Meta‐analysis of clinical outcome after treatment for achalasia based on manometric subtypes. BJS 2019; 106: 332-341.
Published: 28th January 2019
Authors: C. Andolfi, P. M. Fisichella
The introduction of high‐resolution manometry and the Chicago classification has made it possible to diagnose achalasia and predict treatment response accurately. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the different treatments available on symptomatic outcomes across all achalasia subtypes.
The study was conducted according to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases was undertaken to identify all relevant articles reporting clinical outcomes of patients with achalasia after botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilatation, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) based on manometric subtypes. Patients were grouped according to the Chicago classification and the success rate in treating symptoms was measured as the primary endpoint.
Twenty studies (1575 patients) were selected, and data on botulinum toxin, pneumatic dilatation, LHM and POEM were extracted. Success rates for LHM in type I, II and III achalasia were 81, 92 and 71 per cent respectively. Those for POEM were 95, 97 and 93 per cent respectively. POEM was more likely to be successful than LHM for both type I (odds ratio (OR) 2·97, 95 per cent c.i. 1·09 to 8·03; P = 0·032) and type III (OR 3·50, 1·39 to 8·77; P = 0·007) achalasia. The likelihood of success of POEM and LHM for type II achalasia was similar.
Pneumatic dilatation had a lower but still acceptable success rate compared with POEM or LHM in patients with type II achalasia. POEM is an excellent treatment modality for type I and type III achalasia, although it did not show any superiority over LHM for type II achalasia.Full text
You may also be interested in
Effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on preoperative pulmonary physiology, postoperative respiratory complications and quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer.
Authors: J. A. Elliott, L. O'Byrne, G. Foley, C. F. Murphy, S. L. Doyle, S. King et al.
Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro‐oesophageal junction.
Authors: W. H. Allum, E. C. Smyth, J. M. Blazeby, H. I. Grabsch, S. M. Griffin, S. Rowley et al.
Meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials of early versus delayed cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis.
Authors: N. Moody, A. Adiamah, F. Yanni, D. Gomez
Authors: Y. Y. Broza, S. Khatib, A. Gharra, A. Krilaviciute, H. Amal, I. Polaka et al.
Authors: S. Ahlin, C. Cefalù, I. Bondia‐Pons, E. Capristo, L. Marini, A. Gastaldelli et al.
Development and validation of a staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.
Authors: J. X. Lin, C. Yoon, J. Desiderio, B. C. Yi, P. Li, C. H. Zheng et al.
Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma after perioperative management of portal hypertension. BJS 2019; 106: 1066-1074.
Authors: N. Takemura, T. Aoki, K. Hasegawa, J. Kaneko, J. Arita, N. Akamatsu et al.
Meta‐analysis of risk factors and complications associated with atrial fibrillation after oesophagectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 534-547.
Authors: D. Schizas, M. Kosmopoulos, S. Giannopoulos, S. Giannopoulos, D. G. Kokkinidis, N. Karampetsou et al.
Changes in gut hormones, glycaemic response and symptoms after oesophagectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 735-746.
Authors: J. A. Elliott, N. G. Docherty, C. F. Murphy, H.‐G. Eckhardt, S. L. Doyle, E. M. Guinan et al.
Diagnostic performance of MRI for assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 596-605.
Authors: S. E. Vollenbrock, F. E. M. Voncken, J. M. van Dieren, D. M. J. Lambregts, M. Maas, G. J. Meijer et al.
Major hepatectomy with or without pancreatoduodenectomy for advanced gallbladder cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 626-635.
Authors: T. Mizuno, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, J. Yamaguchi, S. Onoe et al.