Peroral endoscopic longer vs shorter esophageal myotomy for achalasia treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

doi:10.4240/wjgs.v14.i3.247

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 14, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (5336)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-2) series.

Item

Count

PDF

278

WORD

104

HTML

1767

Figures (1-5)

271

Tables (1-2)

258

Sum=2678

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

261

Download

542

Sum=803

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

447

Download

1408

Sum=1855

Mar 27, 2022 (publication date) through Nov 24, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (2)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastrointest Surg. Mar 27, 2022; 14(3): 247-259
Published online Mar 27, 2022. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i3.247

Table 1 Articles’ features

Ref.	Total sample	Sex, male/female, n	Age, yr	Symptoms duration, yr or mo	MBI	Classification, n (%)	Pre-ECK scores	LESP, mmHg	IRP, mmHg
Familiari et al[15], 2016	LM: 38	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Familiari et al[15], 2016	SM: 35	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Gao et al[16], 2017	LM: 53	LM: 29/24; SM: 25/22	LM: 37.83 ± 14.36	LM: 5.23 ± 5.87	LM: 19.76 ± 3.07	NA	LM: 6.75 ± 1.86	LM: 43.03 ± 13.73	NA
Gao et al[16], 2017	SM: 47	LM: 29/24; SM: 25/22	SM: 43.96 ± 11.69	SM: 5.30 ± 4.87	SM: 20.25 ± 2.97	NA	SM: 6.34 ± 1.74	SM: 41.93 ± 14.93	NA
Gong et al[17], 2016	LM: 59; SM: 38	Female; LM: 29; SM: 19	LM: 39.8 ± 12.4; SM: 41.5 ± 7.2	LM: 6.5 ± 5.5; SM: 7.9 ± 4.3	LM: 20.7 ± 2.6; SM: 20.1 ± 3.2	ASAC I: LM: 47; SM: 29; II: LM: 11; SM: 7; III: LM: 1; SM: 2; CC I: LM: 21; SM: 12 II: LM: 38; SM: 26	LM: 7.2 ± 2.4; SM: 6.8 ± 1.7	LM: 42.1 ± 12.9; SM: 44.6 ± 13.2	NA
Gu et al[14], 2020	LM: 48; SM: 46	LM: 23/25; SM: 21/25	LM: 42.8 ± 10.2; SM: 43.6 ± 11.4	LM: 4.1(0.3~31.0); SM: 5.0(0.3~34.0）	NA	CC II: LM: 48; SM: 46	LM: 7.1 ± 1.6; SM: 7.5 ± 1.5	LM: 32.4 ± 5.3; SM: 33.5 ± 5.0	LM: 21.5 ± 4.6; SM: 23.2 ± 4.8
Huang et al[13], 2020	LM: 74; SM: 36	Female; LM: 34; SM: 17	LM: 37.7 ± 13.0; SM: 40.8 ± 11.1	LM: 8.9 ± 5.8; SM: 8.8 ± 5.5	LM: 19.4 ± 3.1; SM: 20.3 ± 2.6	ASAC I: LM: 58; SM: 33; II: LM: 15; SM: 2; III: LM: 1; SM: 1; CC I: LM: 26; SM: 12; II: LM: 48; SM: 24	LM: 7.5 ± 1.9; SM: 7.1 ± 1.6	LM: 39.8 ± 13.7; SM: 41.8 ± 14.3	NA
Nabi et al[12],2020	LM: 37; SM: 34	LM: 24/13; SM: 18/16	LM: 41.3 ± 14.4; SM: 40.1 ± 16.8	LM: 3;SM: 3	NA	ASAC I: LM: 13; SM: 12; II: LM: 24; SM: 22	LM: 6.75 ± 1.32; SM: 6.02 ± 1.33	NA	LM: 28.50 ± 11.01; SM: 26.40 ± 13.9

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%). ASAC: American Society of Anesthesiologists classification; BMI: Body mass index; CC: Chicago classification; IRP: Integrated relaxation pressure; LESP: Lower esophagus sphincter pressure; LM: Long myotomy; NA: Not Applied; Pre-ECK scores: Preoperative- peroral endoscopic myotomy Eckardt scores; SM: Short myotomy.

