Evidence Hub

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: Short Versus Long Esophageal Myotomy for Achalasia Cardia: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial

Praveer Rai, Pankaj Kumar, Amit Goel, T. Singh, Prabhaker Mishra, Prashant Verma, Ajay Kumar, Vinod Kumar

Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques, 2024

27 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Background and Aims: The appropriate length of esophageal myotomy in peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia cardia remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcome of short (≤3 cm) and long (≥6 cm) esophageal myotomy in patients with type I and II achalasia cardia. Methods: This single-blinded, randomized controlled noninferiority trial was conducted at a tertiary center between July 2021 and December 2021. Patients with achalasia types I and II were randomized into short (≤3 cm) and long (≥6 cm) esophageal myotomy groups. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success (Eckardt score ≤3) 1 year after the procedure. The secondary outcomes included a comparison of technical success, operating duration, occurrence of intraoperative adverse events, alterations in integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), change in barium column height after 5 minutes (1 mo), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (3 mo) between the groups. Results: Fifty-four patients were randomized into the short (n=27) or long (n=27) esophageal myotomy groups. Technical success rates were 100% (27/27) and 96.3% (26/27) in short myotomy (SM) and long myotomy (LM) groups, respectively. The clinical success rates were 96.3% (26/27) and 96.2% (25/26) in the SM and LM groups, respectively (P=0.998). The mean (±SD) length of the esophageal myotomy was 2.75±0.36 cm in the SM and 6.69±1.35 cm in the LM groups (P6%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups following POEM treatment.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 27 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