Long-term dysphagia resolution following POEM versus Heller myotomy for achalasia patients

Comparative Effectiveness of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) Versus Traditional Treatment Modalities for Achalasia: A Systematic Review

Achalasia is a rare esophageal motility disorder characterized by impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and absence of peristalsis, leading to significant swallowing difficulties and other symptoms. Traditional treatment options, including Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation (PD), have been effective but are associated with risks such as perforation and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative, potentially offering several advantages over conventional methods. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of POEM versus HM in the treatment of achalasia. We systematically reviewed studies that compared POEM with HM in achalasia patients, focusing on key outcomes such as myotomy length, operative time, treatment success rates, and complication rates. The review included 15 studies comprising four randomized controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, and one case-control study. The results consistently showed that POEM achieved longer myotomy lengths and shorter operative times compared to HM. POEM also demonstrated higher or comparable treatment success rates, with a uniform definition of success based on achieving an Eckardt score of ≤3. However, the complication rates, particularly the incidence of GERD, varied between the two procedures, highlighting the need for careful patient selection and long-term follow-up. POEM offers a promising alternative to HM for the treatment of achalasia, with advantages in terms of reduced invasiveness, shorter operative times, and potentially higher treatment success rates. However, further high-quality research is necessary to fully establish its long-term efficacy and safety compared to conventional treatments.

Achalasia: laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication versus peroral endoscopic myotomy-a systematic review and meta-analysis

There are various therapeutic options for achalasia. Nevertheless, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication (LHM) are distinguished by their efficacy and low incidence of complications. Compare POEM and LHM regarding several outcomes in patients with achalasia. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An exhaustive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing several outcomes between POEM and LHM in patients with achalasia were included. Data on clinical success, operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, reintervention rates, postoperative pain, overall complications, occurrence of GERD symptoms, use of proton bomb inhibitors and esophagitis were extracted. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the MINORS scale. We included 20 retrospective observational studies with a combined total of 5139 participants. The results demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, reintervention rate, occurrence of GERD symptoms, GERD HRQL, use of proton pump inhibitors, and esophagitis between POEM and LHM groups. Conversely, POEM was associated with higher clinical success and shorter operative time, length of stay, and postoperative pain. This meta-analysis concludes that both POEM and LHM, are effective and safe treatments for achalasia. However, POEM demonstrates better results regarding clinical success, operative time, length of stay, postoperative pain, and a tendency towards lower recurrence.

Direct cost variance analysis of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs heller myotomy for management of achalasia: A tertiary referral center experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the traditional surgical treatment for achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated similar clinical outcomes with shorter procedure times. Studies comparing the direct cost-effectiveness of POEM vs LHM are limited.

AIM

To compare costs of POEM vs LHM.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review aimed to compare the outcomes and cost of clinical care between patients who underwent POEM and LHM procedures for achalasia. The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center from January 2019 to December 2020. Clinical outcomes, including post-operative Eckardt scores and adverse events, were assessed and compared between the two groups. Direct cost variance analysis was utilized to evaluate the cost of clinical care incurred by patients undergoing POEM in the year preceding the procedure, during the index admission, and one year post-procedure, in comparison to patients undergoing LHM.

RESULTS

Of 30 patients were included (15 POEM and 15 LHM) in the study. Patients in the POEM group had a mean Eckardt score of 0.5 ± 0.5 post-procedure, which was no different from patients in the LHM group (0.7 ± 0.6, P = 0.17) indicating comparative efficacy. However, the total costs of the admission for the procedure in the LHM group were on average $1827 more expensive than in the POEM group (P < 0.01). Total healthcare costs one year prior to index procedure were $7777 higher in the LHM group, but not statistically different (P = 0.34). The patients in the LHM group one year after the index procedure had accrued $19730.24 larger total cost, although this was not statistically different from POEM group (P = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

Despite similar clinical outcomes, the cost of the index procedure admission for POEM was significantly lower than for LHM. The difference was primarily related to shorter time increments utilized in the operating room during the index procedure, and shorter length of hospital stay following POEM.

