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

Zaheer Nabi, Rupjyoti Talukdar, Harshal Mandavdhare, D Nageshwar Reddy
{"title":"Short versus long esophageal myotomy during peroral endoscopic myotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.","authors":"Zaheer Nabi,&nbsp;Rupjyoti Talukdar,&nbsp;Harshal Mandavdhare,&nbsp;D Nageshwar Reddy","doi":"10.4103/sjg.sjg_438_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>: 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>: 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>: 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<sup>2</sup> = 0; P = 0.62); for hospital stay OR 0.22 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.46; I<sup>2</sup> = 0; P = 0.08); for GERD by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.07; I<sup>2</sup> = 0; P = 0.08), and for adverse events OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.29-1.53; I<sup>2</sup> = 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<sup>2</sup> = 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<sup>2</sup> = 43; P =0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>: 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":520774,"journal":{"name":"Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association","volume":" ","pages":"261-267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ba/de/SJG-28-261.PMC9408737.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_438_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

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; I2 = 0; P = 0.62); for hospital stay OR 0.22 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.46; I2 = 0; P = 0.08); for GERD by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.07; I2 = 0; P = 0.08), and for adverse events OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.29-1.53; I2 = 51; P = 0.34). Abnormal esophageal acid exposure was less frequent with OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.22-0.90; P = 0.02; I2 = 0) and the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the short myotomy group with OR - 0.76 (95% CI - 1.00 to - 0.52; I2 = 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

经口内窥镜下食管肌切开术中的短肌切开术与长肌切开术:比较试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:经口内窥镜下肌切开术(POEM)是治疗贲门失弛缓症的一种既定方式。POEM术在切肌的长度和方向上存在相当大的差异。在这篇系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们比较了POEM中短肌切开术和长肌切开术的结果。方法:我们检索了2010年1月至2021年3月的多个数据库,以确定报道POEM的研究。我们选择了报道了使用短肌切开术和长肌切开术的POEM的比较结果的研究。我们通过荟萃分析对POEM短肌切开术和长肌切开术的临床成功、手术时间、胃食管反流病(GERD)和不良事件进行了比较分析。结果:我们分析了来自5项研究的521例患者,其中241例采用短切口,280例采用长切口。合并临床成功率的优势比(OR)为1.27(95%可信区间[CI] 0.50-3.26;I2 = 0;P = 0.62);住院或0.22 (95% CI - 0.03至0.46;I2 = 0;P = 0.08);食管胃十二指肠镜检查(EGD): OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.07;I2 = 0;P = 0.08),不良事件OR为0.67 (95% CI 0.29-1.53;I2 = 51;P = 0.34)。异常食管酸暴露发生率较低,OR为0.45 (95% CI 0.22-0.90;P = 0.02;I2 = 0),短肌切开术组的手术时间明显更短,OR为- 0.76 (95% CI - 1.00 ~ - 0.52;I2 = 43;P = 0.001)。结论:POEM短肌切开术和长肌切开术在临床成功和不良事件方面具有可比性。与长肌切开术相比,短肌切开术的手术时间明显缩短,并可能减少食管酸暴露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信