Most Zenker’s diverticula (ZD) cohort studies are single-institution retrospective observational studies of recurrence rates. There is a gap in the literature regarding patient-reported outcomes after ZD surgery. This study was conducted to compare if open transcervical diverticulectomy (OD) is better than endoscopic laser diverticulectomy (ELD) or endoscopic stapler-assisted diverticulectomy (ESD). The study design is of systematic review and meta-analysis. The following databases were searched: SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and Word of Science through December 2017. The quality of the studies was evaluated using 22-item STROBE checklist with 3 independent physician reviewers. The Inter-rater reliability was calculated both as a percent and utilizing Cohen’s Kappa. For the meta-analysis, Cohen’s d for an effect size was calculated for all studies comparing dysphagia results before and after surgery. A total of 865 patients were treated across 11 selected publications, of which 106 patients were treated OD, 310 ELD, and 449 with an ESD approach. Patient-reported dysphagia outcomes were reported as Cohen’s d (confidence interval): OD, ELD, and ESD were 1.31 (0.88, 1.74), 1.91 (1.62, 2.20), and 2.45 (2.04, 2.86), respectively. The pooled effect of all studies for dysphagia was 2.22 (1.85, 2.59) and regurgitation 2.20 (1.80, 2.59). We did not prove that OD has superior outcomes compared to ESD and ELD. Any method of surgical intervention yields a large effect (i.e., improvement in dysphagia and regurgitation) comparing patient-reported symptoms before and after surgery. Future research, currently underway, includes a prospective, multi-institutional study comparing standardized outcomes between treatments of ZD including symptom resolution, complications, and recurrences using validated measures to define long-term outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We would like to thank our librarian Mr. Don Jason for his expertise during our literature search. We would also like to thank Dr. Luigi Bonavina for providing additional details to meet our inclusion criteria.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Mosher H. Webs and pouches of the oesophagus, thier diagnosis and treatment. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1917;25:175–87.Google Scholar
Bock JM, Van Daele DJ, Gupta N, Blumin JH. Management of Zenker’s diverticulum in the endoscopic age: Current practice patterns. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120(12):796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilken R, Whited C, Scher RL. Endoscopic staple diverticulostomy for zenker’s diverticulum: review of experience in 337 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124(1):21–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker NP, Misono S. Carbon dioxide laser versus stapler-assisted endoscopic zenker’s diverticulotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;150(5):750–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdonck J, Morton RP. Systematic review on treatment of Zenker’s diverticulum. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(11):3095–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1500–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam SI, Paskhover B, Sasaki CT. Laser versus stapler: Outcomes in endoscopic repair of Zenker diverticulum. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(9):1961–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam SI, Paskhover B, Sasaki CT. Revision zenker diverticulum: laser versus stapler outcomes following initial endoscopic failure. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122(4):247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonavina L, Aiolfi A, Scolari F, Bona D, Lovece A, Asti E. Long-term outcome and quality of life after transoral stapling for zenker diverticulum. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(4):1167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo-Benkmann M, Unruh V, Krieglstein C, Senninger N. Cricopharyngeal myotomy in the treatment of zenker’s diverticulum. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196(3):370–7 discussion 377; author reply 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang RA, Spelsberg FW, Winter H, Jauch KW, Huttl TP. Transoral diverticulostomy with a modified endo-gia stapler: Results after 4 years of experience. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(4):532–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibowitz JM, Fundakowski CE, Abouyared M, et al. Surgical techniques for Zenker’s diverticulum: a comparative analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(1):52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller FR, Bartley J, Otto RA. The endoscopic management of zenker diverticulum: CO2 laser versus endoscopic stapling. Laryngoscope. 2006;116(9):1608–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murer K, Soyka MB, Broglie MA, Huber GF, Stoeckli SJ. Zenker’s diverticulum: outcome of endoscopic surgery is dependent on the intraoperative exposure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(1):167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peracchia A, Bonavina L, Narne S, Segalin A, Antoniazzi L, Marotta G. Minimally invasive surgery for Zenker diverticulum: analysis of results in 95 consecutive patients. Arch Surg. 1998;133(7):695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodella L, Saladino E, Lombardo F, et al. Endoscopic diverticulostomy for Zenker’s diverticulum experience on 123 cases. G Chir. 2010;31(4):180–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Stoeckli SJ, Schmid S. Endoscopic stapler-assisted diverticuloesophagostomy for zenker’s diverticulum: patient satisfaction and subjective relief of symptoms. Surgery. 2002;131(2):158–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007;18(6):805–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow A. A case of obstructed deglutition from a preternatural dilation of and bag formed in the pharynx. Med Observ Inquiries. 1769;3:85–101.Google Scholar
Zenker F, von Ziemssen H. Dilatations of the esophagus. Cycl Pr Med. 1878;3:46–8.Google Scholar
Hendriksma M, Joosten MH, Peters JP, Grolman W, Stegeman I. Evaluation of the quality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngology—based on the STROBE statement. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0169316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colpaert C, Vanderveken OM, Wouters K, Van de Heyning P, Van Laer C. Changes in swallowing-related quality of life after endoscopic treatment for zenker’s diverticulum using SWAL-QOL questionnaire. Dysphagia. 2017;32(3):339–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belafsky PC, Mouadeb DA, Rees CJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the eating assessment tool (EAT-10). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008;117(12):919–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson CM, Postma GN. Zenker diverticulum—which surgical approach is superior? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142(4):401–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesan NN, Evangelista LM, Kuhn MA, Belafsky PC. Normal fluoroscopic appearance status post-successful endoscopic zenker diverticulotomy. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(8):1762–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard R, Rees CJ, Belafsky P, Allen J. Fluoroscopic surrogate for pharyngeal strength: the pharyngeal constriction ratio (PCR). Dysphagia. 2011;26(1):13–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berzofsky CE, Holiday RA, Pitman MJ. Variability of postoperative esophagrams after endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy: technique dependence. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(3):145–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonavina L, Bona D, Abraham M, Saino G, Abate E. Long-term results of endosurgical and open surgical approach for zenker diverticulum. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(18):2586–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen SP, Jones CA, McCulloch TM. Pharyngeal swallowing pressures in the base-of-tongue and hypopharynx regions identified with three-dimensional manometry. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(9):1989–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar