Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Short Versus Standard Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Short Versus Standard Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Do you wish to request the book?
Short Versus Standard Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Short Versus Standard Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
2025
Overview
Background and Aims
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has become the treatment of choice for achalasia. However, the impact of myotomy length on POEM outcomes remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of short versus standard-length myotomy in achalasia patients.
Methods
We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify all RCTs that compared POEM using short myotomy with standard myotomy. The primary outcomes were clinical success and post-operative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The secondary outcomes were procedural time, length of hospital stay, and intraprocedural complications. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
Results
Three RCTs with 365 achalasia patients treated with short (n = 179) or standard (n = 186) myotomy were included. Short and standard myotomies showed similar clinical success (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.61–6.23, p = 0.26; I
2
= 41%), reflux symptoms (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.49–1.89, p = 0.92; I
2
= 20%), pathologic acid exposure on pH monitoring (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.33–1.50, p = 0.36; I
2
= 58%), reflux esophagitis on upper endoscopy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40–1.70, p = 0.59; I
2
= 42%), intraprocedural complications (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.53–2.79, p = 0.65; I
2
= 0%), and length of hospital stay (MD − 0.01, 95% CI − 0.72 to 0.69, p = 0.97, I
2
= 73%). Procedural time was shorter in short myotomy (MD − 16.11 min, 95% CI − 26.04 to − 6.19, p = 0.001; I
2
= 84%).
Conclusions
POEM using short myotomy for achalasia is non-inferior to standard myotomy for efficacy, safety, and post-operative GERD but is associated with a shorter procedural time.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
/ Esophageal Achalasia - surgery
/ Esophagoscopy - adverse effects
/ Gastroesophageal Reflux - etiology
/ Humans
/ Medicine
/ Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - adverse effects
/ Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery - methods
/ Oncology
/ Poetry
/ Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
/ Postoperative Complications - etiology
