Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31463720›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020

Gastric myotomy length affects severity but not rate of post-procedure reflux: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial of double-scope per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia.

Kevin L Grimes, Robert Bechara, Yuto Shimamura, Haruo Ikeda, Haruhiro Inoue

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Changes in Distensibility Index During an Incremental POEM Myotomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Article
  17. POEM, GPOEM, and ZPOEM.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Peroral endoscopic longerWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kevin L GrimesDepartment of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert B. Sabin Way, PO Box 670558, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0558, USA. kevin.grimes@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9502-9831
Robert BecharaDivision of Gastroenterology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Yuto ShimamuraDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Koto Toyosu Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Haruo IkedaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Koto Toyosu Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Haruhiro InoueDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Koto Toyosu Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Showa University · JPQueen's University · CASabin Vaccine Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince Inoue performed the first POEM in 2008, safety and efficacy have been well-established. Early studies focused on refining the technique and avoiding incomplete myotomy. Following the discovery that many patients with abnormal acid exposure are asymptomatic, the focus shifted to post-POEM reflux, but no studies have identified any associated procedural factors. In this study, we examined the intermediate-term results of our previous randomized controlled trial, with particular attention to post-POEM reflux.

methodsPreviously, 100 consecutive patients were randomized to either double- or single-scope POEM. Endoscopy was conducted 2 months post-POEM and annually thereafter. Patients were included in the present study if they completed endoscopy ≥ 6 months post-POEM, and the clinical results of both groups were analyzed with particular attention to clinical efficacy and post-POEM reflux.

resultsMedian follow-up was 3 years, and most myotomies were performed in the posterior location. The final gastric myotomy length was longer in the double-scope group (3.3 vs. 2.6 cm). Clinical efficacy (≥ 80%) and rates of post-POEM reflux (~ 60%) were similar; however, there was a higher incidence of moderate esophagitis (Los Angeles Grade B) in the double-scope group (25% vs. 4%). There were no cases of severe esophagitis (Los Angeles Grade C/D). Among patients with normal endoscopy at 2 months, > 40% developed erosive esophagitis on intermediate-term follow-up.

conclusionsThis is the first study to demonstrate a procedural factor that increases post-POEM esophagitis. Gastric myotomy > 2.5 cm results in increased rates of moderate esophagitis without improving clinical efficacy. Some patients developed esophagitis in a delayed fashion, emphasizing the importance of ongoing surveillance. We also believe that preserving the gastric sling fibers may help to reduce reflux rates. The double-scope method may help to control myotomy length (2.0-2.5 cm) and direction (lesser curve to avoid the gastric sling) to help maximize clinical efficacy while minimizing post-POEM reflux.

Indexed as

AdultDigestive System Surgical ProceduresEsophageal AchalasiaEsophagitis, PepticFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGastroesophageal RefluxHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedMyotomyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAchalasiaGastro-esophageal reflux (GERD)GI endoscopyPer-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM)Therapeutic endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID31463720
OpenAlexW2970881501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.