ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Comparing peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy for esophageal motility disorders: Nationwide cohort study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) are established treatments for esophageal motility disorders. However, previous comparative studies have been limited by small sample sizes, restricting generalizability. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative outcomes of POEM and LHM in the United States using a population-based database. Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2016 to 2022. Patients with achalasia or non-achalasia spastic esophageal disorders who underwent POEM or LHM were included. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was applied to enhance comparability across treatments. Trends in the number of procedures and assessed outcomes included serious adverse events (SAEs), reintervention, mortality, length of stay, and cost. Results: A total of 18,694 patients were identified (6,554 POEM and 12,140 LHM). Overall rates of SAEs, reintervention, and 30-day mortality were 7.9%, 5.0%, and 0.08%, respectively. IPTW analysis revealed significantly lower rates of SAEs (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.88) and reintervention (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93) in the POEM group. Length of stay and cost were also more favorable in the POEM group. Mortality was not significantly different ( Conclusions: In this nationwide cohort, LHM remained more commonly performed in the United States. However, our results confirm that POEM demonstrated favorable outcomes in management of esophageal motility disorders.
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.