Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 944 
 
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW/META ANALYSIS
Ahead of Print

Short versus long esophageal myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials


1 Department of Gastroenterology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Gastroenterology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Zaheer Nabi,
Consultant Gastroenterologist and Director Interventional Endoscopy, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_438_21

PMID: 34806659

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an established modality of treatment for achalasia cardia. Considerable variations exist in the technique of POEM with respect to the length and orientation of the myotomy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the outcomes of short versus long myotomy during POEM. Methods: We searched multiple databases from January 2010 to March 2021 to identify studies reporting on POEM. We selected studies that reported on comparative outcomes of POEM using short versus long myotomy. We performed a comparative analysis of clinical success, procedural duration, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adverse events with short and long myotomy in POEM by meta-analysis. Results: A total of 521 patients from five studies in which 241 patients were treated with short and 280 patients with long myotomy approaches were analyzed. The pooled rate for clinical success gave an odds ratio (OR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50–3.26; I2 = 0; P = 0.62); for hospital stay OR 0.22 (95% CI − 0.03 to 0.46; I2 = 0; P = 0.08); for GERD by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.31–1.07; I2 = 0; P = 0.08), and for adverse events OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.29–1.53; I2 = 51; P = 0.34). Abnormal esophageal acid exposure was less frequent with OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.22–0.90; P = 0.02; I2 = 0) and the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the short myotomy group with OR − 0.76 (95% CI − 1.00 to − 0.52; I2 = 43; P =0.001). Conclusion: Short myotomy and long myotomy in POEM seem comparable with each other in terms of clinical success and adverse events. Short myotomy is associated with significantly shorter procedural duration and possibly reduced esophageal acid exposure compared with long myotomy.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
 
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed132    
    PDF Downloaded8    

Recommend this journal