Heller myotomy versus endoscopic balloon dilatation for achalasia: A single center experience

Major adverse events related to endoscopic or laparoscopic procedures in achalasia. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Surgical or endoscopic treatments play an essential role in the management of achalasia. The probability of adverse events in the performance of said treatments is a relevant aspect, when establishing the risk-benefit balance. The present study aimed to establish the association between serious adverse events and the performance of those procedures, in adult patients with achalasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systemic search of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, retrospective cohorts, and cases series on adult patients with achalasia that underwent laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), or endoscopic balloon dilation, that reported serious adverse events, was carried out on the Medline, CENTRAL, and EBSCO databases. Serious adverse events were defined as: death at 30 days, Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher classification, esophageal or gastric perforation, pneumothorax, mucosal tear, leakage, emphysema, pneumonia, and chest pain. The methodology included the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were found that reported information on 1,276 patients that underwent POEM, 5,492 that underwent LHM, and 10,346 that underwent endoscopic balloon dilation. The proportions of adverse events for the three techniques were 3.6, 4.9, and 3.1%, respectively.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The 3 therapeutic interventions evaluated had similar proportions of adverse events. There were few reports of death at 30 days as an outcome and the lack of standardization in reporting adverse events in the studies analyzed was prominent.

From laparoscopic to robotic-assisted Heller myotomy for achalasia in a single high-volume visceral surgery center: postoperative outcomes and quality of life

Background

Laparoscopic (LSC) Heller myotomy (HM) is considered the standard procedure for the treatment of achalasia. Robotic platforms, established over the last years, provide important advantages to surgeons, such as binocular 3-dimensional vision and improvement of fine motor control. However, whether perioperative outcomes and long-term results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) HM are similar or even superior to LSC technique, especially concerning long-term follow-up, is still debated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results as well as long-term quality of life after RAL compared to LSC surgery for achalasia in a single high-volume visceral surgery center.

Methods

Between August 2007 and April 2020, 43 patients undergoing minimally invasive HM for achalasia in a single high-volume Swiss visceral surgery center, were included in the present study. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and evaluated, and a long-term follow-up was performed using the gastroesophageal-reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-Hr-QuoL) questionnaire.

Results

A total of 11 patients undergoing RAL and 32 undergoing LSC HM were analyzed. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar. A trend (p = 0.052) towards a higher number of patients with ASA III score treated with RAL was detectable. Operation time was marginally, but significantly, shorter in LSC (140 min, IQR: 136–150) than in RAL (150 min, IQR: 150–187, p = 0.047). Postoperative complications graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 were only observed in one patient in each group. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (LSC: 11 days, IQR: 10–13 vs. RAL: 11 days, IQR: 10–14, p = 0.712). Long-term follow-up (LSC: median 89 months, vs. RAL: median 28 months, p = 0.001) showed comparable results and patients from both groups expressed similar levels of satisfaction (p = 0.181).

Conclusions

LSC and RAL HM show similar peri- and postoperative results and a high quality of life, even in long-term (> 24 months) follow-up. Prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trials are needed to overcome difficulties associated to small sample sizes in a rare condition and to confirm the equality or demonstrate the superiority of robotic-assisted procedures for achalasia. Meanwhile, the choice of the treatment technique could be left to the operating surgeon’s preferences.