Updates in the Field of Submucosal Endoscopy

Submucosal endoscopy (third-space endoscopy) can be defined as an endoscopic procedure performed in the submucosal space. This procedure is novel and has been utilized for delivery to the submucosal space in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases, such as a tumor, achalasia, gastroparesis, and subepithelial tumors. The main submucosal endoscopy includes peroral endoscopic myotomy, gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy, Zenker peroral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunneling for endoscopic resection, and endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection. Submucosal endoscopy has been used as a viable alternative to surgical techniques because it is minimally invasive in the treatment and diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. However, there is limited evidence to prove this. This article reviews the current applications and evidence regarding submucosal endoscopy while exploring the possible future clinical applications in this field. As our understanding of these procedures improves, the future of submucosal endoscopy could be promising in the fields of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Waning Over Time in Endoscopic Versus Surgical Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy with fundoplication (HMF) effectively treat achalasia, an esophageal motor disease. Although a significant number of meta-analyses have compared POEM and HMF, these studies showed discrepant postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) conclusions. This review aimed to objectively compare GERD over time, as well as the efficiency, safety, and adverse events in POEM versus HMF for treating achalasia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The evaluated outcomes included early (within 12 months) and late (beyond 12 months) endoscopic assessment of GERD using the Lyon Consensus, clinical success, operative duration (OD), length of stay (LOS), and major adverse events (MAE). A total of 29 observational studies and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 13,914 patients were included. GERD was 28% higher among RCTs discussing POEM at early assessment (95%CI 0.02, 0.54) and was not different at late evaluation (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00, 0.22). No difference in reflux was observed among observational studies in both periods. The clinical success was 9% higher (95% CI = 0.05, 0.12), and the OD was 37.74 minutes shorter (95% CI = -55.44, -20.04) in POEM among observational studies, whereas it was not different among RCTs. The LOS and MAE were similar in the groups. Comparisons among studies yielded divergent results. RCTs revealed that POEM had a higher incidence of GERD in the early assessment, whereas observational studies showed higher clinical success and a shorter OD in POEM. Ultimately, the between-group difference waned over time in GERD in all comparisons, resulting in no difference among RCTs in the late evaluation. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a non-preferential treatment of achalasia between endoscopic or surgical cardiomyotomy, prioritizing an individualized approach in the long term.

Clinical and financial outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic heller myotomy for treatment of achalasia

BACKGROUND

Previous studies analyzing short-term outcomes for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) have shown excellent clinical response rates and shorter operative times compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Despite this, many payors have been slow to recognize POEM as a valid treatment option. Furthermore, comparative studies analyzing long-term outcomes are limited. This study compares perioperative and long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and reimbursement for POEM and LHM at a single institution.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent POEM or LHM between 2014 and 2021 and had complete preoperative data with at least one complete follow up, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, success rate, operative time, myotomy length, length of stay, pre- and postoperative symptom scores, anti-reflux medication use, cost and reimbursement were compared.

RESULTS

58 patients met inclusion with 25 undergoing LHM and 33 undergoing POEM. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics. Treatment success (Eckardt ≤ 3) for POEM and LHM was achieved by 88% and 76% of patients, respectively (p = 0.302). POEM patients had a shorter median operative time (106 min. vs. 145 min., p = 0.003) and longer median myotomy length (11 cm vs. 8 cm, p < 0.001). All LHM patients had a length of stay (LOS) ≥ 1 day vs. 51.5% for POEM patients (p < 0.001). Both groups showed improvements in dysphagia, heartburn, regurgitation, Eckardt score, GERD HRQL, RSI, and anti-reflux medication use. The improvement in dysphagia score was greater in patients undergoing POEM (2.30 vs 1.12, p = 0.003). Median hospital reimbursement was dramatically less for POEM ($3,658 vs. $14,152, p = 0.002), despite median hospital costs being significantly lower compared to LHM ($2,420 vs. $3,132, p = 0.029).

RESULTS

POEM is associated with a shorter operative time and LOS, longer myotomy length, and greater resolution of dysphagia compared to LHM. POEM costs are significantly less than LHM but is poorly reimbursed.

Recurrent dysphagia after myotomy for achalasia: pneumatic dilation or POEM? : Which modality offers superior outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

Myotomy is the gold standard treatment for achalasia, yet long-term failure rates approach 15%. Treatment options for recurrent dysphagia include pneumatic dilation (PD), laparoscopic redo myotomy, per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), or esophagectomy. We employ both PD and POEM as first-line treatment for these patients. We evaluated operative success and patient reported outcomes for patients who underwent PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia after myotomy.

METHODS

We identified patients with achalasia who underwent PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia after previous myotomy within a foregut database at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) and Eckardt scores, and overall change in each were compared across PD and POEM groups. Successful treatment of dysphagia was defined by Eckardt scores ≤ 3.

