Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in:

23.03.2020

Risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux after POEM for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Raquel Cristina Lins Mota, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Wanderlei Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Vitor O. Brunaldi, Paulo Sakai, Christopher C. Thompson

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) demonstrated similar efficacy to surgical myotomy in the management of achalasia. However, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common after POEM. The aim of this study is to identify factors associated with GERD after POEM.

Method

After searching electronic databases, randomized trials and observational studies including patients with achalasia or other spastic esophageal disorders, treated by POEM, and providing GERD data were selected. GERD was evaluated by 3 methods: pH monitoring, endoscopic findings, and symptoms. For each method, an analysis was performed comparing the outcomes related to the following independent variables: full-thickness (FT) vs circular myotomy, anterior vs posterior, long myotomy vs short myotomy, naive vs previous treatment failure, previous Heller myotomy (HM) vs non-previous-HM, Type I vs II, Type I vs III, and Type II vs III.

Results

2869 publications were identified, and 25 studies met criteria for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. Of these, 18 were included in the meta-analysis. According to the endoscopic findings, circular and anterior myotomy demonstrated a lower trend of GERD with borderline significance (p = 0.06; p = 0.07, respectively). In the pH monitoring and symptom analyses, circular myotomy, anterior myotomy, treatment naive, and non-HM patients were associated with a lower occurrence of GERD; however, no statistically significant difference was found. When comparing achalasia subtypes, no statistical difference was found in all analyses.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that a circular anterior approach may limit post-POEM GERD and should be considered in appropriate patients.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Familiari P, Greco S, Gigante G et al (2016) Gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy: analysis of clinical, procedural and functional factors, associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophagitis. Dig Endosc 28(1):33–41PubMed
2.
3.
Ramchandani M, Nabi Z, Reddy DN et al (2018) Outcomes of anterior myotomy versus posterior myotomy during POEM: a randomized pilot study. Endosc Int Open 6(2):E190–E198PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Kristensen HØ, Kirkegård J, Kjær DW et al (2017) Long-term outcome of peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia in patients with previous Heller myotomy. Surg Endosc 31(6):2596–2601PubMed
6.
Ngamruengphong S, Inoue H, Ujiki MB et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia after failed heller myotomy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(10):1531–1537PubMed
7.
Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y et al (2010) Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 42(4):265–271PubMed
8.
Schlottmann F, Luckett DJ, Fine J et al (2018) Laparoscopic heller myotomy versus peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 267(3):451–460PubMed
9.
Li C, Gong A, Zhang J et al (2017) Clinical outcomes and safety of partial full-thickness myotomy versus circular muscle myotomy in peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia patients. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:2676513PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Duan T, Tan Y, Zhou J et al (2017) A Retrospective study of peroral endoscopic full-thickness myotomy in patients with severe achalasia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(8):770–776PubMed
11.
Talukdar R, Inoue H, Nageshwar Reddy D et al (2015) Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the treatment of achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 29(11):3030–3046PubMed
12.
Ramirez M, Zubieta C, Ciotola F et al (2018) Per oral endoscopic myotomy vs. laparoscopic Heller myotomy, does gastric extension length matter? Surg Endosc 32(1):282–288PubMed
13.
Von Renteln D, Fuchs KH, Fockens P et al (2013) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: an international prospective multicenter study. Gastroenterology 145(2):309–311
14.
Werner YB, Costamagna G, Swanström LL et al (2016) Clinical response to peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Gut 65(6):899–906PubMed
15.
Familiari P, Gigante G, Marchese M et al (2016) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: outcomes of the first 100 patients with short-term follow-up. Ann Surg 263(1):82–87PubMed
16.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):1–6
17.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012PubMed
18.
19.
Pandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA, Nealis T et al (2008) Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology 135:1526–1533PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Jones R, Junghard O, Dent J et al (2009) Development of the GerdQ, a tool for the diagnosis and management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 30:1030–1038PubMed
21.
Kusano M, Shimoyama Y, Sugimoto S et al (2004) Development and evaluation of FSSG: frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD. J Gastroenterol 39:888–891PubMed
22.
Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL et al (1996) The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 111:85–92PubMed
23.
Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell J, Robertson J et al (2011) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa
24.
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software] (2015) McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). gradepro.org
25.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 315:629–634
26.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. (2014) The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen
27.
Khashab MA, Sanaei O, Ponchon T et al (2018) Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): anterior versus posterior approach, a randomized single-blinded clinical trial gastrointestinal endoscopy. In: Conference: digestive diease week, DDW 2018 ASGE. United States. 87(6 Supplement 1):AB119
28.
