Anterior versus posterior approach in peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being used as the endoscopic treatment option for achalasia. Data are limited as to the comparative efficacy of anterior vs. posterior myotomy.

Methods We searched multiple databases from inception to August 2019 to identify studies reporting on POEM. We selected studies that reported on the outcomes of POEM, along with information on myotomy approach. We performed a comparative analysis of clinical success, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adverse events with anterior and posterior myotomy in POEM by meta-analysis.

Results 1247 patients from 18 studies were analyzed: 623 patients (11 cohorts) were treated via anterior myotomy and 624 patients (12 cohorts) via posterior myotomy. The pooled rate for clinical success gave an odds ratio (OR) of 1.02 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.52 – 2.0; I ² 0; P = 0.9); for GERD by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was OR 1.02 (95 %CI 0.62 – 1.68; I ² 0; P = 0.9), and for GERD by pH was OR 0.98 (95 %CI 0.59 – 1.63; I ² 34; P = 0.9). The individual pooled rates of clinical success at 12 months and > 12 months, GERD (by symptoms, EGD, pH), and adverse events (mild, moderate, severe) were comparable. The pooled total procedure time with anterior myotomy was 82.7 minutes (95 %CI 69.0 – 96.4; I ² 98) and with posterior myotomy was 62.1 minutes (95 %CI 48.5 – 75.7; I ² 90).

Conclusion Anterior and posterior myotomy in POEM seem comparable to each other in terms of clinical success, GERD, and adverse events. The total procedure time with posterior myotomy seems to be shorter than with anterior myotomy.

