ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Discordance between high-resolution manometry, esophagoscopy and contrast esophagogram in determining landmarks for per-oral endoscopic myotomy in spastic esophageal disorders: a word of caution.
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, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for type III achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Diagnostic methods to measure spastic segment and guide tailored myotomy length in type 3 achalasia.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
- Evolution and evidence-based adaptations in techniques for peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyotomy length for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is standardized for type I and II achalasia. However, for type III achalasia, jackhammer esophagus, diffuse esophageal spasms and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, there is no standard. Determining myotomy length based on the high-pressure zone found during high-resolution manometry (HRM) and spastic length found during esophagography may be used to determine adequate myotomy length without excess muscle destruction.
methodsThe records of patients who have undergone POEM procedures at our institution had the following data gleaned: age, sex, esophageal spastic diagnosis, length of high-pressure zone and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) position by HRM, length of spastic esophagus by esophagography, position of the z-line by esophagoscopy and length of myotomy performed. Outcomes were assessed based on patient symptomatic improvement and need for re-intervention.
results71 patients were evaluated for POEM, with 67 completing POEM. There was an average difference in LES position by HRM and z-line position by esophagoscopy of 3.9 ± 3.0 cm. There was an average difference in high-pressure zone by HRM and spastic length by esophagography of 4.9 ± 3.2 cm. Overall, with a median of 20 months follow-up, 74% achieved long-term symptomatic improvement, with 17 patients requiring re-intervention.
conclusionsDiscordance among HRM, esophagography and esophagoscopy can be significant. Caution should be employed with using these methods to determine myotomy length in 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.