4.5 Article

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for oesophageal achalasia: Preliminary results in humans

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 44, Issue 10, Pages 827-832

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2012.04.003

Keywords

Achalasia; Endoscopic myotomy; POEM; Submucosal endoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy has been developed to provide a less invasive treatment for oesophageal achalasia compared to surgical cardiomyotomy. Aims: To report our initial experience on feasibility, safety and clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy. Methods: Eleven patients (eight women, mean age 32, range 24-58) underwent an attempt at peroral endoscopic myotomy under general anaesthesia. After submucosal injection, a mucosal entry into the oesophageal submucosa, and a tunnel extending to the oesophagogastric junction and beyond into the stomach were created (total mean length: 15 +/- 1.7 cm). Myotomy of the circular oesophageal and gastric muscle bundles was then achieved under direct vision (total mean length: 10.2 +/- 2.8 cm). Haemostatic clips were used to close the mucosal entry. The Eckardt Score and manometry were used to evaluate the results. Results: Peroral endoscopic myotomy could be completed in 10 out of 11 patients (91%). Mean procedure time was 100.7 min (range 75-140 min). No major complication occurred. Clinical success was achieved in all patients at 1-month follow-up (Eckardt Score 7.1 vs. 1.1, p = 0). Lower oesophageal sphincter pressure decreased from 45.1 to 16.9 mmHg (p = 0). Conclusions: This initial experience with peroral endoscopic myotomy shows its safety and efficacy in the treatment of achalasia. Further studies are warranted to assess the long-term efficacy and to compare peroral endoscopic myotomy with other treatment modalities. (C) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available