Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32361976›Full record

ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2020

Peroral endoscopic shorter versus longer myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a comparative retrospective study.

Silin Huang, Yutang Ren, Wei Peng, Qiaoping Gao, Yan Peng, Wei Gong, Xiaowei Tang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 Association
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Third-space endoscopy: the final frontier.Gastroenterology report · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Peroral endoscopic longerWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Silin HuangDepartmemt of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1333 Xinhu Road, Baoan District, Shenzhen, 518000, China.
Yutang RenDepartmemt of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Wei PengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Qiaoping GaoDepartmemt of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yan PengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Wei GongDepartmemt of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1333 Xinhu Road, Baoan District, Shenzhen, 518000, China. drgwei@foxmail.com.
Xiaowei TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China. solitude5834@hotmail.com.

Funding

Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals' Youth Program QML20160903Doctoral Research Start-up Funding Project of Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University 16229Medical Science and Technology Plan Projects of Zhejiang Province 2017196257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPeroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) is a novel endoscopic treatment for achalasia. It has gained popularity worldwide among surgeons and endoscopists, but no studies have compared peroral endoscopic short with long myotomy for achalasia. We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between peroral endoscopic shorter and longer myotomy.

methodsThe retrospective study enrolled 129 achalasia patients who underwent POEM from July 2011 to September 2017. Based on the myotomy length (ML), patients were divided into shorter myotomy (SM) group (ML ≤ 7 cm, n = 36) and longer myotomy (LM) group (ML > 7 cm, n = 74). Procedure-related parameters, symptom scores, adverse events and manometric data were compared between two groups.

resultsThe mean ML was 6.0 ± 0.6 cm in SM group, and 11.5 ± 3.1 cm in LM group (p < 0.001). The mean operation time was significantly less in SM group than LM group (46.6 ± 18.5 min vs 62.1 ± 25.2 min, p = 0.001). During a mean follow-up period of 28.7 months, treatment success (Eckardt score ≤ 3) was achieved in 94.4% (34/36) of patients in SM group and 91.9% (68/74) in LM group (p = 0.926). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of intraoperative complications (8.4% vs 8.2%, p = 0.823) and reflux rate (8.3% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.510) between two groups.

conclusionsPeroral endoscopic shorter myotomy is comparable with longer myotomy for treating achalasia with regard to clinical efficacy and has the advantage of shorter procedure time.

Indexed as

AdultEndoscopy, Digestive SystemEsophageal AchalasiaEsophagoscopyFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHumansIncidenceIntraoperative ComplicationsMaleManometryMiddle AgedMouthMyotomyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryOperative TimeAchalasiaClinical outcomesPeroral endoscopic myotomyShorter myotomy

Identifiers

PMID32361976

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.