Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39664092›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2024

State-of-the-Art Surgery in Achalasia.

Patrick S Plum, Stefan Niebisch, Ines Gockel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Patrick S PlumDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Stefan NiebischDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Ines GockelLeipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Achalasia is a motility disorder of the esophagus and depending on its type, esophageal tubular hypo- or hypermotility can cause typical symptoms, such as dysphagia, chest pain, weight loss, or regurgitation. Clinical symptoms during initial diagnosis as well as over the course of therapy can be measured by the Eckardt score. Diagnostics include high-resolution manometry (HR manometry), (timed barium) esophagogram, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, multiple rapid swallow response, and Endo-FLIP measurement. In this work, we provide a review of the recent literature on surgical treatment of achalasia. Summary: Besides pharmacological and endoscopic interventions, surgical procedures of laparoscopic/robotic Heller myotomy (LHM/RHM) and 180° anterior Dor's semifundoplication versus 270° dorsal Toupet's fundoplication are primary therapeutic options, especially for type I and II achalasia. Both surgical procedures display little morbidity and mortality. Postsurgical results are comparable between LHM and RHM. RHM allows better angulation during myotomy, lower rates of intraoperative mucosal laceration, and better visualization of the muscles in the lower esophageal sphincter area. Surgery can also be performed safely after failed endoscopic treatments. Key Messages: Surgery in achalasia is especially indicated in patients ≤40 years and also recommended after repeated unsuccessful or complicated endoscopic interventions. In selected patients with end-stage achalasia and sigmoid-shaped megaesophagus, esophagectomy is a reasonable option in order to improve quality of life.

Indexed as

AchalasiaDor’s/Toupet’s semifundoplicationEsophageal myotomyLaparoscopic surgeryRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39664092
PMCPMC11631102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.