Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 2284–2292 | Cite as

Peroral endoscopic myotomy leads to higher rates of abnormal esophageal acid exposure than laparoscopic Heller myotomy in achalasia

  • Madhusudhan R. SanakaEmail author
  • Prashanthi N. Thota
  • Malav P. Parikh
  • Umar Hayat
  • Niyati M. Gupta
  • Scott Gabbard
  • Rocio Lopez
  • Sudish Murthy
  • Siva Raja
Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may be associated with higher rates of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) than laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy with fundoplication (LHM), since POEM is not combined with a fundoplication. However, peri-esophageal anti-reflux barriers are preserved in POEM, which might prevent GERD. Hence, we sought to compare the objective esophageal pH study findings in achalasia patients after POEM and LHM.

Methods

Achalasia patients undergoing POEM from 2014 to 2015 at our institution were matched 1:3 with LHM patients using propensity score matching. Demographics, prior interventions, pre-treatment and 2-month post-treatment timed barium esophagram (TBE), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) and 24-h esophageal pH study findings were compared between the two groups.

Results

Thirty-one patients in the POEM group and 88 patients in the LHM group were included. Larger proportion of POEM patients had prior interventions for achalasia as compared to LHM patients (overall: 71% vs. 44.3%; p = 0.012). Esophageal acid exposure was significantly higher in POEM as compared to LHM patients (abnormal total acid exposure: 48.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001, abnormal DeMeester score 54.8% vs. 17.4%; p = 0.005 respectively). In sub-group analysis, similar results were noted on 24-h pH study after exclusion of the POEM patients with prior LHM and corresponding matches. There was no significant difference in the rate of GERD symptoms between POEM and LHM. There was no significant correlation between the post-treatment basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and integrated relaxation pressure with abnormal acid exposure in either POEM or LHM.

Conclusions

In patients with achalasia, POEM leads to significantly higher rates of abnormal esophageal acid exposure, without an increase in the rate of GERD symptoms, when compared to LHM with fundoplication. Interestingly, prior LHM has no impact on post-POEM pH study findings. Potential of increased esophageal acid exposure and possible consequences should be discussed with all patients prior to POEM. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of increased acid exposure after POEM.

Keywords

Achalasia Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) Heller’s myotomy Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) pH study 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosures

Dr. Madhusudhan R. Sanaka, Dr. Prashanthi N. Thota, Dr. Malav P. Parikh, Dr. Umar Hayat, Dr. Niyati M. Gupta, Dr. Scott Gabbard, Rocio Lopez, Dr. Sudish Murthy and Dr. Siva Raja have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Richards WO, Torquati A, Holzman MD et al (2004) Heller myotomy versus Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication for achalasia: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. Ann Surg 240(3):405–412 (discussion 412-5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awaiz A, Yunus RM, Khan S et al (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic heller myotomy (LHM) for achalasia. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 27(3):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shiwaku H, Inoue H, Yamashita K et al (2016) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: outcomes of the first over 100 patients with short-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 30(11):4817–4826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inoue H, Sato H, Ikeda H et al (2015) Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: a series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg 221(2):256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swanstrom LL, Kurian A, Dunst CM et al (2012) Long-term outcomes of an endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: the POEM procedure. Ann Surg 256:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Renteln D, Inoue H, Minami H et al (2012) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a prospective single center study. Am J Gastroenterol 107(3):411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minami H, Isomoto H, Yamaguchi N et al (2014) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: clinical impact of 28 cases. Dig Endosc 26:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Familiari P, Gigante G, Marchese M et al (2016) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: outcomes of the first 100 patients with short-term follow-up. Ann Surg 263(1):82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones EL, Meara MP, Schwartz JS et al (2016) Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms do not correlate with objective pH testing after peroral endoscopic myotomy. Surg Endosc 30(3):947–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Familiari P, Greco S, Gigante G et al (2016) Gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy: analysis of clinical, procedural and functional factors, associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and esophagitis. Dig Endosc 28(1):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhayani NH, Kurian AA, Dunst CM et al (2014) A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 259(6):1098–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Repici A, Fuccio L, Maselli R et al (2018) GERD after per-oral endoscopic myotomy as compared with Heller’s myotomy with fundoplication: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 87(4):934–943e18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.10.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y et al (2010) Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 42(4):265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumbhari V, Familiari P, Bjerregaard NC et al (2017) Gastroesophageal reflux after peroral endoscopic myotomy: a multicenter case-control study. Endoscopy 49(7):634–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M et al (2015) International High Resolution Manometry Working Group. The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil 27(2):160–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schlottmann F, Luckett DJ, Fine J et al (2018) Laparoscopic heller myotomy versus peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 267(3):451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahrilas PJ, Katzka D, Richter JE (2017) Clinical practice update: the use of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia: expert review and best practice advice from the AGA Institute. Gastroenterology 153(5):1205–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madhusudhan R. Sanaka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Prashanthi N. Thota
    • 1
  • Malav P. Parikh
    • 1
  • Umar Hayat
    • 2
  • Niyati M. Gupta
    • 1
  • Scott Gabbard
    • 1
  • Rocio Lopez
    • 3
  • Sudish Murthy
    • 4
  • Siva Raja
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Quantitative Health Science and Bio-statisticsCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations