Outcome of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) for Treating Achalasia Compared With Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy (LHM)

Achalasia: Diagnosis and Management

Achalasia is an incurable condition of the esophagus involving the inflammation and degeneration of inhibitory neurons of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resulting in failure of the LES to relax. Typical symptoms of achalasia are dysphagia, retrosternal chest pain, regurgitation, and weight loss. Three studies are typically required for the diagnosis of achalasia: barium swallow, high-resolution esophageal manometry, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Differential diagnosis includes gastroesophageal reflux disease, pseudoachalasia, neoplasm, and nonachalasia esophageal motility disorders such as scleroderma, jackhammer esophagus, distal esophageal spasm, and nutcracker esophagus.

Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for achalasia of the cardia

The diagnosis of achalasia of the cardidia (AC) is primarily based on clinical symptoms, esophagographic findings, esophagodynamic examination, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings. High resolution manometry is considered the gold standard for diagnosis. With the advan-cement of new technologies, the diagnostic methods for AC have become more diverse, and three-dimensional modeling may facilitate early detection of AC. The use of endoscopic functional intracavity imaging probe can enhance diagnostic accuracy. Common treatment options include endoscopic balloon dilation, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). POEM has emerged as the most widely utilized therapeutic approach currently, significantly improving the clinical success rate in treating AC. This article provides a comprehensive review on recent research progress in the diagnosis and treatment of AC.

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.

The Value of Fundoplication in the Treatment of Type I Achalasia

BACKGROUND

Type I achalasia comprises 20% of achalasia and has nearly absent esophageal motor activity. Concerns that fundoplication decreases the effectiveness of Heller myotomy in these patients has increased adoption of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Hence, we compared outcomes after Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication vs POEM.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2020, 150 patients with type I achalasia underwent primary surgical myotomy (117 Heller myotomy, 33 POEM). Patient demographics, prior treatments, timed barium esophagrams, Eckardt scores, and reinterventions were assessed between the 2 groups. Median follow-up was 5 years for Heller myotomy and 2.5 years for POEM.

RESULTS

The Heller myotomy group was younger, had fewer comorbidities, and lower body mass index vs POEM. Risk-adjusted models demonstrated clinical success (Eckardt ≤3) in 83% of Heller myotomies and 87% of POEMs at 3 years; longitudinal complete timed barium esophagram emptying and reintervention were also similar. An abnormal pH test result was documented in 10% (6 of 60) after Heller myotomy and in 45% (10 of 22) after POEM (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite nearly absent esophageal contractility, Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication and POEM result in similar long-term symptom relief, esophageal emptying, and occurrence of reintervention in patients with type I achalasia. There is decreased esophageal acid exposure with the addition of a fundoplication, without compromised esophageal drainage, allaying fears of a detrimental effect of a fundoplication. Hence, choice of procedure may be personalized based on patient characteristics and esophageal morphology and not solely on manometric subtype.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy and pneumatic dilation in the treatment of achalasia: a systematic review

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an intervention for the treatment of achalasia which has gained popularity over the last decade. It's efficacy and invasiveness are comparable to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). The purpose of this systematic review is to compare POEM to existing therapies. The systematic review was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Libraries were searched using keywords: esophageal achalasia, POEM, LHM, pneumatic dilation (PD), and related terms. The studied outcomes were Eckardt score, clinical success, hospital stay, cost-utility analysis, complications, and post-treatment gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Articles were reviewed by one researcher and uncertainty was resolved by a second researcher. The search strategy retrieved 1948 citations. After removing duplicates and applying the exclusion criteria, 91 studies were selected for full-text review of which a total of 31 studies were considered eligible for further analysis, including two studies which were found through manual searching. POEM has improved efficacy compared to PD with similar cost-effectiveness. POEM results showed comparable patient outcomes when compared with laparoscopic myotomy. Overall, POEM is a feasible first-line treatment for achalasia.

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.

