UNASSIGNED: Achalasia can cause disabling symptoms that may substantially impair the quality of life. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has shown promising results in the management of achalasia. In this meta-analysis we have evaluated the feasibility and safety of single-session POEM with fundoplication (POEM+F) in patients with achalasia.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed several databases from inception to July 08, 2022, to identify studies evaluating the feasibility and/or safety of single-session POEM+F for patients with achalasia. Our outcomes of interest included the technical success of POEM+F, adverse events, esophagitis and wrap integrity on follow-up upper endoscopy, total procedure time, and fundoplication time. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for outcomes were calculated using a random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic.
UNASSIGNED: We included 4 studies with 90 patients. Pooled rates (95%CI) of technical success and adverse events were 92% (83-96%) and 5% (2-11%), respectively. Pooled rates (95%CI) of esophagitis and wrap integrity on follow-up upper endoscopy were 18% (11-30%) and 85% (43-98%) respectively. Pooled mean procedure time and fundoplication time were 113.2 (98.7-127.6) and 55.3 (43.7-66.8) min, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis demonstrates the feasibility and safety of POEM+F in patients with achalasia. More studies with long-term follow up are required to further validate these findings.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has revolutionized the therapeutic strategy for achalasia with promising results. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between Eastern and Western countries. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases to query for studies that assessed the efficacy of POEM for achalasia. All articles published from inception to December 31, 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the pooled clinical success rate. The secondary outcomes included the pooled technical success rate, incidence of adverse events, procedure time and hospital stay. Eighteen Eastern studies involving 5962 patients and 11 Western studies involving 1651 patients were included. The pooled clinical success rate and technical success rate for POEM was equal in the Eastern studies compared to Western studies. The pooled incidence of procedure adverse events for POEM was a little lower in the Eastern studies compared to Western studies (6.6% vs. 8.7%). Similarly, the incidence of reflux-related adverse events was lower in Eastern studies than that in Western studies. The pooled procedure time of POEM was shorter in Eastern studies compared to Western studies (61 minutes vs. 80 minutes), while the length of hospital stay was longer in Eastern studies compared to Western studies (5.8 days vs. 2.4 days). Overall, Eastern countries have the similar POEM outcomes compared to Western countries. However, Eastern countries still need to do more to reduce the length of hospital stay.