Publication History

Received: 05 September 2019

Accepted: 09 December 2019

Article published online:
20 January 2020

• References

• 1 Boeckxstaens GE, Annese V, Varannes SBd. et al. Pneumatic dilation versus laparoscopic Heller's myotomy for idiopathic achalasia. NEJM 2011; 364: 1807-1816
• 2 Sonnenberg A. Time trends of US hospitalization for esophageal disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: e71-e75
• 3 Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
• 4 Ren Z, Zhong Y, Zhou P. et al. Perioperative management and treatment for complications during and after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia (EA) (data from 119 cases). Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 3267-3272
• 5 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Ann Int Med 2009; 151: 264-269
• 6 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
• 7 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
• 8 Glenny A, Altman D, Song F. et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-134, III-IV
• 9 Mohan BP, Chandan S, Garg R. et al. Lumen-apposing metal stents, fully covered self-expanding metal stents, and biodegradable stents in the management of benign of GI Strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019; 53: 560-573
• 10 Mohan BP, Jayaraj M, Asokkumar R. et al. Lumen apposing metal stents in drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis, are they any better than plastic stents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published since the revised Atlanta classification of pancreatic fluid collections. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 82-90
• 11 Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Dugyala S. et al. EUS versus percutaneous management of postoperative pancreatic fluid collection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 298-309
• 12 Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R. et al. Comparison of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid mass lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2019;
• 13 Eckardt VF, Aignherr C, Bernhard G. Predictors of outcome in patients with achalasia treated by pneumatic dilation. Gastroenterology 1992; 103: 1732-1738
• 14 Kusano M, Hosaka H, Kawada A. et al. Development and evaluation of a modified Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease to distinguish functional dyspepsia from non-erosive reflux disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1187-1191
• 15 Kusano M, Shimoyama Y, Sugimoto S. et al. Development and evaluation of FSSG: frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD. J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 888-891
• 16 Jonasson C, Wernersson B, Hoff DA. et al. Validation of the GerdQ questionnaire for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 37: 564-572
• 17 Jones R, Junghard O, Dent J. et al. Development of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 1030-1038
• 18 Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL. et al. The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 1996; 111: 85-92
• 19 Dent J. Endoscopic grading of reflux oesophagitis: the past, present and future. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 585-599
• 20 Johnson LF, Demeester TR. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 1974; 62: 325-332
• 21 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2010; 71: 446-454
• 22 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
• 23 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2000: 205-228
• 24 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
• 25 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
• 26 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
• 27 Kanwal F, White D. “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses” in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1184-1186
• 28 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
• 29 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines: rating the quality of evidence 2014; inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1294-1302
• 30 Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA. et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872
• 31 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
• 32 Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons; 2006
• 33 Khashab MA, Sanaei O, Rivory J. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: anterior versus posterior approach: a randomized single-blinded clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;
• 34 Ramchandani M, Nabi Z, Reddy DN. et al. Outcomes of anterior myotomy versus posterior myotomy during POEM: a randomized pilot study. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: e190-e198
• 35 Tan Y, Lv L, Wang X. et al. Efficacy of anterior versus posterior per-oral endoscopic myotomy for treating achalasia: a randomized, prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 46-54
• 36 Stavropoulos SN, Modayil RJ, Zhang X. et al. Is there a difference in outcomes between anterior and posterior peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM)? A randomized study from an experienced high-volume operator. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2018; 87: AB121
• 37 Hungness ES, Sternbach JM, Teitelbaum EN. et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) after the learning curve: durable long-term results with a low complication rate. Ann Surg 2016; 264: 508-517
• 38 Shiwaku H, Inoue H, Sasaki T. et al. A prospective analysis of GERD after POEM on anterior myotomy. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 2496-2504
• 39 Tang X, Gong W, Deng Z. et al. Feasibility and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia after failed endoscopic interventions. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30: 1-6
• 40 Ward MA, Gitelis M, Patel L. et al. Outcomes in patients with over 1-year follow-up after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 1550-1557
• 41 Werner YB, Costamagna G, Swanstrom LL. et al. Clinical response to peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Gut 2016; 65: 899-906
• 42 Zheng Z, Zhao C, Su S. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation - result from a retrospective study with 1-year follow-up. Z Gastroenterol 2019; 57: 304-311
• 43 de Pascale S, Repici A, Puccetti F. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus surgical myotomy for primary achalasia: single-center, retrospective analysis of 74 patients. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30: 1-7
• 44 Duan T, Tan Y, Zhou J. et al. A retrospective study of peroral endoscopic full-thickness myotomy in patients with severe achalasia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2017; 27: 770-776
• 45 Guo H, Yang H, Zhang X. et al. Long-term outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for patients with achalasia: a retrospective single-center study. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30: 1-6
• 46 Meng F, Li P, Wang Y. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy compared with pneumatic dilation for newly diagnosed achalasia. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 4665-4672
• 47 Peng L, Tian S, Du C. et al. Outcome of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treating achalasia compared with laparoscopic heller myotomy (LHM). Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2017; 27: 60-64
• 48 Tyberg A, Sharaiha RZ, Familiari P. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy as salvation technique post-Heller: International experience. Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 52-56
• 49 Wang X, Tan Y, Lv L. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation for achalasia in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2016; 108: 637-641
• 50 Zhang W, Linghu EQ. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for type III achalasia of Chicago classification: outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. J Gastrointest Surg 2017; 21: 785-791
• 51 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
• 52 Kumbhari V, Tieu AH, Onimaru M. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: e195-e201
• 53 Louie BE, Schneider AM, Schembre DB. et al. Impact of prior interventions on outcomes during per oral endoscopic myotomy. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 1841-1848
• 54 Lu B, Li M, Hu Y. et al. Effect of peroral esophageal myotomy for achalasia treatment: A Chinese study. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 5622-5629
• 55 Lv L, Liu J, Tan Y. et al. Peroral endoscopic full-thickness myotomy for the treatment of sigmoid-type Achalasia: Outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 28: 30-36
• 56 Ramchandani M, Nageshwar Reddy D, Darisetty S. et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia cardia: Treatment analysis and follow up of over 200 consecutive patients at a single center. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 19-26
• 57 Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Murad MH. et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5630
• 58 Rodriguez de Santiago E, Mohammed N, Manolakis A. et al. Anterior versus posterior myotomy during poem for the treatment of achalasia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2019; 28: 107-115