SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
POEM vs laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication for achalasia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and prospective studies.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchalasia is definitively treated with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) or laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication (LHM + PF), but reflux after POEM remains a key concern. We compared the safety and GERD outcomes of POEM and LHM + PF using randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies in treatment-naïve adults.
methodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases on October 18, 2025. Eligible studies directly compared POEM and LHM + PF in adults. The primary outcome was adverse events, and the secondary outcomes were endoscopic reflux esophagitis, abnormal 24-h pH, procedure time, and length of hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to generate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs). Certainty was graded using the GRADE system, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.
resultsFour studies (three RCTs and one propensity-matched cohort; n = 590) met the inclusion criteria. Adverse events were similar (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.38-3.44). POEM was associated with higher rates of endoscopic esophagitis (RR 3.10, 95% CI 2.17-4.41) and abnormal pH (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.07-3.53) compared to LHM + PF. Procedure time did not differ significantly between groups (MD = - 62.05 min, 95% CI - 180.78 to 56.67) with wide confidence intervals indicating imprecision. The length of hospital stay was comparable (MD = 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.21 to 0.85).
conclusionIn treatment-naïve adults, POEM and LHM + PF had comparable safety profiles and hospital stays. POEM is associated with higher reflux rates than LHM + PF. Both are viable options, and the selection should be individualized based on the patient's phenotype and institutional expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41792489What 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.