Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety of Full-Thickness Versus Circular Muscle Myotomy in Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: A Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Trial

Yao-wen Hu, Wen-feng Xi, Ying-Fan Li, Zhi-Fei Wang, Aiming Yang, Qing-Wei Jiang, Xi Wu, Xiaoqing Li et al.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2026

69 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) is a standard treatment for achalasia (AC). The conventional approach involves circular muscle myotomy (CMM), but full-thickness myotomy (FTM) may offer more profound lower esophageal sphincter (LES) reduction. This randomized controlled non-inferiority trial primarily determined whether FTM achieved clinical success non-inferior to CMM.

METHODS

This single-center, randomized non-inferiority trial enrolled 69 patients with Type I/II achalasia assigned to FTM (n = 34) or CMM (n = 35). The primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score ≤ 3) 6 months post-procedure. A non-inferiority margin of -10% was pre-specified. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related metrics, safety outcomes or adverse events, physiological and anatomical outcomes, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-related outcomes.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinical success rates were 91.2% (FTM) and 85.7% (CMM), with a group difference of 5.46% (90% CI: -7.1% to 18.1%). Since the lower CI bound (-7.1%) was above -10%, FTM was non-inferior to CMM. FTM was associated with significantly higher insufflation-related events (32.35% vs. 11.43%, P = 0.035). There was a trend towards more frequent moderate-to-severe intraoperative bleeding in FTM (41.18% vs. 22.86%, P = 0.103). FTM resulted in significantly lower basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure compared to CMM (6.85 vs. 11.70 mmHg, P = 0.024). Post-operative esophagitis showed a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 69 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