ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Safety and efficacy of using a short tunnel versus a standard tunnel for peroral endoscopic myotomy for Ling type IIc and III achalasia: a retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04578769 (Comparison Study of Conventional Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 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.
Comparison Study of Conventional Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Different Modified Procedures of POEM for Achalasia
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Short versus standard esophageal myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Short Versus Standard Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Short versus long esophageal myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationPooled it
- Short versus long myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Modified peroral endoscopic myotomy technique with retrograde on-demand myotomy for achalasia: a retrospective cohort study (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Per-oral endoscopic myotomy is safe and effective for pediatric patients with achalasia: A long-term follow-up study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Submucosal endoscopy: the present and future.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Role of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Advanced Achalasia Cardia With Sigmoid and/or Megaesophagus: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Shorter Myotomy versus Longer Myotomy for Patients with Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Review
- Double tunnel technique reduces technical failure during POEM in cases with severe submucosal fibrosis.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Short versus standard esophageal myotomy in achalasia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy in challenging achalasia patients: a long-term follow-up study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Advances in The Diagnosis and Treatment of Achalasia of The Cardia: a Review.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2021Article
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy for management of gastrointestinal motility disorder.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Review
- 2007-2019: a "Third"-Space Odyssey in the Endoscopic Management of Gastrointestinal Tract Diseases.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Short versus standard peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPeroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for patients with Ling type IIc and III achalasia is associated with a high rate of adverse events. Decreasing the lengths of the tunnel and myotomy may be an effective method for reducing this rate. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of using a short tunnel versus a standard tunnel for POEM.
methodWe conducted a retrospective study of 126 patients with Ling type IIc and III achalasia undergoing POEM from January 2013 to December 2016. These patients were divided into a short tunnel group (n = 63) and a standard tunnel group (n = 63). The clinical efficacy of the procedure, operative time, length of the tunnel, length of myotomy and rates of adverse events were analyzed.
resultsThe preoperative features were similar in both groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups in Eckardt score change, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure or residual pressure after POEM (all p > 0.05). The mean lengths of the tunnel and myotomy were 7.6 cm and 4.8 cm, respectively, in the short tunnel group and 11.8 cm and 9.2 cm, respectively, in the standard tunnel group. The mean operative time of the short tunnel group was significantly shorter than that of the standard tunnel group (39.5 min vs. 48.2 min, respectively, p = 0.001). A significant difference was observed in the rates of procedure-related adverse events between the two groups (9.5% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.001).
conclusionThe efficacy of the procedure was comparable between the two groups. However, the short tunnel significantly reduced the operation time and the rates of procedure-related adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30187204What 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.