Tan Y, Lv L, Wang X et al (2018) Efficacy of anterior versus posterior per-oral endoscopic myotomy for treating achalasia: a randomized, prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 88(1):46–54PubMed
29.
Gao Q, Tu S, Tang X et al (2017) Mid-term outcomes of a single center randomized controlled trial comparing peroral endoscopic short versus long myotomy for achalasia in China. Am J Gastroenterol 112(Supplement 1):S173–S174
30.
Familiari P, Calì A, Landi R et al (2016) Long vs short POEM for the treatment of achalasia. Interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 83(5 SUPPL. 1):AB624
31.
Zhang X, Modayil RJ, Friedel D et al (2018) Per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with or without prior Heller's myotomy: comparing long-term outcomes in a large U.S. single-center cohort (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 87(4):972–985PubMed
32.
Wang J, Tan N, Xiao Y et al (2015) Safety and efficacy of the modified peroral endoscopic myotomy with shorter myotomy for achalasia patients: a prospective study. Dis Esophagus 28(8):720–727PubMed
33.
Hernández Mondragón OV, González Martinez MA, Blancas Valencia JM et al (2017) Long-term quality of life after peroral endoscopic myotomy remains compromised in patients with achalasia type III. Endoscopy 49(12):1209–1218PubMed
34.
Zhou PH, Li QL, Yao LQ et al (2013) Peroral endoscopic remyotomy for failed Heller myotomy: a prospective single-center study. Endoscopy 45(3):161–166PubMed
35.
Aslan F, Akpinar Z, Yurtlu DA et al (2017) What is the effect of myotomy site on per-oral endoscopic myotomy? Comparison of anterior and posterior myotomy. United Eur Gastroenterol J 5(5 Supplement 1):A347
36.
Tang X, Ren Y, Gao Q et al (2017) Peroral endoscopic myotomy is safe and effective in achalasia patients aged older than 60 years compared with younger patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 17(12):2407–2413PubMed
37.
Wang XH, Tan YY, Zhu HY et al (2016) Full-thickness myotomy is associated with higher rate of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol 22(42):9419–9426PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Shiwaku H, Yamashita K, Matsuoka T et al (2016) Retrospective case series of GERD after poem: a comparison of anterior and posterior myotomy. United Eur Gastroenterol J 4(5 Supplement 1):A679–A680
39.
Gong W, Tang X, Huang S et al (2016) Peroral endoscopic shorter versus longer myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol 111(Supplement 1):S138–S139
40.
Nabi Z, Ramchandani M, Chavan R et al (2018) Peroral endoscopic myotomy in treatment-naïve achalasia patients versus prior treatment failure cases. Endoscopy 50(4):358–370PubMed
41.
Tang X, Deng Z, Gong W, Jiang B (2015) Feasibility and safety of peroral endoscopy myotomy for achalasia after failed endoscopic or surgical interventions: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 81(5 SUPPL. 1):AB490
42.
Tang X, Deng Z, Gong W, Jiang B (2015) Outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia depend on manometric subtype. Gastrointest Endosc 81(5 SUPPL. 1):AB493
43.
Li QL, Chen WF, Zhou PH et al (2013) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a clinical comparative study of endoscopic full-thickness and circular muscle myotomy. J Am Coll Surg 217(3):442–451PubMed
44.
Kumbhari V, Familiari P, Bjerregaard NC et al (2017) Gastroesophageal reflux after peroral endoscopic myotomy: a multicenter case-control study. Endoscopy 49(7):634–642PubMed
45.
Bechara R, Onimaru M, Ikeda H, Inoue H (2016) Per-oral endoscopic myotomy, 1000 cases later: pearls, pitfalls, and practical considerations. Gastrointest Endosc 84(2):330–338PubMed
46.
Souma Y, Nakajima K, Taniguchi E et al (2017) Mucosal perforation during laparoscopic surgery for achalasia: impact of preoperative pneumatic balloon dilation. Surg Endosc 31:1427–1435PubMed
47.
Smith CD, Stival A, Howell DL et al (2006) Endoscopic therapy for achalasia before Heller myotomy results in worse outcomes than Heller myotomy alone. Ann Surg 243:579–586PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Greene CL, Chang EJ, Oh DS et al (2015) High resolution manometry sub-classification of Achalasia: does it really matter? Does Achalasia sub-classification matter? Surg Endosc 29(6):1363–1367PubMed
49.
Inoue H, Ito H, Ikeda H (2014) Anti-reflux mucosectomy for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the absence of hiatus hernia: a pilot study. Ann Gastroenterol 27(4):346–351PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Triadafilopoulos G, DiBaise JK, Notrant TT et al (2001) Radiofrequency energy delivery to the gastroesophageal junction for the treatment of GERD. Gastrointest Endosc 53:407–415PubMed
51.
Cadiere GB, Rajan A, Rqibate M et al (2006) Endoluminal fundoplication (ELF)-evolution of EsophyXTM, a new surgical device for transoral surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 15:348–355PubMed
52.
Louis H, Deviere J (2003) Endoscopic implantation of Enteryx for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: technique, pre-clinical and clinical experience. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 13:191–200PubMed
53.
Coronel MA, Bernardo WM, Moura DTH et al (2018) The Efficacy of the difference endoscopic treatment versus sham, pharmacologic or surgical methods for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Gastroenterol 55(3):296–305PubMed
54.
De Moura EGH, Sallum RAA, Nasi A et al (2018) Endoscopic polymer injection and endoluminal plication in treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: evaluation of long-term results. Endosc Int Open 6(5):E630–E636PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E et al (2018) Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus. Gut 67(7):1351–1362PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Risk factors for gastroesophageal reflux after POEM for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Raquel Cristina Lins Mota
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura
Wanderlei Marques Bernardo
Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura
Vitor O. Brunaldi
Paulo Sakai
Christopher C. Thompson
Publikationsdatum
23.03.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07412-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Correction to: Outcomes of endoscopic treatment for malignant biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy: analysis of risk factors for clinical failure

