ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2015
Comparison of treatment outcomes of endoscope-guided pneumatic dilation and laparoscopic Heller myotomy.
Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pneumatic balloon dilatation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a failed attempt at meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Epidemiology and practice patterns of achalasia in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based cohort study.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Article
- Comparison of fully coated anti-reflux metal stenting and per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia: a propensity score-matched retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The debate on which is the better choice between laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and endoscopic pneumatic dilation (PD) for esophageal achalasia has been ongoing for decades. This study aims to compare the results of endoscope-guided PD and LHM in 42 patients with achalasia between May 1996 and August 2011. Twenty-one patients who had received PD and 21 who had received LHM were enrolled. The cumulative remission rate was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with the assessment of symptom scores between grades before and after PD or LHM done at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and then every year thereafter. Possible confounding factors related to the remissions were analyzed by Cox's proportional hazard model. For PD, the cumulative remission rates were 81.0% (1 year), 76.2% (2), 66.7% (3), 61.9% (4), and 47.6% (5). For LHM, the cumulative remission rates were 90.5% every year from the 1(st) to the 5(th). The LHM patients had significantly better remission rates than the PD patients (p = 0.033, by log-rank test). The LHM group had a longer hospital stay than the PD group [median (interquartile range): 8 (6.5-10) days vs. 3 (2-3) days, p < 0.001) and had more reflux complications (52.4% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.024). No perforation occurred in either group. In conclusion, the 5-year cumulative effectiveness of LHM is better than that of PD despite the association of LHM with more reflux events (52.4%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.