Major adverse events related to endoscopic or laparoscopic procedures in achalasia. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Surgical or endoscopic treatments play an essential role in the management of achalasia. The probability of adverse events in the performance of said treatments is a relevant aspect, when establishing the risk-benefit balance. The present study aimed to establish the association between serious adverse events and the performance of those procedures, in adult patients with achalasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systemic search of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, retrospective cohorts, and cases series on adult patients with achalasia that underwent laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), or endoscopic balloon dilation, that reported serious adverse events, was carried out on the Medline, CENTRAL, and EBSCO databases. Serious adverse events were defined as: death at 30 days, Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher classification, esophageal or gastric perforation, pneumothorax, mucosal tear, leakage, emphysema, pneumonia, and chest pain. The methodology included the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were found that reported information on 1,276 patients that underwent POEM, 5,492 that underwent LHM, and 10,346 that underwent endoscopic balloon dilation. The proportions of adverse events for the three techniques were 3.6, 4.9, and 3.1%, respectively.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The 3 therapeutic interventions evaluated had similar proportions of adverse events. There were few reports of death at 30 days as an outcome and the lack of standardization in reporting adverse events in the studies analyzed was prominent.

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.

An Updated Meta-analysis: Similar Clinical Efficacy of Anterior and Posterior Approaches in Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) for Achalasia

Introduction

Currently, there are few studies on the efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the anterior or posterior approach; however, limited studies have shown contradictory findings. Thus, the goal was to obtain more quantitative and objective outcomes and further compare the clinical efficacy of these two approaches in this meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to find studies relevant to POEM. The retrieval time was from database inception to September 2021. Studies reporting the effects of POEM according to the anterior or posterior approach were included. STATA 16.0 was used to perform statistical analysis, mainly comparing the quantitative objective indicators (lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and Eckardt scores, etc.) in anterior and posterior approaches by meta-analysis.

Result

A total of 19 studies with 1261 patients were finally included. Except for shorter procedure time in the posterior approach, other factors (pooled difference of LES pressure, Eckardt scores, clinical success, length of total myotomy, hospital stays, gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), and adverse event) were compared, and all above confirmed that there is no difference between anterior and posterior approaches, and the safety of POEM is ensured. In addition, both anterior and posterior myotomy can improve LES pressure and Eckardt scores, and the difference in anterior and posterior myotomy was unconspicuous.

Conclusion

The terms of the pooled difference in LES pressure, Eckardt scores, and other factors (clinical success, length of total myotomy, hospital stays, GERD, adverse events, and procedure time) seemed to be similar for the anterior and posterior approaches. However, the further prognosis after POEM via anterior and posterior approaches needs to be answered in the future.

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.

Durability of per-oral endoscopic myotomy beyond 6 years

Background and study aims  The aim of this study was to assess long-term clinical outcomes beyond 6 years in patients who underwent per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia. Patients and methods  Patients with achalasia who underwent POEM between 2010 and 2012 and had follow-up of at least 6 years were retrospectively identified at eight tertiary care centers. The primary outcome evaluated was clinical success defined by an Eckardt symptom score (ESS) ≤ 3 for the duration of the follow-up period. The clinical success cohort was compared to failure (ESS > 3 at any time during follow-up) in order to identify characteristics associated with symptom relapse. The incidence of patient-reported gastroesophageal reflux (GER) was also evaluated. Results  Seventy-three patients with 6-year follow-up data were identified. Sustained clinical remission was noted in 89 % (65/73) at 6-years. Mean ESS decreased from 7.1 ± 2.3 pre-procedure to 1.1 ± 1.1 at 6 years ( P  < 0.001). Symptomatic reflux was reported by 27 of 72 patients (37.5 %). Type I achalasia (OR 10.8, P  = 0.04) was found to be associated with clinical failure on logistic regression analysis. Conclusions  In patients with achalasia, POEM provides high initial clinical success with excellent long-term outcomes. There are high rates of patient-reported gastroesophageal reflux post-procedure which persist at long-term follow-up.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs pneumatic dilation (PD) in treatment of achalasia: A meta-analysis of studies with ≥ 12-month follow-up

