ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2017
Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy versus per-oral endoscopic myotomy for management of achalasia.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Achalasia: laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication versus peroral endoscopic myotomy-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Pooled it
- Is peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) more effective than pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Peroral endoscopic myotomyWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2022Trial
- Clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy treatment performed in patients diagnosed with achalasia.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2025Article
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease over time in endoscopic versus surgical myotomy for treatment of achalasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2025Review
- Review
- Modified protocol for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery is beneficial for achalasia patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy: a randomized prospective trial.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021Article
- Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma after peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2021Article
- Intraoperative impedance planimetry (EndoFLIP™) results and development of esophagitis in patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Robotic and per-oral endoscopic myotomy have fewer technical complications compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- 2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achalasia is a rare disorder that has several treatment options. The gold standard of treatment is a surgical myotomy called a laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). More recently, an endoscopic myotomy has become an option as well, called per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). An achalasia registry was queried for patients undergoing either LHM or POEM at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative data points, and Eckardt scores were collected. The patients were further stratified into their follow-up intervals, immediate postoperative and long-term follow-up, to assess surgical success. A subset analysis was done for success of treatment for patients who had redo surgery versus those undergoing the procedure for the first time. There were 12 patients in the POEM group and 11 patients in the LHM group. Both groups demonstrated mean lower esophageal sphincter pressures with failure to relax. Procedure length and hospital length of stay were similar between the two groups. There were three adverse events in each group, but none altered the patient's postoperative clinical course. Eckardt scores, used to assess success of the surgery, were 82% for POEM patients and 66% for LHM patients after 6 months. The outcomes for POEM and LHM in our early experience are similar to those reported in the literature for high-volume centers managing achalasia.
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.