Esophageal achalasia is classified into three subtypes according to manometric findings. Since several factors, including clinical characteristics and treatment response, have been reported to differ among the subtypes, the underlying pathogenesis may also differ. However, a comprehensive understanding regarding the differences is still lacking. We therefore performed a systematic review of the differences among the three subtypes of achalasia to clarify the current level of comprehension. In terms of clinical features, type III, which is the least frequently diagnosed of the three subtypes, showed the oldest age and most severe symptoms, such as chest pain. In contrast, type I showed a higher prevalence of lung complications, and type II showed weight loss more frequently than the other types. Histopathologically, type I showed a high loss of ganglion cells in esophagus, and on a molecular basis, type III had elevated serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels. In addition to peristalsis and the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function, the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function of achalasia has attracted attention, as an impaired UES function is associated with severe aspiration pneumonia, a fatal complication of achalasia. Previous studies have indicated that type II shows a higher UES pressure than the other subtypes, while an earlier decline in the UES function has been confirmed in type I. Differences in the treatment response are also crucial for managing achalasia patients. A number of studies have reported better responses in type II cases and less favorable responses in type III cases to pneumatic dilatation. These differences help shed light on the pathogenesis of achalasia and support its clinical management according to the subtype.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) achieves a satisfactory short-term clinical response in patients with achalasia. However, data on mid- and long-term clinical outcomes are limited. We aimed to assess the mid- and long-term efficacy and safety of POEM in achalasia patients.
Using the pre-designed search strategy, we identified relevant studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM with a minimum of 2-year follow-up in the Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases from inception to January 2021. Primary outcome was pooled mid- and long-term clinical success rate based on the Eckardt score. Secondary outcome was pooled long-term reflux-related adverse events.
A total of 21 studies involving 2,698 patients were included. Overall, the pooled clinical success rates with 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year follow-ups were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.4-93.6%), 90.4% (95% CI 88.1-92.2%), 89.8% (95% CI 83.6-93.9%), and 82.2% (95% CI 76.6-86.7%), respectively. Besides, the pooled long-term clinical success rates for type I, II, and III achalasia were 86.1% (95% CI 80.9-90.1%; I2 = 0%), 87.9% (95% CI 84.2-90.8%; I2 = 48.354%), and 83.9% (95% CI 72.5-91.2%; I2 = 0%), respectively. Moreover, the pooled incidence of symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis was 23.9% (95% CI 18.7-29.9%) and 16.7% (95% CI 11.9-23.1%), respectively.
POEM is associated with a long-term clinical success of 82.2% after 5 years of follow-up. Randomized control trials comparing POEM with laparoscopic Heller myotomy or pneumatic dilation with longer follow-up periods are needed to further demonstrate the long-term safety and efficacy of POEM.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the treatment of achalasia. Longer myotomy is the standard POEM procedure for achalasia but when compared with shorter myotomy, its effectiveness is not as well known.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of longer and shorter myotomy.
METHODS: PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane Library, web of science and clinicaltrials.gov were queried for studies comparing shorter and longer POEM for achalasia treatment. The primary outcome was clinical success rate. Secondary outcomes comprised of operative time, adverse events (AEs) rate, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and procedure-related parameters. The Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model was primarily used for the analysis. Publication bias was assessed.
RESULTS: Six studies were included in this analysis with a total of 514 participants. During the follow-up period of 1-28.7 mo, longer and shorter myotomy in treating achalasia showed similar excellent effectiveness [overall clinical success (OR = 1, 95%CI: 0.46-2.17, P = 1, I2: 0%; subgroup of abstract (OR = 1.19, 95%CI: 0.38 to 3.73; P = 0.76; I2: 0%); subgroup of full text (OR = 0.86 95%CI: 0.30 to 2.49; P = 0.78; I2: 0%)]. Shorter myotomy had significantly reduced mean operative time compared with the longer procedure. There were no statistically significant differences in AEs rates, including GERD (overall OR = 1.21, 95%CI: 0.76-1.91; P = 0.42; I2: 9%; subgroup of abstract OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.40-1.47; P = 0.43; I2: 0%; subgroup of full text OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 0.98-3.75; P = 0.06; I2: 0%), hospital stay (overall MD = -0.07, 95%CI: -0.30 to 0.16; P = 0.55; I2: 24%; subgroup of abstract MD = 0.20, 95%CI: -0.25 to 0.65; P = 0.39; I2: 0; subgroup of full text MD = -0.16, 95%CI: -0.42 to 0.10; P = 0.23; I2: 42%), and major bleeding (overall OR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.58-2.71; P = 0.56; I2: 0%) between the two procedures. These differences remained statistically non-significant in all sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: POEM was effective in treating achalasia. Shorter and longer myotomy procedures provided similar therapeutic effects in terms of long-term effectiveness. In addition, shorter myotomy reduced the operative time.

Background: The efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the treatment of sigmoid-type achalasia is unknown. This meta-analysis aims to explore the clinical outcomes of POEM for sigmoid-type achalasia. Method: We searched all relevant studies published up to September 2020 in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases. Meta-analyses for clinical success, Eckardt score, angle of esophageal tortuosity, diameter of esophagus, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), adverse events, and gastroesophageal reflux diseases were performed based on random or fixed-effects models as needed. Results: We found a total of eight studies that provided data on 248 patients. Overall, the pooled clinical success was achieved in 211 sigmoid-type achalasia patients [90.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 85.5%-93.8%]. The pre- and post-POEM Eckardt scores, angle of esophageal tortuosity, diameter of esophageal, LES pressure, and IRP were significantly improved (All p < 0.05). The pooled adverse events rate was 13.0% (95% CI, 3.6%-37.4%). The pooled objective confirmation of reflux rate was 41.5% (95% CI, 26.5%-58.3%), and symptomatic reflux rate was 12.5% (95% CI, 8.3%-18.4%). Conclusions: Our current evidence indicated that POEM is an effective and safe therapeutic modality for the treatment of sigmoid-type achalasia.