Table 2 The detailed study quality evaluation items

Ref.	Follow-up sample	Length of the myotomy, cm	Operative time, min	Myotomy length, cm	Follow-up time, mo	Clinical success	GERD, %	LESP, mmHg	HRM, mmHg	Post-ECK scores	Adverse events
Familiari et al[15]_,2016	LM: 23 SM: 26	LM: 13 SM: 8	LM: 59.2 ± 16.7 SM: 47.7 ± 13.2	ES: LM: 8.42 ± 2.13 SM: 3.87 ± 0.61 ST: LM: 2.49 ± 0.70 SM: 2.21 ± 0.41 TO: LM: 10.94 ± 2.11 SM: 6.04 ± 0.69	8	LM: 100% SM: 100%	LM: 42.9% SM: 65%	LM: 17 ± 9.7 SM: 11.4 ± 6.5	LM: 8.6 ± 4.9 SM: 5.9 ± 5.0	LM: 0.5 ± 0.8 SM: 0.5 ± 0.8	No
Gao et al[16]_,2017	LM: 53 SM: 47	LM: > 7 SM: ≤7	LM: 63.13 ± 26.5 SM: 50.62 ± 20.02	NA	3,6,12	LM: 96.2% SM: 93.6%	LM: 11.3% SM: 12.8%	LM: 16.51 ± 5.01 SM: 17.41 ± 3.69	NA	LM: 0.98 ± 1.14 SM: 1.06 ± 1.42	MB: LM: 0, SM: 0 MP: LM: 1; SM: 0 HS: LM: 10.19 ± 4.03 SM: 10.21 ± 3.78
Gong et al[17]_,2016	LM: 59 SM: 38	LM: > 7 SM: ≤7	LM: 68.5 ± 23.2 SM: 44.2 ± 16.3	ES: LM: 8.5 ± 2.6 SM: 4.0 ± 0.9 ST: LM: 3.2 ± 1.4 SM: 2.1+0.3 TO: LM: 11.7 ± 2.4 SM: 6.1 ± 0.5	NA	LM: 91.5% SM: 92.1%	LM: 18.6% SM: 15.8%	LM: 19.3 ± 8.5 SM: 16.7 ± 4.3	NA	LM: 1.2 ± 1.2 SM: 1.0 ± 0.9	MB: LM: 3; SM: 2 MP: LM: 1; SM: 0 HS: LM: 6.6 ± 1.1 SM: 6.4 ± 1.2
Gu et al[14]_,2020	LM: 48 SM: 46	LM: 7-8 SM: 3-4	LM: 45.6 ± 16.2 SM: 31.2 ± 15.3	ES: LM: 10.14 ± 0.54 SM: 5.66 ± 0.14	1,3,6,12	LM: 93.8% SM: 95.7%	LM: 22.9% SM: 15.2%	LM: 12.1 ± 3.9 SM: 11.8 ± 4.4	LM: 9.7 ± 2.6 SM: 10.1 ± 2.4	LM: 0.72 ± 0.42 SM: 0.76 ± 0.51	HS: LM: 6: 5 ± 1.6 SM: 7.0 ± 0.9
Huang et al[13]_,2020	LM: 74 SM: 36	LM > 7 SM≤ 7	LM: 62.1 ± 25.2 SM: 46.6 ± 18.5	ES: LM: 8.2 ± 2.7 SM: 4.0 ± 0.7 ST: LM: 3.2 ± 1.2 SM: 3.2 ± 1.2 TO: LM: 11.5 ± 3.1 SM: 6.0 ± 0.6	28.7	LM: 91.9% SM: 94.4%	LM: 14.9% SM: 8.3%	LM: 13.3 ± 5.7 SM: 15.9 ± 3.2	NA	LM: 1.6 ± 1.3 SM: 1.3 ± 1.2	MB: LM: 3; SM: 2 MP: LM: 1; SM: 0 HS: LM: 9.3 ± 2.9 SM: 9.9 ± 2.4
Nabi et al[12], 2020	LM: 37 SM: 34	LM: ≥ 6 SM: ≤ 3	LM: 72.43 ± 27.28 SM: 44.03 ± 13.78	ES: LM: 7.97 ± 2.40 SM: 2.76 ± 0.41 ST: LM: 2.84 ± 0.63 SM: 2.70 ± 0.73	12	LM: 96.97% SM: 93.55%	LM: 56.67%SM: 44.4%	NA	LM: 7.44 ± 4.30 SM: 8.60 ± 1.30	LM: 0.818 ± 0.983 SM: 0.935 ± 0.929	MB: LM: 17; SM: 12 HS: LM: 2.81 ± 0.70 SM: 2.82 ± 0.67

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%). Eck: Eckardt score; ES: Esophageal; HS: Hospitalization, mean days; MB: Major bleeding; MP: Mucosal perforation; Post-ECK scores: Postoperative- peroral endoscopic myotomy Eckardt scores; POEM: Peroral endoscopic myotomy; GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; LM: Long myotomy; NA: Not Applied; SM: Short myotomy; ST: Stomach; TO: Total.

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