Background and study aims  Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being used as the preferred treatment option for achalasia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of POEM versus pneumatic balloon dilation (PD). Methods  We performed a comprehensive review of studies that reported clinical outcomes of POEM and PD for the treatment of achalasia. Measured outcomes included clinical success (improvement of symptoms based on a validated scale including an Eckardt score ≤ 3), adverse events, and post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Results  Sixty-six studies (6268 patients) were included in the final analysis, of which 29 studies (2919 patients) reported on POEM and 33 studies (3050 patients) reported on PD and 4 studies (299 patients) compared POEM versus PD. Clinical success with POEM was superior to PD at 12, 24, and 36 months (92.9 %, vs 76.9 % P  = 0.001; 90.6 % vs 74.8 %, P  = 0.004; 88.4 % vs 72.2 %, P  = 0.006, respectively). POEM was superior to PD in type I, II and III achalasia (92.7 % vs 61 %, P  = 0.01; 92.3 % vs 80.3 %, P  = 0.01; 92.3 %v 41.9 %, P  = 0.01 respectively) Pooled OR of clinical success at 12 and 24 months were significantly higher with POEM (8.97; P  = 0.001 & 5.64; P  = 0.006). Pooled OR of GERD was significantly higher with POEM (by symptoms: 2.95, P  = 0.02 and by endoscopic findings: 6.98, P  = 0.001). Rates of esophageal perforation (0.3 % vs 0.6 %, P  = 0.8) and significant bleeding (0.4 % vs 0.7 %, P  = 0.56) were comparable between POEM and PD groups. Conclusions  POEM is more efficacious than PD in the treatment of patients with achalasia during short-term and long-term follow-up, albeit with higher risk of abnormal esophageal acid exposure.

Is peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) more effective than pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Achalasia is a rare, chronic, and morbid condition with evolving treatment. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has gained considerable popularity, but its comparative effectiveness is uncertain. We aim to evaluate the literature comparing POEM to Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation (PD) for the treatment of achalasia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies between POEM and HM or PD. A priori outcomes pertained to efficacy, perioperative metrics, and safety. Internal validity of observational studies and randomized trials (RCTs) was judged using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, respectively.

RESULTS

From 1379 unique literature citations, we included 28 studies comparing POEM and HM (n = 21) or PD (n = 8), with only 1 RCT addressing each. Aside from two 4-year observational studies, POEM follow-up averaged ≤ 2 years. While POEM had similar efficacy to HM, POEM treated dysphagia better than PD both in an RCT (treatment "success" RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.17; 126 patients) and in observational studies (Eckardt score MD - 0.43, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.16; 5 studies; I² 21%; 405 patients). POEM needed reintervention less than PD in an RCT (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.47; 126 patients) and HM in an observational study (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16, 0.68; 98 patients). Though 6-12 months patient-reported reflux was worse than PD in 3 observational studies (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.02-7.00; I² 0%; 164 patients), post-intervention reflux was inconsistently measured and not statistically different in measures ≥ 1 year. POEM had similar safety outcomes to both HM and PD, including treatment-related serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

POEM has similar outcomes to HM and greater efficacy than PD. Reflux remains a critical outcome with unknown long-term clinical significance due to insufficient data and inconsistent reporting.

Comparison of Objective Intermediate-Term Outcomes Between per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy and Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy Show Equivalence

INTRODUCTION

The surgical gold standard for esophageal motility disorders is laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a less invasive flexible endoscopic alternative. We compare their intermediate-term outcomes.

