ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Per oral endoscopic myotomy: early experience and safety of a multispecialty approach.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Redo Heller myotomy vs. POEM after failed Heller myotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Standard length of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and Dor fundoplication following an unsuccessful peroral endoscopic myotomy.Surgical case reports · 2023Article
- Experience with Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Achalasia and Spastic Esophageal Motility Disorders at a Tertiary U.S. Center.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPer oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has gained increasing popularity for treating achalasia. A multidisciplinary approach may allow safe and early adoption of POEM into clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of our initial POEM cases. All procedures were performed by a team of interventional gastroenterologist and thoracic surgeon. We analyzed demographics, comorbidities, achalasia subtypes, length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, morbidity, mortality, length of myotomy, preoperative and postoperative Eckardt scores.
resultsThirty-one consecutive patients underwent POEM during the 24-month period from January 2014 to December 2015. Eighteen patients (58%) had prior non-operative interventions. Average duration of follow-up was 9.6 months. Seventeen patients (66.8%) had follow-up of 12 months and longer. Average preoperative Eckardt score was 6.3 (3-10), median 6. Average postoperative Eckardt score was 1.4 (0-8), median 1, in 1 month and an average 2.2, median 1, in 1 year. Patients with type III achalasia were most refractory to treatment, while patients with type II had the best results. Average LOS was 1.3 days (1-5), median 1 day. Average DOS was 106 min (60-148), median 106. Average LOM was 13 cm (10-15), with median of 13 cm. We had one 30-day mortality secondary to coronary artery disease. Four patients had prior Heller myotomies and underwent a posterior myotomy during POEM, with outcomes similar to patients with no prior myotomy.
conclusionsWe demonstrated safety and efficiency of a multispecialty approach for achalasia with POEM with a low rate of complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29349541What 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.