ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022
Risk factors for clinical failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Pseudo-dilation of Esophagogastric Junction During Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: (With Video).DEN open · 2027Article
- Enhanced Visualization of the Distal Myotomy Endpoint during Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Using Indocyanine Green With Infrared Imaging.DEN open · 2026Article
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy in children with achalasia: A review of the literature.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy for complex achalasia and the POEM difficulty score: An update.DEN open · 2025Article
- Comparing peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy for esophageal motility disorders: Nationwide cohort study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Do preoperative endoscopic interventions predict symptom recurrence or reintervention after peroral endoscopic myotomy?Surgical endoscopy · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent development of per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been a game changer in the management of patients with achalasia. However, approximately 1 in 10 patients will not experience clinical success. The aim of this mini-review is to describe the current state of knowledge about the risk factors associated with POEM failure for the treatment of achalasia. Suspected risk factors are detailed into pre-, intra-, and post-procedural factors and put into perspective. Pre-procedural factors have been described, such as pre-treatment Eckardt score, previous treatments for achalasia, sigmoid type esophagus, significant esophageal dilatation, non-type II achalasia, young age and long duration of symptoms. An intra-procedural factor, mucosal injury during POEM, has also been associated with POEM failure. The occurrence of post-POEM GERD was identified as a controversial post-procedural factor associated with failure. The presumed mechanisms of POEM failure are incomplete myotomy or ineffective LES disruption, as confirmed by high-resolution manometry. However, when manometry confirms a significant decrease in LES pressure, it is likely that either impaired peristalsis or a morphologic abnormality such as extreme esophageal dilatation or severe tortuosity, which are not treated by POEM, should be suspected. Notably, a recently described adverse effect of POEM is the formation of a pseudo-diverticulum at the site of the myotomy (blown out myotomy). We finally stress the importance of performing a complete workup in case of POEM failure as different mechanisms of POEM failure should lead to different management.
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.