RESULTS

103 patients underwent myotomy for achalasia. Of these, 19 (18%) had either PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia. Nine were treated with PD and 10 with POEM. The mean change in Eckardt and GERD-HRQL scores did not differ between groups. 50% of the PD group and 67% of the POEM group had resolution of their dysphagia symptoms (p = 0.65). Mean procedure length was greater in the POEM group (267 vs 72 min, p < 0.01) as was mean length of stay (1.56 vs 0.3 days, p < 0.01). There was one adverse event after PD and three adverse events after POEM. After PD, 7 patients (70%) required additional procedures compared to four patients (44%) in the POEM group, consisting mostly of repeat PD.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing PD or POEM for recurrent dysphagia after myotomy have similar rates of dysphagia resolution and reflux symptoms. Patients undergoing PD enjoy a shorter length of stay and shorter procedure time but may require more subsequent procedures.

Third-Space Endoscopy: Recent Updates

Third space or submucosal space is a potential space which on expansion allows the endoscopist to execute a multitude of therapeutic procedures for various gastrointestinal diseases like achalasia, subepithelial tumors, Zenker’s diverticulum, and refractory gastroparesis. Third space was first utilized for performing endoscopic myotomy in cases with achalasia cardia about a decade ago. Since then, the field of submucosal endoscopy has witnessed an exponential growth. The present review focuses on recent advances in the field of third-space endoscopy. With regard to per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in achalasia cardia, several recent studies have evaluated the long-term outcomes of POEM, compared endoscopic myotomy with pneumatic dilatation (PD) and surgical myotomy, and evaluated the outcomes of short- versus long-esophageal myotomy. In addition, the utility of multiple dose antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infections after POEM has been questioned. Overall, the results from these studies indicate that POEM is a durable treatment modality, equally effective to Heller’s myotomy and superior to PD. With regard to gastric-POEM (G-POEM), recent studies suggest only modest efficacy in cases with refractory gastroparesis. Therefore, quality studies are required to identify predictors of response to optimize the outcomes of G-POEM in these cases. Another third-space endoscopy procedure that has gained popularity is endoscopic division of septum in cases with esophageal diverticula including Zenker’s POEM and epiphrenic diverticula POEM (Z-POEM and D-POEM, respectively). The technique of diverticulotomy using the principles of submucosal endoscopy appears safe and effective in short term. Data on term outcomes are awaited and comparative trials with flexible endoscopic myotomy required. Per-rectal endoscopic myotomy (PREM) is the most recent addition to third space endoscopy procedures for the management of short-segment Hirschsprung’s disease. Limited data suggest that PREM may be a promising alternative surgery in these cases. However, quality studies with long-term follow-up are required to validate the outcomes of PREM.

Perioperative outcomes of inpatient laparoscopic Heller myotomy and per-oral endoscopic myotomy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Per-oral endoscopic myotomy is an alternative to pneumatic dilation and laparoscopic Heller myotomy to treat lower esophageal sphincter diseases. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and per-oral endoscopic myotomy perioperative outcomes data come from relatively small retrospective series and 1 randomized trial. We aimed to estimate the number of inpatient procedures performed in the United States and compare perioperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic Heller myotomy and per-oral endoscopic myotomy using a nationally representative database.

METHODS

Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of hospital admissions for laparoscopic Heller myotomy or per-oral endoscopic myotomy from October 2015 through December 2018 in the National Inpatient Sample. Patient and hospital characteristics, concurrent antireflux procedures, perioperative adverse events (any adverse event and those associated with extended length of stay ≥3 days), mortality, length of stay, and costs were compared. Logistic regression evaluated factors independently associated with adverse events.

RESULTS

An estimated 11,270 patients had laparoscopic Heller myotomy (n = 9,555) or per-oral endoscopic myotomy (n = 1,715) without significant differences in demographics and comorbidities. A concurrent anti-reflux procedure was more frequent with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (72.8% vs 15.5%, P < .001). Overall adverse event rate was higher with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (13.3% vs 24.8%, P < .001), and mortality was similar. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy had higher rates of adverse events associated with extended length of stay (9.3% vs 16.6%, P < .001), infectious adverse events (3.5% vs 8.2%, P < .001), gastrointestinal bleeding (3.4% vs 5.8%, P = .04), accidental injuries (3% vs 5.5%, P = .03), and thoracic adverse events (4.5% vs 9%, P < .01). Rates of adverse events of both procedures remained similar during the years of the study. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy was independently associated with adverse events. Length of stay (laparoscopic Heller myotomy: 3.2 ± 0.1 vs per-oral endoscopic myotomy: 3.7 ± 0.3 days, P = .17) and costs (laparoscopic Heller myotomy: $15,471 ± 406 vs per-oral endoscopic myotomy: $15,146 ± 1,308, P = .82) were similar.

