Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of full-thickness versus circular peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

S. Dhoop, Mohammed Abu-Rumaileh, W. Sayeh, S. Ghazaleh, Conner Lombardi, Manthanbhai Patel, B. Sawaf, Wade Lee-Smith et al.

Annals of gastroenterology : quarterly publication of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology, 2025

1,203 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a treatment for esophageal achalasia with 2 variations in myotomy depth: full-thickness myotomy (FTM) and circular myotomy (CM). This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of these variations. Methods Major health databases and registers, including Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane were searched systematically. The primary outcome was clinical success, while secondary outcomes included change in achalasia severity scores, post-POEM gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) measures, procedural time, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models, with risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) calculated for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Results Nine observational studies compared FTM and CM in 1,203 patients. FTM was performed in more severe achalasia and demonstrated similar clinical success to CM (RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.04; P=0.55; n=6) and procedural time (MD 3.49 min, 95%CI -2.79-9.78; P=0.28, I2=66%; n=3). FTM was associated with increased post-POEM GERD outcomes, post-POEM pain (RR 1.94, 95%CI 1.27-2.95; P=0.002; n=2), and length of stay (LOS) (MD 0.85 days, 95%CI 0.11-1.59; P=0.02; I2=0%; n=2); however, association with esophagitis disappeared when proton pump inhibitors use was accounted for (RR 1.68, 95%CI 0.89-3.16; P=0.11; I2=23%; n=4). CM was associated with higher rates of subcutaneous emphysema (RR 0.59, 95%CI…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,203 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free