Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Mar 27, 2022; 14(3): 247-259
Published online Mar 27, 2022. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i3.247
Published online Mar 27, 2022. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i3.247
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 2 Risk of bias of the enrolled studies.
The methodological quality of the included studies was similar. No study had a high risk for confounding variables.
Figure 3 Long vs short myotomy.
Meta-analysis of primary outcomes (clinical success rate).
Figure 4
Operative time of long vs short myotomy.
Figure 5 Long vs short myotomy.
Meta-analysis of secondary outcomes. A: Endoscopic reflux esophagitis; B: Hospitalization; C: Major bleeding.
- Citation: Weng CY, He CH, Zhuang MY, Xu JL, Lyu B. Peroral endoscopic longer vs shorter esophageal myotomy for achalasia treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Surg 2022; 14(3): 247-259
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v14/i3/247.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v14.i3.247