ReviewCureus2023
Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Postoperative Outcomes Between Peroral Esophageal Myotomy and Laparoscopic Heller's Myotomy With Fundoplication: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Problems with repairing gut sphincters malfunctions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achalasia, a neurodegenerative disease caused by the progressive destruction of ganglion cells in the myenteric plexus, is accompanied by incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. Laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM) coupled with fundoplication has been the gold standard procedure for achalasia. Peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) has recently gained popularity as it is minimally invasive, has fewer adverse events, and has excellent short-term outcomes. So, we aimed to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes between LHM and POEM. We did a systematic review by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for 2020 and exploring research databases such as PUBMED and PMC Central, Google Scholar, and Research Gate. After appropriate screenings, articles relevant to the review were scrutinized based on the eligibility criteria. Quality assessment tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) were used to finalize the articles. A total of 11 articles (seven observational studies, two RCTs, and two systematic reviews) were included in the review after a quality check. The study included 2127 patients, classified into 981 for POEM and 1146 for LHM, who had undergone treatment for achalasia. Most of the studies had a follow-up of ≤ two years. Comparing efficacy, POEM had similar results to LHM in terms of Eckardt scores. However, abnormal DeMeester scores were found in POEM. Adverse events were significantly higher in LHM when compared to POEM in terms of safety. Peroral esophageal myotomy also stood out as having a shorter procedure time, a shorter hospital stay, and lesser odds of being a clinical failure. As for postoperative outcomes, despite treatment with proton pump inhibitors, LHM was more effective in preventing the development of esophagitis compared to POEM due to partial fundoplication.
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.