4.4 Article

Long-Term Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Patients with Achalasia: Outcomes with a Median Follow-Up of 36Months

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 803-810

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5373-0

Keywords

Achalasia; Gastroesophageal reflux; Long-term effects; Peroral endoscopic myotomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for patients with achalasia.MethodsProspective data collected from 115 patients (median age 45years; interquartile range 34-57) with achalasia who underwent POEM at the First Affiliated Hospital of ZheJiang Chinese Medical University with a median follow-up of 36months were retrospectively analyzed. The Eckardt score and lower esophageal sphincter pressure changes were analyzed, and the gastroesophageal reflux was observed.ResultsDuring the final follow-up, the mean Eckardt score reduced from 7.51.9 preoperatively to 2.3 +/- 1.4 after 1month of surgery (P<0.001). Treatment success was observed in 91.3% [confidence interval (CI) 86.2-96.4], 90.3% (CI 84.8-95.8), 89.0% (CI 83.1-94.9), 83.7% (CI 75.7-91.7), and 80.1% (CI 69.7-90.5) of patients after 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60months, respectively. A total of 16 (13.9%) failures occurred. Four patients were nonresponders (failure within 3months), eight had an early recurrence (between 3months and 3years), and four had a late recurrence (after 3years). Further, 21 (20.6%) patients had symptoms of reflux during the two-year follow-up. Only one patient with symptomatic reflux was newly added during the subsequent three-year follow-up. Moreover, 71 (61.7%) patients underwent gastroscopy after POEM, and 13 (18.3%) patients were diagnosed with reflux esophagitis.Conclusion POEM is safe and effective in treating achalasia and has a favorable long-term efficacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available