  • Correction

Expanding indications for laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing resection of posterosuperior liver segments in patients with colorectal metastases: comparison with open hepatectomy for immediate and long-term outcomes

Adding iliopubic tract repair to high ligation reduces recurrence risk in pediatric laparoscopic transabdominal inguinal hernia repair

Pelvic peritoneum closure reduces postoperative complications of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: 6-year experience in single center

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

  • Open Access
  • COVID-19
  • EAES Recommendations

Age-related outcomes in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: Is there a “too old” for antireflux surgery?

  • 2019 EAES Oral

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Nackenschmerzen nach Bandscheibenvorfall: Muskeltraining hilft!

Bei hartnäckigen Schmerzen aufgrund einer zervikalen Radikulopathie schlägt ein Team der Universität Istanbul vor, lokale Steroidinjektionen mit einem speziellen Trainingsprogramm zur Stabilisierung der Nackenmuskulatur zu kombinieren.

US-Team empfiehlt Gastropexie nach Hiatushernien-Op.

Zur Vermeidung von Rezidiven nach Reparatur einer paraösophagealen Hiatushernie sollte einem US-Team zufolge der Magen bei der Op. routinemäßig an der Bauchwand fixiert werden. Das Ergebnis einer randomisierten Studie scheint dafür zu sprechen.

Mit Lidocain kommt der Darm nicht schneller in Schwung

Verzögertes Wiederanspringen der Darmfunktion ist ein Hauptfaktor dafür, wenn Patientinnen und Patienten nach einer Kolonresektion länger als geplant im Krankenhaus bleiben müssen. Ob man diesem Problem mit Lidocain vorbeugen kann, war Thema einer Studie.

Die elektronische Patientenakte kommt: Das sollten Sie jetzt wissen

Am 15. Januar geht die „ePA für alle“ zunächst in den Modellregionen an den Start. Doch schon bald soll sie in allen Praxen zum Einsatz kommen. Was ist jetzt zu tun? Was müssen Sie wissen? Wir geben in einem FAQ Antworten auf 21 Fragen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise