An Updated Meta-analysis: Similar Clinical Efficacy of Anterior and Posterior Approaches in Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) for Achalasia

Introduction. Currently, there are few studies on the efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the anterior or posterior approach; however, limited studies have shown contradictory findings. Thus, the goal was to obtain more quantitative and objective outcomes and further compare the clinica...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Gastroenterology research and practice 2022-04, Vol.2022, p.8357588-14
Main Authors: Jing, Weina, Luo, Xinyue, Yang, Jinlin, Wu, Junchao, Chen, Yuxiang, Deng, Kai
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Dysphagia
Endoscopy
Esophagus
Gastroesophageal reflux
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Meta-analysis
Methods
Review
Success
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction. Currently, there are few studies on the efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the anterior or posterior approach; however, limited studies have shown contradictory findings. Thus, the goal was to obtain more quantitative and objective outcomes and further compare the clinical efficacy of these two approaches in this meta-analysis. Methods. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to find studies relevant to POEM. The retrieval time was from database inception to September 2021. Studies reporting the effects of POEM according to the anterior or posterior approach were included. STATA 16.0 was used to perform statistical analysis, mainly comparing the quantitative objective indicators (lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and Eckardt scores, etc.) in anterior and posterior approaches by meta-analysis. Result. A total of 19 studies with 1261 patients were finally included. Except for shorter procedure time in the posterior approach, other factors (pooled difference of LES pressure, Eckardt scores, clinical success, length of total myotomy, hospital stays, gastroesophageal reflux (GERD), and adverse event) were compared, and all above confirmed that there is no difference between anterior and posterior approaches, and the safety of POEM is ensured. In addition, both anterior and posterior myotomy can improve LES pressure and Eckardt scores, and the difference in anterior and posterior myotomy was unconspicuous. Conclusion. The terms of the pooled difference in LES pressure, Eckardt scores, and other factors (clinical success, length of total myotomy, hospital stays, GERD, adverse events, and procedure time) seemed to be similar for the anterior and posterior approaches. However, the further prognosis after POEM via anterior and posterior approaches needs to be answered in the future.
ISSN:1687-6121
1687-630X
DOI:10.1155/2022/8357588