Laparoscopic esophageal myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pneumatic dilation for esophageal achalasia: patient selection and perspectives

Achalasia is an esophageal motility disorder characterized by esophageal aperistalsis and impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. Treatment is palliative, aimed at decreasing the lower esophageal sphincter pressure. Pneumatic dilation (PD) is a safe and effective treatment for achalasia. Several other invasive and minimally invasive treatment modalities, such as Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy (LHM) and Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM), also have a comparable safety and efficacy profile to PD. The current review focuses on the indications, contraindications, techniques, and outcomes of PD in various patient populations and its comparison to LHM and POEM. This review also provides relevant information to help endoscopists identify those patients who will benefit the most from PD.

Non-surgical treatment of esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilation for achalasia: a case series

Esophageal perforation is the most serious complication of pneumatic dilation for achalasia and is traditionally managed by conservative therapy or surgical repair. We present four achalasia patients who underwent pneumatic dilatation, complicated by an esophageal perforation. All patients were treated successfully with endoscopic treatment: two patients with Eso-SPONGE^® vacuum therapy, in the other two patients, esophageal defects were closed endoscopically using Endoclips. The time between dilatation and detection of the perforation was less than 24 h in all cases. Non-surgical treatment resulted in a relatively short hospital stay, ranging from 5 to 10 days, and an uneventful recovery in all patients. Based on our experience, endoscopic clipping and/or vacuum therapy are relatively new, valuable, minimally invasive techniques in the management of patients with small, well-defined esophageal tears with contained leakage and should be considered as primary therapeutic option for iatrogenic perforation in achalasia.

Pneumatic balloon dilatation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a failed attempt at meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The advent of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) shed some light on the role of the current standards in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia, namely endoscopic pneumatic dilatation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). We analyzed the quality of the current evidence comparing LHM and PD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane for meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing PD and LHM or open surgery, limited to English language full-text articles. After a detailed review of these meta-analyses, all studies included were analyzed further in depth with respect to treatment protocol, assessment of success, complications and sequelae such as gastroesophageal reflux (GER), as well as follow-up details.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (RCT), 5 with LHM and 1 with open surgery, were found, published in 10 papers. In contrast to a rather homogeneous LHM technique, PD regimens as well as the clinical dysphagia scores were different in every RCT; most RCTs also showed methodological limitations. There were nine meta-analyses which included a variable number of these RCTs or other cohort studies. Meta-analyses between 2009 and 2013 favored surgery, while the 4 most recent ones reached divergent conclusions. The main difference might have been whether repeated dilatation was regarded as part of the PD protocol or as failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability in PD techniques and in definition of clinical success utilized in the achalasia RCTs on PD versus LHM render the conclusions of meta-analyses unreliable. Further randomized studies should be based on uniform criteria; in the meantime, publication of even more meta-analyses should be avoided.

ASGE guideline on the management of achalasia

Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), along with the loss of organized peristalsis in the esophageal body. The criterion standard for diagnosing achalasia is high-resolution esophageal manometry showing incomplete relaxation of the EGJ coupled with the absence of organized peristalsis. Three achalasia subtypes have been defined based on high-resolution manometry findings in the esophageal body. Treatment of patients with achalasia has evolved in recent years with the introduction of peroral endoscopic myotomy. Other treatment options include botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilation, and Heller myotomy. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of achalasia, based on an updated assessment of the individual and comparative effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost of the 4 aforementioned achalasia therapies.

Effects of preoperative endoscopic pneumatic balloon dilatation on postoperative achalasia symptoms after Heller esophageal myotomy plus Dor fundoplication

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Currently, forceful endoscopic pneumatic balloon dilatation (PBD), laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) with or without an anti-reflux procedure, and peroral endoscopic myotomy are the preferred treatment options for achalasia. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare postoperative outcomes after LHM plus Dor fundoplication (DF) between patients who underwent prior endoscopic balloon dilatation and those who did not.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-five patients who underwent HM+DF between January 2008 and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Of these, 45 had a history of endoscopic PBD. Pre- and postoperative achalasia symptoms, including weight loss, dysphagia, heartburn, and regurgitation, were evaluated using the Eckardt score.

RESULTS

Fifty (76.9%) patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 15 (23.1%) underwent open surgery. When patients were compared according to the presence of preoperative endoscopic PBD, no significant difference were observed in terms of age, sex, preoperative lower esophageal sphincter pressure, operation time, hospitalization period, and follow-up period (p>0.05). The mean Eckardt score at the first postoperative year was significantly lower than the preoperative Eckardt score (4.51±1.8 vs. 0.52±0.7; p<0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between patients with and without previous PBD on the pre- and postoperative Eckardt scores (p=0.43).

CONCLUSION

HM+DF is an effective procedure in relieving achalasia symptoms as a first-line therapy as well as in individuals unresponsive to repeated endoscopic PBDs.

The Use of Rigiflex Pneumatic Balloon Dilator during Laparoscopic Heller's Myotomy in Patients with Achalasia: A Novel Technical Method and Its Surgical Outcomes

Pneumatic balloon dilatation (BD) and laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM) are usually preferred treatment options for relieving dysphagia symptoms in achalasia. The aim of the present study was to describe a new technical method for a safe and effective LHM. Endoscopic BD tube (Rigiflex 30-mm pneumatic balloon) is simultaneously insufflated and desufflated in the esophagus during LHM to assess myotomy in 50 consecutive patients. Dysphagia symptoms were determined using Eckardt's score. Three esophageal mucosal perforations occurred during surgery, which was primary repaired. The preoperative Eckardt score improved significantly from 4.54 ± 1.85 to 0.54 ± 0.73 ( P < 0.001) at the first postoperative annual follow-up. The use of endoscopic BD tube during LHM is an easy and valuable method that allows to assess whether the dissection of muscular fibers in the myotomy area is appropriate or not.

The influence of hospital volume upon clinical management and outcomes of esophageal achalasia: an English national population-based cohort study

Management of achalasia is potentially complex. Previous studies have identified equivalence between pneumatic dilatation and surgical cardiomyotomy in terms of clinical outcomes. However, previous research has not investigated whether a management strategies and outcomes are different in high-volume achalasia centers. This national population-based cohort study aimed to identify the treatment modalities utilized in centers, which regularly manage achalasia and those which manage it infrequently. This study also assessed rates of re-intervention and complications to establish if a volume-outcome relationship exists for the management of achalasia in England. In this study, the Hospitals Episode Statistics database was used to identify all patients treated for achalasia in England from 2002 to 2012. Primary treatment was defined as surgical cardiomyotomy, sequential pneumatic dilatation, or botulinum toxin therapy. Primary outcome measure was reintervention. Centers were divided into regular achalasia centers (≥5.7 cases per annum) and infrequent achalasia centers (<5.7 cases per annum), and were analyzed according to tertiary cancer center status. In total, there were 7,487 patients treated for achalasia. Out of 1,947 cases (26%) were treated in regular achalasia centers, with 5,540 (74%) treated in infrequent centers. In binary logistic regression modeling regular centers treated a similar proportion of patients with primary surgical cardiomyotomy (OR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.98-1.27)) and had similar rates of re-intervention to infrequent achalasia centers (HR: 1.03 (0.94-1.12)). RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated no relationship between total hospital volume and reintervention rates. Tertiary cancer centers treated more achalasia patients with primary surgical cardiomyotomy (OR: 1.51 (95% CI 1.31-1.73)) but there was no significant difference in reintervention rates (OR: 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16)). In conclusion, this analysis failed to demonstrate a volume-outcome relationship in the management of achalasia in England. This study highlights that achalasia is treated infrequently by the majority of centers.