Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Background and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Saurabh Chandan, Antonio Facciorusso, Shahab R. Khan, Daryl Ramai, Babu P. Mohan, Mohammad Bilal, Banreet Dhindsa, Lena L. Kassab, Hemant Goyal, Abhilash Perisetti, Ishfaq Bhat, Shailender Singh, Stephanie McDonough, Douglas G. Adler
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-07-01
Series:Endoscopy International Open
Online Access:http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1490-8493
id doaj-1359457055444dc488ae9e92d6bb6d8a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1359457055444dc488ae9e92d6bb6d8a2021-08-24T08:40:29ZengGeorg Thieme Verlag KGEndoscopy International Open2364-37222196-97362021-07-010908E1246E125410.1055/a-1490-8493Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studiesSaurabh Chandan0Antonio Facciorusso1Shahab R. Khan2Daryl Ramai3Babu P. Mohan4Mohammad Bilal5Banreet Dhindsa6Lena L. Kassab7Hemant Goyal8Abhilash Perisetti9Ishfaq Bhat10Shailender Singh11Stephanie McDonough12Douglas G. Adler13Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United StatesGastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, ItalySection of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United StatesInternal Medicine, Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, United StatesDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United StatesDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Minnesota and Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United StatesGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United StatesInternal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United StatesGastroenterology, Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, Philadelphia, United StatesGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, United States Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United StatesGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United StatesDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United StatesDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United StatesBackground and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation in esophageal myotomy length is not well known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of short versus standard myotomy length in patients with achalasia. Patients and methods We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2020 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of achalasia patients who underwent short compared with standard esophageal myotomy. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success, GERD outcomes, and adverse events with the two techniques. Results 5 studies with 474 patients were included in the final analysis (short myotomy group 214, standard myotomy group 260). There was no difference in clinical success (OR 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–2.52; I2 0 %; P = 0.69), postoperative symptomatic GERD (OR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.44–1.74; I2 29 %; P = 0.70), and overall adverse events (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.19–1.38; I2 40 %; P = 0.19), between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis as determined by endoscopy was lower in the short myotomy group (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.24–1.03; I2 0 %; P = 0.06). Conclusion Our analysis showed that performing POEM with short esophageal myotomy in achalasia was as safe and effective as standard myotomy, with lower incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis.http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1490-8493
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Saurabh Chandan
Antonio Facciorusso
Shahab R. Khan
Daryl Ramai
Babu P. Mohan
Mohammad Bilal
Banreet Dhindsa
Lena L. Kassab
Hemant Goyal
Abhilash Perisetti
Ishfaq Bhat
Shailender Singh
Stephanie McDonough
Douglas G. Adler
spellingShingle Saurabh Chandan
Antonio Facciorusso
Shahab R. Khan
Daryl Ramai
Babu P. Mohan
Mohammad Bilal
Banreet Dhindsa
Lena L. Kassab
Hemant Goyal
Abhilash Perisetti
Ishfaq Bhat
Shailender Singh
Stephanie McDonough
Douglas G. Adler
Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
Endoscopy International Open
author_facet Saurabh Chandan
Antonio Facciorusso
Shahab R. Khan
Daryl Ramai
Babu P. Mohan
Mohammad Bilal
Banreet Dhindsa
Lena L. Kassab
Hemant Goyal
Abhilash Perisetti
Ishfaq Bhat
Shailender Singh
Stephanie McDonough
Douglas G. Adler
author_sort Saurabh Chandan
title Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
title_short Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
title_full Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
title_fullStr Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
title_full_unstemmed Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
title_sort short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
series Endoscopy International Open
issn 2364-3722
2196-9736
publishDate 2021-07-01
description Background and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation in esophageal myotomy length is not well known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of short versus standard myotomy length in patients with achalasia. Patients and methods We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2020 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of achalasia patients who underwent short compared with standard esophageal myotomy. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success, GERD outcomes, and adverse events with the two techniques. Results 5 studies with 474 patients were included in the final analysis (short myotomy group 214, standard myotomy group 260). There was no difference in clinical success (OR 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–2.52; I2 0 %; P = 0.69), postoperative symptomatic GERD (OR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.44–1.74; I2 29 %; P = 0.70), and overall adverse events (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.19–1.38; I2 40 %; P = 0.19), between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis as determined by endoscopy was lower in the short myotomy group (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.24–1.03; I2 0 %; P = 0.06). Conclusion Our analysis showed that performing POEM with short esophageal myotomy in achalasia was as safe and effective as standard myotomy, with lower incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis.
url http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1490-8493
work_keys_str_mv AT saurabhchandan shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT antoniofacciorusso shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT shahabrkhan shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT darylramai shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT babupmohan shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT mohammadbilal shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT banreetdhindsa shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT lenalkassab shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT hemantgoyal shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT abhilashperisetti shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT ishfaqbhat shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT shailendersingh shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT stephaniemcdonough shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
AT douglasgadler shortversusstandardesophagealmyotomyinachalasiapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcomparativestudies
_version_ 1721197666532065280