Short versus long esophageal myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy: A systematic review and meta-Analysis of comparative trials

15Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an established modality of treatment for achalasia cardia. Considerable variations exist in the technique of POEM with respect to the length and orientation of the myotomy. In this systematic review and meta-Analysis, we compared the outcomes of short versus long myotomy during POEM. Methods: We searched multiple databases from January 2010 to March 2021 to identify studies reporting on POEM. We selected studies that reported on comparative outcomes of POEM using short versus long myotomy. We performed a comparative analysis of clinical success, procedural duration, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adverse events with short and long myotomy in POEM by meta-Analysis. Results: A total of 521 patients from five studies in which 241 patients were treated with short and 280 patients with long myotomy approaches were analyzed. The pooled rate for clinical success gave an odds ratio (OR) of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-3.26; I 2 = 0; P = 0.62); for hospital stay OR 0.22 (95% CI-0.03 to 0.46; I 2 = 0; P = 0.08); for GERD by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.07; I 2 = 0; P = 0.08), and for adverse events OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.29-1.53; I 2 = 51; P = 0.34). Abnormal esophageal acid exposure was less frequent with OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.22-0.90; P = 0.02; I 2 = 0) and the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the short myotomy group with OR-0.76 (95% CI-1.00 to-0.52; I 2 = 43; P =0.001). Conclusion: Short myotomy and long myotomy in POEM seem comparable with each other in terms of clinical success and adverse events. Short myotomy is associated with significantly shorter procedural duration and possibly reduced esophageal acid exposure compared with long myotomy.

References Powered by Scopus

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

32879Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

18974Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

16654Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Conventional versus oblique fiber-sparing endoscopic myotomy for achalasia cardia: a randomized controlled trial (with videos)

17Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Impact of modified techniques on outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy: A narrative review

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Risk factors for clinical failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nabi, Z., Talukdar, R., Mandavdhare, H., & Reddy, D. (2022, July 1). Short versus long esophageal myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy: A systematic review and meta-Analysis of comparative trials. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology. Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_438_21

Readers over time

‘22‘23‘24‘2502468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

33%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

33%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 6

67%

Philosophy 1

11%

Sports and Recreations 1

11%

Psychology 1

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0