Idiopathic achalasia is an esophageal motor disorder characterized by the loss of the lower esophageal sphincter ganglion, resulting in impaired lower esophageal relaxation and absence of esophageal peristalsis. Patients commonly present with progressive dysphagia accompanied by reflux, heartburn, retrosternal pain, and severe weight loss. Diagnosis is primarily based on the patient\'s chief complaints, barium esophagography, and the most recent high-resolution manometry. Endoscopic assessment and endoscopic ultrasonography also have significant value with regard to the exclusion of esophageal anatomical lesions, neoplastic diseases, and pseudoachalasia. However, as most patients with achalasia demonstrate a gradual onset, early diagnosis is difficult. Currently, treatment of idiopathic achalasia, including pneumatic dilation, stent placement, and surgical myotomy, is aimed at reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure and relieving the symptoms of dysphagia. Peroral endoscopic myotomy has gradually become the mainstream treatment because it causes less trauma and has a rapid recovery rate. This article reviews the main methods of diagnosis and treatment of achalasia, with an emphasis on the potential of peroral endoscopic myotomy and the advancements of immunotherapy for achalasia.

UNASSIGNED: Heller myotomy (HM) is an established treatment for achalasia but can fail in up to 10-20% of patients. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may be an appropriate treatment for patients with failed HM.
UNASSIGNED: We searched several databases to identify non-comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of POEM after failed HM and comparative studies comparing the efficacy and/or safety of POEM in patients with and without prior HM. Outcomes assessed included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and presence of esophagitis on endoscopy. We calculated weighted pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes in patients undergoing POEM with prior HM. We calculated pooled odds ratios with 95%CI to compare the outcomes between patients with and without previous HM who underwent POEM.
UNASSIGNED: We included 11 observational studies with 1205 patients. Weighted pooled rates (95%CI) for overall clinical success and technical success in patients with failed HM were 87% (81-91%) and 97% (94-99%), respectively. Weighted pooled rates (95%CI) for major adverse events, new-onset GERD and presence of esophagitis on endoscopy were 5% (2-10%), 33% (26-41%), and 38% (22-58%), respectively. There were no differences in clinical success, adverse events, post-treatment GERD and esophagitis between patients with and without previous HM.
UNASSIGNED: POEM is safe and effective in patients with failed HM and should be considered in patients with recurrent achalasia after HM. Outcomes of POEM are comparable in patients with and without prior HM.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been reported to be effective in achalasia patients with prior failed endoscopic intervention (PFI). We performed this meta-analysis to compare and summarize the clinical outcome of POEM in patients with or without prior endoscopic intervention.
METHODS: We searched relevant studies published up to March 2020. Meta-analysis for technical success, clinical success, Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, clinical reflux, and adverse event were conducted based on a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Eight studies enrolling 1,797 patients who underwent POEM were enrolled, including 1,128 naïve achalasia patients and 669 patients with PFI. In the PFI group, the pooled estimated rate of technical success was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8-98.8%), the pooled clinical success rate was 91.0% (95% CI, 88.0-93.4%), and the pooled adverse events rate was 23.5% (95% CI, 10.6-44.1%). The Eckardt score significantly decreased by 5.95 points (95% CI, 5.50-6.40, p < 0.00001) and the LES pressure significantly reduced by 19.74 mm Hg (95% CI, 14.10-25.39, p < 0.00001) in the PFI group. There were no difference in the technical success, clinical success, and adverse events rate between the treatment-naïve group and PFI group, with a risk ratio of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.99-1.01, p = 0.89), 1.02 (95% CI, 0.98-1.06, p = 0.36), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.67-1.16, p = 0.38), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: POEM is an effective and safe treatment for achalasia patients with prior endoscopic intervention. Randomized clinical trials are needed to further verify the efficiency and safety of the POEM in those patients.

Esophageal diverticula (ED) represents a group of rare conditions that warrant intervention when they are symptomatic or coexisting with pulmonary disorders. Few literature reviews have described this patient entity or discussed the postoperative outcome. Therefore, I present the case of a 59-year-old woman with symptoms of dysphagia who was significantly underweight, which was conducive to the diagnosis of symptomatic ED. Because she was a poor candidate for surgery, she received a diverticular peroral endoscopic myotomy. She subsequently developed parapneumonic effusion and tension pneumothorax after the procedure. She was finally discharged on postoperative day 23. I also performed the first known comprehensive literature review of 34 published cases (including my patient) from PubMed and have addressed the demography, intervention, and prognosis for symptomatic ED after the procedure. Prompt treatment as well as prognostic measurement are crucial to successful outcomes.