ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Peroral endoscopic myotomy is highly effective for achalasia patients with recurrent symptoms after pneumatic dilatation.
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 4 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Resolution Manometry in Treated Achalasia: Scoping Review and Novel Nomenclature.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026Article
- Modern treatment for achalasia: endoscopic and surgical therapies.The British journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Evolving therapeutic approaches in achalasia: a comprehensive review of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) vs. Heller's myotomy.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia in the Unified Healthcare System (SUS): results of a short-term.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious interventions in achalasia such as pneumatic dilation (PD) might lead to difficulties with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) along with sub-optimal outcomes. There are limited data in the literature on outcomes of POEM after PD, especially from the western hemisphere. Hence, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of POEM for recurrent symptoms after PD compared to treatment naïve achalasia patients.
methodsMedical records of achalasia patients who underwent POEM at our institution between April 2014 and October 2019 were reviewed. Patients who had POEM for recurrent symptoms after prior PD were matched at 1:2 ratio with treatment naïve achalasia patients using propensity score matching. Patients who had prior Heller myotomy were excluded. Patient demographics, Eckardt scores, timed barium swallow (TBE), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM), and pH study findings were compared between the two groups, pre- and 2 months post-POEM. Treatment success was defined as reduction of Eckardt score to ≤ 3.
resultsA total of 39 patients (prior PD = 13; treatment naïve = 26) were included. Patient demographics, procedural, and peri-procedural outcomes were similar in both groups. Treatment success was similar in both groups, 100.0% in prior PD vs 91.7% in treatment naïve group (p = 0.53). On adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference in the pre-post-POEM improvement in Eckardt scores, TBE, and HREM parameters in the two groups. Gastroesophageal reflux disease rates were also similar in both groups.
conclusionsIn achalasia with recurrent symptoms after PD, POEM is a safe and highly effective treatment modality. Prior PD does not seem to influence the outcomes or efficacy of POEM.
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.