Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(08): E1246-E1254
DOI: 10.1055/a-1490-8493
Original article

Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Saurabh Chandan
 1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Antonio Facciorusso
 2   Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
,
Shahab R. Khan
 3   Section of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Daryl Ramai
 4   Internal Medicine, Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
Babu P. Mohan
 5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Mohammad Bilal
 6   Division of Gastroenterology, University of Minnesota and Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
,
Banreet Dhindsa
 7   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Lena L. Kassab
 8   Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Hemant Goyal
 9   Gastroenterology, Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, Philadelphia, United States
,
Abhilash Perisetti
10   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
,
Ishfaq Bhat
 7   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Shailender Singh
 7   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Stephanie McDonough
 5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Douglas G. Adler
 5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Comment on:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2021; 53(09): 989-989
DOI: 10.1055/a-1519-4791

Abstract

Background and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation in esophageal myotomy length is not well known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of short versus standard myotomy length in patients with achalasia.

Patients and methods We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2020 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of achalasia patients who underwent short compared with standard esophageal myotomy. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success, GERD outcomes, and adverse events with the two techniques.

Results 5 studies with 474 patients were included in the final analysis (short myotomy group 214, standard myotomy group 260). There was no difference in clinical success (OR 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–2.52; I2 0 %; P = 0.69), postoperative symptomatic GERD (OR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.44–1.74; I2 29 %; P = 0.70), and overall adverse events (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.19–1.38; I2 40 %; P = 0.19), between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis as determined by endoscopy was lower in the short myotomy group (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.24–1.03; I2 0 %; P = 0.06).

Conclusion Our analysis showed that performing POEM with short esophageal myotomy in achalasia was as safe and effective as standard myotomy, with lower incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 14 December 2020

Accepted: 17 March 2021

Article published online:
16 July 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH. et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and management of achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1393-1411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Samo S, Carlson DA, Gregory DL. et al. Incidence and prevalence of achalasia in central Chicago, 2004–2014, since the widespread use of high-resolution manometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 366-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Boeckxstaens GE, Zaninotto G, Richter JE. Achalasia. Lancet 2014; 383: 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schneider AM, Louie BE, Warren HF. et al. A matched comparison of per oral endoscopic myotomy to laparoscopic Heller myotomy in the treatment of achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20: 1789-1796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bhayani NH, Kurian AA, Dunst CM. et al. A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 1098-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Khashab MA, Vela MF, Thosani N. et al. ASGE guideline on the management of achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 213-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Repici A, Fuccio L, Maselli R. et al. GERD after per-oral endoscopic myotomy as compared with Heller’s myotomy with fundoplication: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 934-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sanaka MR, Thota PN, Parikh MP. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy leads to higher rates of abnormal esophageal acid exposure than laparoscopic Heller myotomy in achalasia. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 2284-2292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Werner YB, Hakanson B, Martinek J. et al. Endoscopic or surgical myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 2219-2229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kumbhari V, Familiari P, Bjerregaard NC. et al. Gastroesophageal reflux after peroral endoscopic myotomy: a multicenter case–control study. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 634-642
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Arevalo G, Sippey M, Martin-Del-Campo LA. et al. Post-POEM reflux: who’s at risk?. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 3163-3168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stavropoulos SN, Desilets DJ, Fuchs KH. et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy white paper summary. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2005-2019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Oelschlager BK, Chang L, Pellegrini CA. Improved outcome after extended gastric myotomy for achalasia. Arch Surg 2003; 138: 490-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Grimes KL, Bechara R, Shimamura Y. et al. Gastric myotomy length affects severity but not rate of post-procedure reflux: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial of double-scope per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 2963-2968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N. et al. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1707-1728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S. et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004; 4: 38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gu L, Ouyang Z, Lv L. et al. Safety and efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy with standard myotomy versus short myotomy for treatment-naïve patients with type II achalasia: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.006.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nabi Z, Ramchandani M, Sayyed M. et al. Comparison of short versus long esophageal myotomy in cases with idiopathic achalasia: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020; DOI: 10.5056/jnm20022.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Huang S, Ren Y, Peng W. et al. Peroral endoscopic shorter versus longer myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a comparative retrospective study. Esophagus 2020; 17: 477-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Li L, Chai N, Linghu E. et al. Safety and efficacy of using a short tunnel versus a standard tunnel for peroral endoscopic myotomy for Ling type IIc and III achalasia: a retrospective study. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 1394-1402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Familiari P, Calì A, Landi R. et al. Tu2041 Long vs short POEM for the treatment of achalasia. Interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: AB624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York: Wiley; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Higgins J, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2009; 172: 137-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ. et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31: 337-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Inoue H, Shiwaku H, Iwakiri K. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for peroral endoscopic myotomy. Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 563-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Schlottmann F, Luckett DJ, Fine J. et al. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy versus peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2018; 267: 451-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Repici A, Fuccio L, Maselli R. et al. GERD after per-oral endoscopic myotomy as compared with Heller’s myotomy with fundoplication: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 934-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Akintoye E, Kumar N, Obaitan I. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 1059-1068
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Inoue H, Sato H, Ikeda H. et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: a series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221: 256-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Martinek J, Svecova H, Vackova Z. et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): mid-term efficacy and safety. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 1293-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pannu D, Yang D, Abbitt PL. et al. Prospective evaluation of CT esophagram findings after peroral endoscopic myotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 408-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Yang S, Zeng MS, Zhang ZY. et al. Pneumomediastinum and pneumoperitoneum on computed tomography after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): postoperative changes or complications?. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: 1216-1221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Levy JL, Levine MS, Rubesin SE. et al. Findings of esophagography for 25 patients after peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207: 1185-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Jayan N, Jacob JS, Mathew M. et al. Anesthesia for peroral endoscopic myotomy: a retrospective case series. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2016; 32: 379-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Inoue H, Shiwaku H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Statement for gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy from an international multicenter experience. Esophagus 2020; 17: 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chandan S, Mohan BP, Chandan OC. et al. Clinical efficacy of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for spastic esophageal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 707-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Carlson DA. et al. Advances in management of esophageal motility disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1692-1700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar