Display options
Cite
Kumbhari V, Tieu AH, Onimaru M, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(3):E195-201doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1391668.
Kumbhari, V., Tieu, A. H., Onimaru, M., El Zein, M. H., Teitelbaum, E. N., Ujiki, M. B., Gitelis, M. E., Modayil, R. J., Hungness, E. S., Stavropoulos, S. N., Shiwaku, H., Kunda, R., Chiu, P., Saxena, P., Messallam, A. A., Inoue, H., & Khashab, M. A. (2015). Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study. Endoscopy international open, 3(3), E195-201. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391668
Kumbhari, Vivek, et al. "Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study." Endoscopy international open vol. 3,3 (2015): E195-201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391668
Kumbhari V, Tieu AH, Onimaru M, El Zein MH, Teitelbaum EN, Ujiki MB, Gitelis ME, Modayil RJ, Hungness ES, Stavropoulos SN, Shiwaku H, Kunda R, Chiu P, Saxena P, Messallam AA, Inoue H, Khashab MA. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of Type III achalasia in 75 patients: a multicenter comparative study. Endosc Int Open. 2015 Jun;3(3):E195-201. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1391668. Epub 2015 Apr 13. PMID: 26171430; PMCID: PMC4486039.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Endosc Int Open. 2015 Jun;3(3):E195-201. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1391668. Epub 2015 Apr 13.

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

Endoscopy international open

Vivek Kumbhari, Alan H Tieu, Manabu Onimaru, Mohammad H El Zein, Ezra N Teitelbaum, Michael B Ujiki, Matthew E Gitelis, Rani J Modayil, Eric S Hungness, Stavros N Stavropoulos, Hiro Shiwaku, Rastislav Kunda, Philip Chiu, Payal Saxena, Ahmed A Messallam, Haruhiro Inoue, Mouen A Khashab

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.

PMID: 26171430 PMCID: PMC4486039 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391668

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.

References

  1. Gastroenterology. 2013 Aug;145(2):309-11.e1-3 - PubMed
  2. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013 Mar;42(1):27-43 - PubMed
  3. Gastroenterology. 2000 Feb;118(2):253-7 - PubMed
  4. Ann Surg. 2012 Oct;256(4):659-67 - PubMed
  5. Gastroenterology. 2008 Nov;135(5):1526-33 - PubMed
  6. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Jun;8(6):311-9 - PubMed
  7. Am Surg. 2007 Apr;73(4):327-31 - PubMed
  8. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012 Mar;24 Suppl 1:57-65 - PubMed
  9. Arch Surg. 2005 Sep;140(9):827-33; discussion 833-4 - PubMed
  10. Gastroenterology. 2013 Apr;144(4):718-25; quiz e13-4 - PubMed
  11. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54 - PubMed
  12. Endoscopy. 2010 Apr;42(4):265-71 - PubMed
  13. Surgery. 2013 Oct;154(4):893-7; discussion 897-900 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul;48(6):484-90 - PubMed
  15. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Jan;79(1):136-9 - PubMed
  16. Endoscopy. 2014;46 Suppl 1 UCTN:E79-81 - PubMed
  17. Arch Surg. 1995 Jun;130(6):609-15; discussion 615-6 - PubMed
  18. Surgery. 2007 Oct;142(4):613-8; discussion 618-20 - PubMed
  19. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010 Nov;14(11):1635-45 - PubMed
  20. Surg Endosc. 2013 Sep;27(9):3322-38 - PubMed
  21. Surgery. 2013 Oct;154(4):885-91; discussion 891-2 - PubMed
  22. Br J Surg. 2007 Sep;94(9):1113-8 - PubMed
  23. Surg Endosc. 2014 Jul;28(7):2005-19 - PubMed
  24. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011 Jan;17(1):48-53 - PubMed
  25. Surg Endosc. 2012 Jan;26(1):18-26 - PubMed
  26. Surg Endosc. 2012 Nov;26(11):3267-72 - PubMed
  27. Endoscopy. 2007 Sep;39(9):761-4 - PubMed
  28. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012 Mar;24 Suppl 1:27-31 - PubMed
  29. Surg Endosc. 2013 Dec;27(12):4547-55 - PubMed
  30. Ann Surg. 2014 Jun;259(6):1098-103 - PubMed
  31. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Feb;17(2):228-35 - PubMed
  32. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug;108(8):1238-49; quiz 1250 - PubMed
  33. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jan;77(1):149-50 - PubMed

Publication Types