Achalasia: advances in treatment

High-resolution manometric subtypes as a predictive factor for the treatment of achalasia: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess manometric subtypes as predictive factors for the treatment efficacies of pneumatic balloon dilatation (PBD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) in patients with achalasia.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library database was conducted to identify relevant publications on high-resolution manometric subtypes and different therapies for achalasia with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on the success rates after PBD or LHM for different manometric subtypes were extracted. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for different manometric subtypes were estimated using STATA 13.0.

RESULTS

In all, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 298 patients having achalasia receiving PBD and 429 undergoing LHM were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled OR between the subtypes of achalasia after PBD or LHM showed that the best and worse treatment outcomes were found in patients with type II and III achalasia, respectively (type I vs type II after PBD: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.36, P = 0.000; type I vs type III after PBD: OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.55-8.53, P = 0.003; type II vs type III after PBD: OR 27.18, 95% CI 9.08-81.35, P = 0.000; type I vs type II after LHM: OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12-0.56, P = 0.001; type I vs type III after LHM: OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.80-4.50, P = 0.148; type II vs type III after LHM: OR 6.86, 95% CI 2.72-17.28, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

Type II achalasia shows the best prognosis after PBD and LHM, while type III achalasia has the worst prognosis.

Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy Versus Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy for Achalasia: A Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Comparative Studies

We aimed to assess the short-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) compared with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for achalasia through a meta-analysis of nonrandomized comparative studies.We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies that compared POEM and LHM for achalasia and were published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Random- and fixed-effects meta-analytical models were used, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed.Four nonrandomized comparative studies that included 317 patients (125 in the POEM group and 192 in the LHM group) met our research criteria and were assessed. There were no differences between the POEM and LHM groups in terms of sex, preoperative Eckhart score, length of myotomy, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complications. The patients in the POEM group were older than those in the LHM group (MD =2.81, 95% CI 0.27-5.35; P = 0.03) with high between-study homogeneity (χ = 1.96, df = 2, I = 0%; P = 0.38). The patients in the POEM group had a lower Eckardt score after surgery compared with those in the LHM group (MD = -0.30, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; P < 0.001) with high between-study homogeneity (χ = 0.00, df = 1, I = 0%; P = 1.00).The efficacy and safety of POEM appear to be comparable to those of LHM. Multicenter and randomized trials with larger sample size are needed to further compare the efficacy and safety of POEM and LHM for the treatment of achalasia.