METHODS

Data were collected on consecutive LHM and POEM patients treated for esophageal motility disorders from January 2015 to December 2019. All patients were invited for a comprehensive workup between 6 and 12 months post-myotomy including symptom evaluation, pH testing off medications, manometry, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Primary outcomes include swallowing function and development of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

RESULTS

There were 100 patients (46 LHM and 54 POEM). Patient demographics and presenting symptoms were comparable. Follow-up data were obtained from 49% of patients. Average length of follow-up for all patients was 10 months. Mean Eckardt scores for LHM decreased from 6.6 to 2.4 (P < .05) and from 7.06 to 2.2 for POEM (P < .05). Mean integrated relaxation pressure decreased from 22.8 preoperatively to 11 postoperatively in LHM patients and from 24.6 to 11.5 in POEM patients. POEM patients had a lower incidence of objective postoperative GERD with lower average DeMeester scores (20 vs 29.4) and a higher percentage of patients with a normal DeMeester score (47% vs 31%) compared to LHM patients. However, postoperative GERD health related quality of life scores (11.7 vs 14.1), the percent of patients on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (40% vs 53%), and frequency of grade C/D esophagitis (4.3% vs 5.6%) were lower in LHM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-term symptom resolution and esophageal physiology are improved equally with both procedures. The development of postoperative GERD is equivalent.

How does per-oral endoscopic myotomy compare to Heller myotomy? The Latin American perspective

Background and study aims  Both Heller myotomy (HM) and per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are efficacious therapies for achalasia. The efficacy and safety of POEM vs HM in Latin America and specifically in patients with Chagas disease is unknown. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients undergoing either HM or POEM for achalasia were included from nine Latin American centers in a prospective registry over 5 years. Technical success was defined as undergoing a successful myotomy. Clinical success was defined as achieving an Eckardt score < 3. Data on demographics, procedure info, Eckardt score, and adverse events (AEs) were collected. Student's t test, Chi squared, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results  One hundred thirty-three patients were included (59 male; 44 %; mean age 47). POEM was performed in 69 patients, HM in 64 patients. A total of 35 patients had Chagas disease, 17 of 69 in the POEM group, 18 of 64 in the HM group. Both groups had significant reduction in Eckardt scores ( P  < 0.00001), but successful initial therapy was significantly higher in the POEM group compared to the HM group ( P  = 0.01304). AEs were similar in both group (17 % vs 14 %) and consisted of pneumothorax (n = 3 vs 2), bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 3 vs 2), and mediastinitis (n = 3 vs 1). Hospital stay was longer in the HM group than in the POEM group ( P  < 0.00001). In the Chagas subgroup, post-procedure Eckardt score in the POEM group was significantly reduced by 5.71 points ( P  < 0.00001) versus 1.56 points in the HM group ( P  = 0.042793). Conclusion  Both HM and POEM are efficacious for achalasia, but POEM was associated with higher initial therapy success and shorter hospital stay in Latin America. In Chagas patients with achalasia, POEM was significantly more effective than HM.

Quality of Life Following Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel minimally invasive intervention for treating esophageal achalasia. Previous publications have proved its excellent efficacy and safety, and even shown it could improve patients' quality of life (QoL). So, we conducted this study to explore the changes of QoL following POEM.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library covering the period from January 2009 to April 2019. The statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies including 549 patients were identified, which assessed the QoL using validated questionnaires administered. After POEM, the SF-36 questionnaire score of each domain (physical function, role physical function, body pain, general health (GH), social function, vitality, emotional role function, mental health) was significantly increased (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS) scores were all improved in patients after POEM procedure (MCS: 12.11, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.67-19.55, p = 0.001, I2 = 88%, PCS: 17.01, 95% CI, 2.91-31.11, p = 0.02, I2 = 97%). The gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life questionnaires (GERD-HRQL) also decreased significantly after POEM (13.01, 95% CI, 9.98-16.03, p < 0.00001, I2 = 30%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our current evidence suggests there is significant improvement in QoL after POEM procedure.

2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines

Esophageal achalasia is a primary motility disorder characterized by insufficient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and loss of esophageal peristalsis. Achalasia is a chronic disease that causes progressive irreversible loss of esophageal motor function. The recent development of high-resolution manometry has facilitated the diagnosis of achalasia, and determining the achalasia subtypes based on high-resolution manometry can be important when deciding on treatment methods. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is less invasive than surgery with comparable efficacy. The present guidelines (the "2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines") were developed based on evidence-based medicine; the Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association and Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility served as the operating and development committees, respectively. The development of the guidelines began in June 2018, and a draft consensus based on the Delphi process was achieved in April 2019. The guidelines consist of 18 recommendations: 2 pertaining to the definition and epidemiology of achalasia, 6 pertaining to diagnoses, and 10 pertaining to treatments. The endoscopic treatment section is based on the latest evidence from meta-analyses. Clinicians (including gastroenterologists, upper gastrointestinal tract surgeons, general physicians, nurses, and other hospital workers) and patients could use these guidelines to make an informed decision on the management of achalasia.

PERORAL (POEM) OR SURGICAL MYOTOMY FOR THE TREATMENT OF ACHALASIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

Achalasia is a neurodegenerative motility esophageal disorder characterized by failure of lower esophageal sphincter relaxation. The conventional treatment option for achalasia has been laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). However, in 2010, Inoue et al. described peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), a minimally invasive procedure, as an alternative therapy. To date, some studies with small sample sizes have aimed to compare outcomes of LHM vs POEM.

OBJECTIVE

Thus, the aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to better evaluate the efficacy and safety of these two techniques.

METHODS

Individualized search strategies were developed from inception through April 2019 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Variables analyzed included operative time, overall adverse events rate, post-procedure gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hospitalization length, post-procedure pain score, and Eckardt Score reduction.

RESULTS

Twelve cohort trials were selected, consisting of 893 patients (359 in POEM group and 534 in LHM.) No randomized clinical trials were available. There was no difference in operative time (MD= -10,26, 95% CI (-5,6 to 8,2), P<0.001) or Post-Operative Gastroesophageal Reflux (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: (-0.09, 0.09), I2: 0%). There was decreased length of hospital stay for POEM (MD: -0.6, 95% CI (-1.11, -0.09), P=0.02), and an increased mean reduction in Eckardt score in POEM patients (MD = -0.257, 95% CI: (-0.512 to -0.002), P=0.048), with similar rates of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

POEM demonstrated similar results compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy with regards to improvement of dysphagia, post-procedure reflux, and surgical time, with the benefit of shorter length of hospital stay. Therefore, POEM can be considered an option for patients with achalasia.

Statement for gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy from an international multicenter experience

It has been 10 years since peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) was reported for the first time, and POEM has currently become the standard treatment for achalasia and related disorders globally because it is less invasive and has a higher curative effect than conventional therapeutic methods. However, there are limited studies comparing the long-term outcomes of POEM with those of conventional therapeutic methods, particularly in the occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after therapy. With this background, we held a consensus meeting to discuss the pathophysiology and management of GERD after POEM based on published papers and experiences of each expert and to discuss the prevention of GERD and dealing with anti-acid drug refractory GERD. This meeting was held on April 27, 2018 in Tokyo to establish statements and finalize the recommendations using the modified Delphi method. This manuscript presents eight statements regarding GERD after POEM.

Comparative efficacy of per-oral endoscopic myotomy and Heller myotomy in patients with achalasia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although both per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy (HM) have been used for the treatment of achalasia, the comparative efficacy of POEM and HM has yet to be fully evaluated.

METHODS

We searched all relevant studies published up to September 2018 examining the comparative efficacy between POEM and HM. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses for Eckardt scores, perioperative outcomes, and reflux-related outcomes were performed based on a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies with a total of 1213 patients were evaluated. The follow-up duration ranged from 2 to 46.2 months and from 2 to 54.2 months in the POEM and HM groups, respectively. Postoperative Eckardt scores were lower (better) in the POEM group than in the HM group (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.03 to -0.13). Length of myotomy was greater in the POEM group than in the HM group (pooled SMD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.84). There was no difference in reflux symptoms and pathologic reflux on pH monitoring between the groups (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.61-1.73; and pooled RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67-2.25, respectively). Erosive esophagitis on endoscopy tended to be less common in the HM group (pooled RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.98-3.62).

CONCLUSION

Although long-term follow-up data are insufficient, the short-term efficacy of POEM was superior to that of HM. Erosive esophagitis tended to be more common in the POEM group; however, there was no difference in reflux symptoms and pathologic reflux on pH monitoring between the groups.

A Decade of Investigation: Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Versus Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy for Achalasia

Background: Although laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) with partial fundoplication has long been considered the gold standard for treatment of patients with achalasia, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged in the last decade as a viable alternative. Methods: A collective review of literature concerning investigations that have reported patient outcomes and treatment success of LHM and POEM for all achalasia subtypes. Results: While POEM has shown excellent short-term safety and efficacy in the relief of symptoms, the long-term symptomatic outcomes after the intervention are yet to be concluded. Further evaluation of patients' interpretations and answers on subjective questionnaires is warranted before determining treatment success for POEM. Use of more reliable and disease-specific health-related quality-of-life questionnaires are better justified when comparing a new endoscopic procedure to an established gold standard. The need for objective parameters to measure reflux, longer follow-up studies, and randomized trials comparing POEM to LHM is particularly important when assessing the outcome of this new technique. High incidence of post-POEM pathologic reflux and indication for daily proton pump inhibitor use is of concern, and the lack of more long-term, objective evidence leaves the clinical value of the procedure in a state of uncertainty. Conclusions: The LHM combined with partial fundoplication is still considered to be the gold standard treatment modality for achalasia, but as the POEM procedure rapidly becomes common practice, this treatment may be performed in the majority of achalasia cases. Given the number of flaws overlooked in seminal investigations, careful consideration should be given to the patients being selected for this therapy.

Consensus on the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique

With the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique (DETT), many diseases that previously would have been treated by surgery are now endoscopically curable by establishing a submucosal tunnel between the mucosa and muscularis propria (MP). Through the tunnel, endoscopic diagnosis or treatment is performed for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP, and even outside the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. At present, the tunnel technique application range covers the following: (1) Treatment of lesions originating from the mucosal layer, e.g., endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for oesophageal large or circular early-stage cancer or precancerosis; (2) treatment of lesions from the MP layer, per-oral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection, etc.; and (3) diagnosis and treatment of lesions outside the GI tract, such as resection of lymph nodes and benign tumour excision in the mediastinum or abdominal cavity. With the increasing number of DETTs performed worldwide, endoscopic tunnel therapeutics, which is based on DETT, has been gradually developed and optimized. However, there is not yet an expert consensus on DETT to regulate its indications, contraindications, surgical procedure, and postoperative treatment. The International DETT Alliance signed up this consensus to standardize the procedures of DETT. In this consensus, we describe the definition, mechanism, and significance of DETT, prevention of infection and concepts of DETT-associated complications, methods to establish a submucosal tunnel, and application of DETT for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP and outside the GI tract (indications and contraindications, procedures, pre- and postoperative treatments, effectiveness, complications and treatments, and a comparison between DETT and other operations).

The 2 years' long-term efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a systematic review

AIM

In this retrospective review, we aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of POEM with follow-up period over 2 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review related to POEM for achalasia was conducted. A literature search was performed in Pubmed, Medline, Ovid, Cochrane and EBSCO databases on November 2017. The following postoperative outcomes were extracted: Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, complications and clinical success.

RESULTS

The total number of patients was 373. The mean operative time was 66.7 min and the overall rate of complications was 21.2%. The mean follow-up period was 30.0 months. The overall clinical success rate was 92.9% and the rate of gastroesophageal reflux disease was 10.2%. Rate of mortality after POEM was 0.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that POEM is effective and safe for treating achalasia during the long-term followed up over 2 years.

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Achalasia

Peroral endoscopic myotomy surgery is an incisionless, minimally invasive, natural orifice technique used to treat the symptoms of achalasia and other spastic disorders of the esophagus. Recent experience demonstrates that it can be performed safely by experienced esophageal surgeons and there are very good short-term outcomes comparable to laparoscopic myotomy. The rapid worldwide adoption of this technique demonstrates its potential to replace the current therapies available for achalasia. A cautionary note is important in that long-term outcomes are not yet available in terms of dysphagia and GERD symptoms.

Clinical practice guidelines for peroral endoscopic myotomy

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel clinical technique developed in Japan used to treat esophageal achalasia and esophageal motility disorders. This technique has been rapidly accepted and widely disseminated throughout our clinical practice because of its low invasiveness, technical novelty, and high efficacy. Since the advent of POEM, there have been no clinical guidelines that clearly indicated its standard of care, and these guidelines have been anticipated both nationally and internationally by clinicians who engage in POEM practice. In 2017, to meet these needs, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) launched the guideline committee for POEM. Based on the guideline development process proposed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (MINDS), the guideline committee initially created research questions on POEM and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on each topic. The clinical research extracted from databases for these clinical questions and the systematic review mainly comprised a few retrospective studies with a small number of participants and short trial periods; hence, the strength of the evidence and recommendations derived from these results was low. Throughout this process, the guideline committee met thrice: once on May 13, 2017, and again on September 17, 2017, to formulate the draft. A consensus meeting was then held on January 14, 2018, in Tokyo to establish the guideline statements and finalize the recommendations using the modified Delphi method. This manuscript presents clinical guidelines regarding current standards of practice and recommendations in terms of the nine chief topics in POEM.

POEM for Achalasia

In 2008, a new treatment modality for esophageal achalasia was introduced—peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). POEM is a procedure performed endoscopically, which allows transection of the muscular fibers of the distal esophagus and of the lower esophageal sphincter. The procedure is therefore similar to a laparoscopic Heller myotomy without a fundoplication. Short-term studies have shown that POEM is very effective in relieving dysphagia and regurgitation, but concerns have been raised about the incidence of post-POEM gastroesophageal reflux. Prospective and randomized trials will be needed to determine the role of this new procedure in the treatment algorithm of esophageal achalasia.

The current state of per oral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia

Achalasia is an acquired neuromuscular disorder that has been treated using a variety of modalities throughout medical history. Recently, the technique of per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) was introduced to treat the disease using a truly minimally invasive, natural orifice technique that is rapidly being adopted across the world. This review outlines the development of POEM, the technique itself, and gives a comparison to other procedures, specifically laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM).

Whole greater than the parts: integrated esophageal centers (IEC) and advanced training in esophageal diseases

An integrated esophageal center (IEC) is a multidisciplinary team with expertise, skill, range, and facilities necessary to achieve optimal outcomes in patients with esophageal diseases efficiently and expeditiously. Within IEC, patients presenting with esophageal symptoms undergo a detailed clinical, functional and structural evaluation of their esophagus prior to implementation of tailored medical, endoscopic or surgical therapy. Serving as a core, the IEC clinical practice also supports research and innovation in esophageal diseases as well as public and physician education. Referrals to the unit may be primary, either from primary care or self-initiated, or secondary from other specialty practices, to reassess patients who have previously failed therapies and to manage complex or complicated cases. The fundamental goals of the IEC are to provide value for patients with esophageal diseases, streamlining complex diagnostic investigations and expediting therapies aiming at reducing costs while improving clinical outcomes, and to accelerate knowledge generation through robust interaction and cross-training across disciplines. The organization of the IEC goes beyond traditional academic and clinical silos and involves a director and administrative team coordinating faculty and fellows from both medical and surgical disciplines and supported by other clinical lines, such as radiology, pathology, etc., while it interfaces with physicians, the public, basic, translational and clinical research groups, and related industry partners.