ReviewiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2026
Peroral plication of esophagus for end-stage achalasia: a systematic review.
Review in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 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
Background and Aims: End-stage achalasia is marked by persistent symptoms even after lower esophageal sphincter (LES)-directed therapies and may require esophagectomy, which is associated with significant adverse events. Peroral plication of the esophagus (POPE) is a novel minimally invasive, intermediate alternative. This review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of POPE in treating end-stage achalasia. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2016 to May 2025 for studies on POPE in end-stage achalasia. Primary outcomes included clinical success, defined as symptom improvement. Secondary outcomes were technical success, adverse events, need for repeat POPE, or esophagectomy. Continuous variables were summarized as means with standard deviations, whereas categorical variables were reported as pooled proportions. Results: Four studies including 45 patients with end-stage achalasia were analyzed. The cohort included 21 males (46.7%), with subtypes reported in 2 studies: 17 type I, 13 type II, and unknown or unreported subtypes (n = 15). Prior durable LES interventions included peroral endoscopic myotomy (n = 21), pneumatic dilation (n = 19), and Heller myotomy (n = 17). Regurgitation (75%) and dysphagia (65%) were the 2 most common symptoms. Pooled technical success was 100% (45/45), and pooled clinical success was 90% (37/41). Symptom improvement was observed across studies using Eckardt, gastroesophageal reflux disease Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL), and Reflux Symptom Index scores. Eight patients required repeat POPE, and no patients underwent esophagectomy. Adverse events were observed in 7 patients (15.7%), including 2 cases of bleeding, 3 mucosal perforations, 1 readmission for pain, and 1 instance of aspiration pneumonia occurring 2 weeks after a second POPE procedure. All adverse events were managed conservatively, and no deaths were reported. Conclusions: POPE may offer a minimally invasive option for selected patients with end-stage achalasia and persistent symptoms after LES-directed therapy, but high rates of repeat procedures and considerable adverse events raise concerns about durability and safety. Larger long-term prospective studies are needed to clarify its true efficacy, safety, and ideal patient candidates.
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.