Evidence Hub

P04.3. Long-Term Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Myotomy for Achalasia: A Population-Based Cohort Study

M. Allaway, Jane Yan, David I. Watson, W. Leijonmarck, B. Håkanson, M. Hansson, L. Lundell, A. Thorell et al.

Diseases of the esophagus, 2026

991 participants

Abstract

Benign Disease: Esophageal Function and Motility

Randomised clinical trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) in the treatment of achalasia. However, there is a lack of long-term follow-up data from population-based cohorts comparing POEM to LHM. We aimed to determine long-term rates of reintervention and reflux following POEM and LHM.

This was a population-based cohort study including all adults with achalasia who underwent either primary POEM or primary LHM between 1st January 1997 and 31st December 2024 in Sweden. POEM was the exposure, with LHM considered the comparison in all analyses. The primary outcome was reintervention for achalasia, defined as and subsequent myotomy (peroral or transabdominal), pneumatic dilatation, or oesophagectomy occurring during follow-up. The secondary outcome was gastroesophageal reflux, defined as the dispensation of a proton pump inhibitor equivalent to 36 months use after the primary procedure, or antireflux surgery. Multivariable Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both outcomes adjusted for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index score, and calendar year.

In total, 991 patients (median age 48 years [IQR 34-61], 58.1% male) with primary POEM or LHM for achalasia were included and followed for up to 14 (median 5.9) years. Of these, 381 (38.4%) patients underwent POEM and 610 (61.6%) underwent LHM. The cumulative incidence…

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: 991 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