4.4 Article

Comparison of costs and short-term clinical outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 218, Issue 4, Pages 706-711

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.07.026

Keywords

Achalasia; Per-oral endoscopic myotomy; POEM; Laparoscopic Heller myotomy; Costs; Manometry

Categories

Funding

  1. Ryan Hill Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) has seen increasing application and comparisons to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). The aim of the present study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes, and costs between the two procedures at a single institution. Methods: Fifty-one consecutive patients documented in a prospective IRB approved database from January 2014 to December 2017 were included. Perioperative data, pre-operative and 3-month postoperative Eckardt Scores, and cost data were compared. Results: Median hospital stay was comparable between POEM and LHM (1 day each). Complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo 1, 2) and rare in both groups. Median Eckardt scores improved significantly after POEM (5 to 0) and LHM (5 to 0). Normalized median costs were comparable: 14 201 USD (POEM) vs. 13 328 USD (LHM) p = 0.45. Conclusions: POEM demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes and costs to LHM. Long-term issues related to GERD require ongoing assessment in POEM patients. Summary: In patients with achalasia, extended myotomy of the lower esophageal sphincter offers excellent palliation of symptoms. In the last decades, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been the gold standard. Over the past decade, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has seen wide application in specialized centers worldwide. In our patient cohort, we demonstrate, that POEM can be introduced with similar outcomes and costs compared to LHM. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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