ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy versus peroral endoscopic myotomy in children with esophageal achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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.
- POEM vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication for achalasia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and prospective studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Management and outcomes of paediatric achalasia: multicentre retrospective study in the UK.BJS open · 2025Article
- Changes in peristalsis following per oral endoscopic myotomy in common esophageal motility disorders.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Peroral endoscopic myotomy in children with achalasia: A review of the literature.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are the best treatment modalities for esophageal achalasia in children. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of LHM and POEM. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science for original articles comparing LHM and POEM. All articles were analyzed with respect to operation duration, length of hospital stay, pre- and postoperative Eckardt score (ES), and pre- and postoperative lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure. Results: A total of 32 articles, reporting on 800 children, were selected and reviewed. Because of missing diagnostic values of ES and LES in the LHM group, the meta-analysis was limited to the POEM results. According to the random-effects model, the mean ES difference between pre- and post-operation was 4.387 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.799-4.974), significantly different to zero (z=14.64, P<0.001), while the mean LES pressure difference was 3.63 mmHg mmHg (95%CI 2247-3.879), significantly different to zero (z=7.36, P<0.001). Operation duration was 130.15 min (95%CI 62.59-197.71) for the LHM method and 83.64 min (95%CI 55.14-112.14) for POEM. The pooled estimate of length of hospital stay was 3.4 days (95%CI 2.6-4.44) and it was comparable between the 2 methods. Conclusions: POEM has positive outcomes regarding ES and LES pressure pre- and postoperatively, as well as operation duration, while the length of hospitalization was comparable between POEM and LHM. Well-designed studies are warranted to further clarify differences between the 2 methods.
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.