ASGE guideline on the management of achalasia

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a novel clinical technique developed in Japan used to treat esophageal achalasia and esophageal motility disorders. This technique has been rapidly accepted and widely disseminated throughout our clinical practice because of its low invasiveness, technical novelty, and high efficacy. Since the advent of POEM, there have been no clinical guidelines that clearly indicated its standard of care, and these guidelines have been anticipated both nationally and internationally by clinicians who engage in POEM practice. In 2017, to meet these needs, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) launched the guideline committee for POEM. Based on the guideline development process proposed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (MINDS), the guideline committee initially created research questions on POEM and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on each topic. The clinical research extracted from databases for these clinical questions and the systematic review mainly comprised a few retrospective studies with a small number of participants and short trial periods; hence, the strength of the evidence and recommendations derived from these results was low. Throughout this process, the guideline committee met thrice: once on May 13, 2017, and again on September 17, 2017, to formulate the draft. A consensus meeting was then held on January 14, 2018, in Tokyo to establish the guideline statements and finalize the recommendations using the modified Delphi method. This manuscript presents clinical guidelines regarding current standards of practice and recommendations in terms of the nine chief topics in POEM.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/den.13239

Clinical practice guidelines for peroral endoscopic myotomy.

Adverse events during and after per-oral endoscopic myotomy: prevention, diagnosis, and management.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

Background and aim Clinical management of patients with gastroparesis is challenging. Prior pyloric targeted procedures are either invasive or have questionable long-term efficacy. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) has been recently introduced as a minimally invasive approach. In this review, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this technique in the management of patients with refractory gastroparesis. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies published through May 2018. Weighted pool rates (WPR) of the clinical resolution were calculated. Pooled values of Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) before and after the procedure were compared. Pooled difference in means comparing gastric emptying before and after the procedure was calculated. Fixed or random effect model was used according to the level of heterogeneity. Results Seven studies with 196 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean value of procedure duration was 69.7 (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 39 – 99 minutes) and average estimate of hospital stay was 1.96 (95 % CI: 1.22 – 2.95) days. The WPR for clinical success was 82 % (95 % CI: 74 % – 87 %, I2 = 0). Compared with pre-procedure GCSI values, mean values of GCSI were reduced significantly at 5 days (–1.57 (95 % CI:–2.2,-0.9), I2 = 80 %) (P  Conclusion Due to the high rate of clinical success and low rate of adverse events, G-POEM should be considered in management of refractory gastroparesis.

/pdf/efficacy-and-feasibility-of-g-poem-in-management-of-patients-1va3ki7d5h.pdf

Efficacy and feasibility of G-POEM in management of patients with refractory gastroparesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) is the preferred surgical method for treating achalasia. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is providing good short-term results. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of LHM and POEM. A search of PubMed, Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, and current contents for English-language articles comparing LHM and POEM between 2007 and 2016 was performed. Variables analyzed included prior endoscopic treatment, prior medical treatment, prior Heller myotomy, operative time, overall complications rate, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, and long-term GERD. Seven trials consisting of 483 (LHM=250, POEM=233) patients were analyzed. Preoperative variables, for example, prior endoscopic treatment [odds ratio (OR), 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23-4.61; P=0.96], prior medical treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), 1.22; 95% CI, 0.52-2.88; P=0.65], and prior Heller myotomy (WMD, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.13-1.67; P=0.25) were comparable. Operative time was 26.28 minutes, nonsignificantly longer for LHM (WMD, 26.28; 95% CI, -11.20 to 63.70; P=0.17). There was a comparable overall complication rate (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.56-2.77; P=0.59), postoperative GERD rate (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.30; P=0.44), length of hospital stay (WMD, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.85; P=0.28), postoperative pain score (WMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -1.58 to 1.06; P=0.70), and long-term GERD (WMD, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.27-4.1; P=0.08) for both procedures. There was a significantly higher short-term clinical treatment failure rate for LHM (OR, 9.82; 95% CI, 2.06-46.80; P POEM compares favorably to LHM for achalasia treatment in short-term perioperative outcomes. However, there was a significantly higher clinical treatment failure rate for LHM on short-term postoperative follow-up. Presently long-term postoperative follow-up data for POEM beyond 1 year are unavailable and eagerly awaited.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy (LHM) for Achalasia.

Background We conducted a meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted (LARR) versus open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer. Data sources A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum. Results Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR. Conclusions LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.

/pdf/meta-analysis-of-histopathological-outcomes-of-laparoscopic-2ls8loa8wd.pdf

Meta-analysis of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted rectal resection (LARR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for carcinoma.

Aims and objectives: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted (LARR) versus open rectal resection (ORR) for proven rectal cancer.

Materials and methods: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.

Results: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.

Conclusions: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic-assisted Rectal Resection (LARR) Versus Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for Carcinoma.

Lapraroscopic vs open repair for incisional hernia meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair of elective incisional hernia

Aiman Awaiz

Papers

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy (LHM) for Achalasia.

Meta-analysis of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted rectal resection (LARR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for carcinoma.

A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic-assisted Rectal Resection (LARR) Versus Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for Carcinoma.

Lapraroscopic vs open repair for incisional hernia meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair of elective incisional hernia