A case report of end-stage achalasia: Conservative option as the new surgical standard

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

End-stage achalasia is a rare disease, consisting of a functional impairment of the esophagus which becomes dilated with a sigmoid shape. While esophagectomy was considered for a long time as the principal surgical procedure in end-stage achalasia, recent literature results demonstrate that laparoscopic Heller Dor (LHD) could be an advocated alternative with acceptable functional results.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the case of an eighty-three-year-old male, an elderly patient, who had been complaining for one year of dysphagia and general status loss. Endoscopy, manometry then a barium X-ray confirmed end-stage achalasia. The patient had LHD with an improvement of symptomatology post-operatively.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Achalasia is a rare disease affecting oesophagal motility. The diagnosis is suggested clinically and confirmed by a wide range of tests notably esophagogastroduodenoscopy, barium swallow and manometry. The diagnosis of achalasia is classically made by demonstrating impaired relaxation of the lower oesophagal sphincter and absent peristalsis in the oesophagal manometry. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is made mainly to eliminate the diagnosis of oesophagal cancer. Barium swallow, however, is done to appreciate the impact of achalasia on the rest of the esophagus.

CONCLUSION

Our case highlights the satisfying results after an LHD which is an alternative to esophagectomy especially in elderlies with high risk.

Laparoscopic Heller-Dor is an effective long-term treatment for end-stage achalasia

BACKGROUND

The end-stage achalasia is a difficult condition to treat, for the esophageal diameter and conformation of the gullet, that may progress to a sigmoid shape. The aim of this study was to examine the outcome of Laparoscopic Heller-Dor in patients with end-stage achalasia, comparing them with patients who had mega-esophagus without a sigmoid shape.

METHODS

From 1992 to 2020, patients with a diagnosis of sigmoid esophagus, or radiological stage IV achalasia (the SE group), and patients with a straight esophagus larger than 6 cm in diameter, or radiological stage III achalasia (the NSE group), were all treated with LHD. The two groups were compared in terms of patients' symptoms, based on the Eckardt score, and on barium swallow, endoscopy and manometry performed before and after the treatment. The failure of the treatment was defined as an Eckardt score > 3, or the need for further treatment.

RESULTS

The study involved 164 patients: 73 in the SE group and 91 in the NSE group. No intra- or postoperative mortality was recorded. The median follow-up was 51 months (IQR 25-107). The outcome was satisfactory in 71.2% of patients in the SE group, and in 89% of those in the NSE group (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

SE is certainly the worst condition of the disease and the final outcome of LHD, in term of symptom control, is inferior compared to NSE. Despite this, almost 3/4 of the SE patients experienced a significant relieve in symptoms after LHD, which may therefore still be the first surgical option to offer to these patients, before considering esophagectomy.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy for advanced achalasia with megaesophagus

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for advanced achalasia are not well known. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia with megaesophagus, which is one of the characteristics of advanced achalasia.

METHODS

In total, 234 patients with achalasia who underwent peroral endoscopic myotomy in our hospital from April 2015 to March 2019 were included in this retrospective observational study. Megaesophagus was defined as a maximum esophageal diameter of 6 cm or more. Outcomes, including clinical success (Eckardt score ≤ 3 without retreatment) at the 1-year follow-up, technical success, and perioperative complications, were investigated and compared between patients with and without megaesophagus.

RESULTS

Eleven patients (4.7%) were diagnosed with megaesophagus. The clinical success rate achieved was 63.6% in patients with megaesophagus, with a significant decrease in the Eckardt score (6 vs. 2, p = 0.003) and integrated relaxation pressure (28 mmHg vs. 9 mmHg, p = 0.028). The technical success rate was 100%. However, patients with megaesophagus had a significantly lower clinical success rate than those without megaesophagus (63.6% vs. 96.0%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, patients with megaesophagus had significantly higher rates of major adverse events than those without megaesophagus (18.2% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Peroral endoscopic myotomy improved achalasia-related symptoms, and this was technically feasible in patients with megaesophagus. However, the clinical success rate was somewhat low, and the rate of major adverse events was high. Therefore, peroral endoscopic myotomy should be carefully performed for advanced achalasia with megaesophagus.