ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Comparison of peroral endoscopic myotomy between de-novo achalasia and achalasia with prior treatment.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- A prediction model and nomogram for technical difficulty of peroral endoscopic myotomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Impact of prior endoscopic or surgical interventions on clinical outcomes after peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Achalasia in Older Adults: A Retrospective Analysis of 39 Cases with a Minimum Follow-Up of 5 Years.Dysphagia · 2023Article
- Gas Leak and Mucosal Injury During Endoscopic Esophageal Myotomy After Previous Myotomy: A Single-Center Experience.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peroral endoscopic myotomy has been recognized as an effective treatment for patients with achalasia. Prior treatment may affect the outcome of subsequent treatment. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of POEM in treatment-naive patients vs. those with prior treatment failure. We retrospectively analyzed the data of achalasia patients who underwent POEM from November 2011 to January 2018. A comparative analysis was performed between De-Novo (DN) and Prior Treatment Failure (PTF) cases. Technical and clinical success, adverse events, operative time for POEM, hospital stay were compared between the two groups Overall, 209 patients with achalasia underwent POEM during the studied period, including 113 patients (54%) in the DN group and 96 patients (45%) in the PTF group. The baseline characteristics of the DN and PTF groups were not significantly different except for duration of disease. The PTF group had longer disease duration than the DN group. (7.92 ± 9.28 vs 4.45 ± 5.67 years, respectively, p = 0.005). Both groups were technically successful. Operative time was longer in the PTF group than that in the de-novo group, but the difference was not significant. The occurrence rates of complications were similar in both groups. Changes in the Eckardt score were comparable in the DN and PTF cases. IRP and LES pressure decreased after POEM. After 6 months, more patients suffered from reflux symptoms in the PTF group, but DeMeester score and endoscopic evaluation were not significantly different POEM is safe and equally effective for patients with prior treatment failure as well as de-novo patients up to 6 months post treatment.
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.