375
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims: Type III achalasia is characterized by rapidly propagating pressurization attributable to spastic contractions. Although laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) is the current gold standard management for type III achalasia, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is conceivably superior because it allows for a longer myotomy. Our aims were to compare the efficacy and safety of POEM with LHM for type III achalasia patients.

          Patients and methods: A retrospective study of 49 patients who underwent POEM for type III achalasia across eight centers were compared to 26 patients who underwent LHM at a single institution. Procedural data were abstracted and pre- and post-procedural symptoms were recorded. Clinical response was defined by improvement of symptoms and decrease in Eckardt stage to ≤ 1. Secondary outcomes included length of myotomy, procedure duration, length of hospital stay, and rate of adverse events.

          Results: Clinical response was significantly more frequent in the POEM cohort (98.0 % vs 80.8 %; P = 0.01). POEM patients had significantly shorter mean procedure time than LHM patients (102 min vs 264 min; P < 0.01) despite longer length of myotomy (16 cm vs 8 cm; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between POEM and LHM in the length of hospital stay (3.3 days vs 3.2 days; P = 0.68), respectively. Rate of adverse events was significantly less in the POEM group (6 % vs 27 %; P < 0.01).

          Conclusions: POEM allows for a longer myotomy than LHM, which may result in improved clinical outcomes. POEM appears to be an effective and safe alternative to LHM in patients with type III achalasia.

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography.

          The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility was developed to facilitate the interpretation of clinical high resolution esophageal pressure topography (EPT) studies, concurrent with the widespread adoption of this technology into clinical practice. The Chicago Classification has been an evolutionary process, molded first by published evidence pertinent to the clinical interpretation of high resolution manometry (HRM) studies and secondarily by group experience when suitable evidence is lacking. This publication summarizes the state of our knowledge as of the most recent meeting of the International High Resolution Manometry Working Group in Ascona, Switzerland in April 2011. The prior iteration of the Chicago Classification was updated through a process of literature analysis and discussion. The major changes in this document from the prior iteration are largely attributable to research studies published since the prior iteration, in many cases research conducted in response to prior deliberations of the International High Resolution Manometry Working Group. The classification now includes criteria for subtyping achalasia, EGJ outflow obstruction, motility disorders not observed in normal subjects (Distal esophageal spasm, Hypercontractile esophagus, and Absent peristalsis), and statistically defined peristaltic abnormalities (Weak peristalsis, Frequent failed peristalsis, Rapid contractions with normal latency, and Hypertensive peristalsis). The Chicago Classification is an algorithmic scheme for diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders from clinical EPT studies. Moving forward, we anticipate continuing this process with increased emphasis placed on natural history studies and outcome data based on the classification. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry.

            Although the diagnosis of achalasia hinges on demonstrating impaired esophagogastric junction (EGJ) relaxation and aperistalsis, 3 distinct patterns of aperistalsis are discernable with high-resolution manometry (HRM). This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and treatment response of these 3 subtypes. One thousand clinical HRM studies were reviewed, and 213 patients with impaired EGJ relaxation were identified. These were categorized into 4 groups: achalasia with minimal esophageal pressurization (type I, classic), achalasia with esophageal compression (type II), achalasia with spasm (type III), and functional obstruction with some preserved peristalsis. Clinical and manometric variables including treatment response were compared among the 3 achalasia subtypes. Logistic regression analysis was performed using treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable controlling for independent manometric and clinical variables. Ninety-nine patients were newly diagnosed with achalasia (21 type I, 49 type II, 29 type III), and 83 of these had sufficient follow-up to analyze treatment response. Type II patients were significantly more likely to respond to any therapy (BoTox [71%], pneumatic dilation [91%], or Heller myotomy [100%]) than type I (56% overall) or type III (29% overall) patients. Logistic regression analysis found type II to be a predictor of positive treatment response, whereas type III and pretreatment esophageal dilatation were predictive of negative treatment response. Achalasia can be categorized into 3 subtypes that are distinct in terms of their responsiveness to medical or surgical therapies. Utilizing these subclassifications would likely strengthen future prospective studies of treatment efficacy in achalasia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcomes of treatment for achalasia depend on manometric subtype.

              Patients with achalasia are treated with either pneumatic dilation (PD) or laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), which have comparable rates of success. We evaluated whether manometric subtype was associated with response to treatment in a large population of patients treated with either PD or LHM (the European achalasia trial). Esophageal pretreatment manometry data were collected from 176 patients who participated in the European achalasia trial. Symptoms (weight loss, dysphagia, retrosternal pain, and regurgitation) were assessed using the Eckardt score; treatment was considered successful if the Eckardt score was 3 or less. Manometric tracings were classified according to the 3 Chicago subtypes. Forty-four patients had achalasia type I (25%), 114 patients had achalasia type II (65%), and 18 patients had achalasia type III (10%). After a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, success rates were significantly higher among patients with type II achalasia (96%) than type I achalasia (81%; P < .01, log-rank test) or type III achalasia (66%; P < .001, log-rank test). The success rate of PD was significantly higher than that of LHM for patients with type II achalasia (100% vs 93%; P < .05), but LHM had a higher success rate than PD for patients with type III achalasia (86% vs 40%; P = .12, difference was not statistically significant because of the small number of patients). For type I achalasia, LHM and PD had similar rates of success (81% vs 85%; P = .84). A higher percentage of patients with type II achalasia (based on manometric tracings) are treated successfully with PD or LHM than patients with types I and III achalasia. Success rates in type II are high for both treatment groups but significantly higher in the PD group. Patients with type III can probably best be treated by LHM. Trialregister.nl number NTR37; ISRCTN56304564. Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-0034-1377934
                Endoscopy International Open
                © Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Stuttgart · New York )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                June 2015
                13 April 2015
                : 3
                : 3
                : E195-E201
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
                [2 ]Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Digestive Disease Center, Yokohama, Japan
                [3 ]Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Chicago, Illinois, United States
                [4 ]NorthShore University Health Systems, NorthShore Center for Simulation and Innovation, Evanston, Illinois, United States
                [5 ]Winthrop University Hospital, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mineola, New York, United States
                [6 ]Fukuoka University Faculty of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Fukuoka, Japan
                [7 ]Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Surgery, Aarhus, Denmark
                [8 ]Institute of Digestive Disease, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shatin, Hong Kong
                Author notes
                Corresponding author Mouen A. Khashab, M.D Associate Professor of Medicine Director of Therapeutic Endoscopy Johns Hopkins Hospital 1800 Orleans St, Suite 7125BBaltimore, MD 21287(443) 287-1960(443) 683 8335 mkhasha1@ 123456jhmi.edu
                Article
                10.1055/s-0034-1391668
                4486039
                26171430
                3cd8a935-7299-427d-80c6-2733d1ac7edd
                © Thieme Medical Publishers
                History
                : 22 November 2014
                : 08 December 2014
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article