Observational studyEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2021
Peroral endoscopic myotomy for advanced achalasia with megaesophagus.
Observational study in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of a novel small-caliber therapeutic endoscope in peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal motility disorders: a propensity score matching analysis.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Advances and challenges in peroral endoscopic myotomy: Safety, precision, and post-procedure management.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Influence of Achalasia on the Spirometry Flow-Volume Curve and Peak Expiratory Flow.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Role of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Advanced Achalasia Cardia With Sigmoid and/or Megaesophagus: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for advanced achalasia are not well known. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia with megaesophagus, which is one of the characteristics of advanced achalasia.
methodsIn total, 234 patients with achalasia who underwent peroral endoscopic myotomy in our hospital from April 2015 to March 2019 were included in this retrospective observational study. Megaesophagus was defined as a maximum esophageal diameter of 6 cm or more. Outcomes, including clinical success (Eckardt score ≤ 3 without retreatment) at the 1-year follow-up, technical success, and perioperative complications, were investigated and compared between patients with and without megaesophagus.
resultsEleven patients (4.7%) were diagnosed with megaesophagus. The clinical success rate achieved was 63.6% in patients with megaesophagus, with a significant decrease in the Eckardt score (6 vs. 2, p = 0.003) and integrated relaxation pressure (28 mmHg vs. 9 mmHg, p = 0.028). The technical success rate was 100%. However, patients with megaesophagus had a significantly lower clinical success rate than those without megaesophagus (63.6% vs. 96.0%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, patients with megaesophagus had significantly higher rates of major adverse events than those without megaesophagus (18.2% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.048).
conclusionsPeroral endoscopic myotomy improved achalasia-related symptoms, and this was technically feasible in patients with megaesophagus. However, the clinical success rate was somewhat low, and the rate of major adverse events was high. Therefore, peroral endoscopic myotomy should be carefully performed for advanced achalasia with megaesophagus.
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.