CONCLUSION

In this national database review, laparoscopic Heller myotomy had a lower rate of perioperative adverse events at similar length of stay and costs than per-oral endoscopic myotomy. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy remains a safer procedure than per-oral endoscopic myotomy for a myotomy of the distal esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter in the United States.

Robotic esophagomyotomy for achalasia: technical note and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of achalasia has undergone continuous evolution with the advancement of technology. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the employment of robotics has led to technical facilitation with the execution of the myotomy and consequently to improvement of outcomes and decrease perioperative morbidity.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We provide a detailed description of the surgical procedure and the perioperative management together with a literature search of Electronic PubMed/Medline database and Cochrane Library. English written studies on robotic assisted myotomy (case reports, reviews, single arm and comparative studies) were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Between 2001 and 2020, 10 case reports, 13 single arm studies, 10 comparative studies, 2 meta-analysis, 11 reviews and 2 technical notes on robotic assisted esophagomyotomy for achalasia were published.

CONCLUSIONS

As reported by the studies available in the literature and evaluated in this manuscript, robotic assisted cardiomyotomy seems not only feasible but also a safer operation compared with traditional laparoscopic Heller myotomy, due to a significant lower incidence of intraoperative esophageal perforation. Also if large and randomized controlled studies are advocated, robotic assisted esophagocardiomyotomy might be considered superior to laparoscopic Heller myotomy that, until now, is mostly considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of achalasia.

Optional Management of Achalasia in 2021: Dilatation or Myotomy

Achalasia cardia is a primary motility disorder of the esophagus, defined by lack of normal esophageal peristalsis along with inadequate relaxation of lower esophageal sphincter . The mainstay of management in achalasia includes pneumatic dilatation, Heller’s myotomy and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Pneumatic dilatation and Heller’s myotomy have gained maturity over several decades. The current best practice with regard to pneumatic dilatation is graded and on-demand dilatation in appropriately selected cases with type I and II achalasia. Laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy plus partial fundoplication is minimally invasive with reduced postoperative reflux and has virtually replaced open Heller’s myotomy with or without fundoplication. The subtyping of achalasia using high-resolution manometry bears prognostic significance and may help in choosing appropriate therapeutic modality in these patients. Since all the three modalities are effective for type I and II achalasia, the choice among these depends on the availability, expertise, and patient’s preferences. On the other hand, POEM is more effective than pneumatic dilatation and Heller’s myotomy and, therefore, preferred in type III achalasia. Although POEM is effective across the spectrum of esophageal motility disorders, the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux is high and needs to be considered while choosing among various options in these patients. In cases with failed POEM, redo POEM appears to be effective in alleviating symptoms.

Long-term outcomes of treatments for achalasia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Idiopathic achalasia is a primary motility disorder of the esophagus that results in dysphagia, weight loss, and impaired quality of life. Several treatment options are available to gastroenterologists, and insights on the long-term outcome of these modalities are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) represents a novel endoscopic technique in the treatment of achalasia. Studies on long-term outcomes and comparison to other well-known treatment modalities such as laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and pneumodilation have recently been published. POEM and LHM both have excellent 2-year success rates for relieving achalasia symptoms, but reflux disease and erosive esophagitis are more prevalent following POEM.

SUMMARY

Several treatment modalities with excellent long-term outcomes are available for the treatment of achalasia. The different options should be discussed with patients and treatments should be tailored to their individual needs.

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Motility Disorders

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is one of the most clinically successful tunnel-based minimally invasive endoscopic treatments. The classic indications of POEM include achalasia of all types, including failed prior treatments, and expanded indications include the non-achalasia esophageal motility disorders, such as esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, diffuse esophageal spasm, and jackhammer esophagus. For achalasia treatment, POEM has achieved a comparable surgical efficacy and a safety outcome and, therefore, has emerged as a first-line treatment. For non-achalasia esophageal motility disorders, POEM has also shown high clinical response rates. The complication rate of POEM for esophageal motility disorders is low and most complications are managed with conservative treatment. Currently, POEM is a representative procedure of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, which has shown a good clinical efficacy with low complication rates for esophageal motility disorders including achalasia. However, further studies are needed to treat non-achalasia motility disorder via POEM.