ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Efficacy and outcomes of per oral plication of the (neo)esophagus (POPE) for impaired emptying in achalasia and post-esophagectomy patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peroral plication of the esophagus for end-stage achalasia with sump formation after peroral endoscopic myotomy.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Modern treatment for achalasia: endoscopic and surgical therapies.The British journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Peroral plication of the esophagus (POPE) for Achalasia - review of radiologic findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Management of Recurrent Dysphagia after POEM and Heller Myotomy: Current Strategies and Future Directions.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Modified per-oral plication of the neo-esophagus for refractory delayed gastric conduit emptying: a novel endoscopic approach.Endoscopy · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPer-oral plication of the (neo)esophagus (POPE) is an endoscopic procedure used to improve emptying of the defunctionalized esophagus or gastric conduit, with the hope of improving symptoms and quality of life. As this procedure has only been performed in the United States for the past 4 years, safety and efficacy have not been well established.
methodsThis is a retrospective case series for patients who underwent POPE from a single institution between 2019 and 2023. Data collected included demographics, preoperative diagnoses and treatments, imaging, endoscopic data, operative intervention, 90-day complications, and response to treatment. Quality of life and patient satisfaction data were collected by phone survey.
resultsSeventeen cases were identified, encompassing 13 primary procedures and 4 repeat POPEs (re-POPE). Eight patients had end-stage achalasia and 5 had impaired gastric emptying after esophagectomy with gastric conduits. Median age was 65 years and median ASA was 3, with 38.5% female patients. POPE was performed with 2-6 plication sutures in an average of 75 min. The majority of patients discharged home the same day. For the 17 procedures, there were 4 complications. Two patients required antibiotics for pneumonia, while 4 required procedural intervention. There were no deaths. Preoperative symptoms improved or resolved at initial follow up in 82.3% of patients. Four patients experienced symptom recurrence and required re-POPE, 1 with achalasia and 3 with gastric conduits. Although all achalasia patients had an "end-stage esophagus," none have required esophagectomy since the introduction of POPE.
conclusionsPOPE is an endoscopic procedure that is efficacious in relieving emptying difficulties for the end-stage esophagus and gastric conduit. It may obviate the need for esophagectomy or conduit replacement. Also, it can be repeated in select patients. While the risk profile of complications is favorable compared to alternative operations, patients with gastric conduits are at higher risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38992281What 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.