the children who underwent peroral endoscopic myotomy.
| Variable | Number |
| Total number | 24 |
| Age, mean ± SD, year | 14.42 ± 2.65 |
| Gender, n(%) | |
| Male | 14 (58.3%) |
| Female | 10 (41.7%) |
| Preoperative height, mean ± SD, m | 1.54 ± 0.18 |
| Preoperative weight, mean ± SD, Kg | 42.52 ± 10.73 |
| Duration of symptoms, median (range), month | 14.5 (3–84) |
| Prior interventions, n(%) | 2 (8.3%) |
| Achalasia subtype, n(%) | |
| Type I | 4/15 (26.7%) |
| Type II | 10/15 (66.7%) |
| Type III | 1/15 (6.7%) |
| Preoperative LES pressure, mean ± SD, mmHg | 30.42 ± 8.27 |
| Preoperative esophageal diameter, mean ± SD, mm | 46.11 ± 9.11 |
| Length of submucosal tunnel, median (range), cm | 12 (5–13) |
| Length of myotomy, median (range), cm | |
| Esophageal | 6 (3–8) |
| Gastric | 3 (2–3) |
| Total | 9 (5–10) |
| Full-thickness myotomy, n(%) | 12/24 (50%) |
| Procedure time, mean ± SD, min | 58.67 ± 19.10 |
| Length of postop hospital stay, mean ± SD, day | 6.42 ± 2.15 |
| Technical success rate of POEM, n(%) | 24 (100%) |
| Perioperative AEs, n(%) | 2/24 (8.3%) |
| Total follow-up period, mean ± SD, month | 85.75 ± 25.91 |
Comparison of clinical response outcomes pre and postoperatively (n = 21).
| Preoperative | > 5 Years postoperative |
| |
| Dysphagia | 2.86 ± 0.36 | 0.38 ± 0.59 | <0.001 |
| Regurgitation | 2.48 ± 0.68 | 0.24 ± 0.44 | <0.001 |
| Chest pain | 0.86 ± 0.96 | 0.24 ± 0.54 | 0.002 |
| Weight loss | 1.48 ± 0.98 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Eckardt score | 7.67 ± 1.62 | 0.86 ± 1.28 | <0.001 |
| BMI, mean ± SD, Kg/m2 | 17.72 ± 1.97 | 21.00 ± 2.19 | <0.001 |
| Esophageal diameter, mean ± SD, mm | 49.00 ± 4.78 | 23.78 ± 3.87 | 0.001 |
| LES pressure, mean ± SD, mmHg | 30.29 ± 8.61 | 9.54 ± 1.85 | <0.001 |
FIGURE 2The mean of the Eckardt score at each follow-up point (6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months).
FIGURE 3Postoperative endoscopy with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. (A) No abnormality. (B) Reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles Type A). (C) Reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles Type B).