High-resolution manometry (HRM) is a diagnostic tool for surgeons, gastroenterologists and other healthcare professionals to evaluate esophageal physiology. The Chicago Classification (CC) system is based on a consensus of worldwide experts to minimize ambiguity in HRM data acquisition and diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. The most updated version, CCv4.0, was published in 2021; however, it does not provide step-by-step guidelines (i.e., for beginners) on how to assess the most important HRM metrics. This paper aims to summarize the basic guidelines for conducting a high-quality HRM study including data acquisition and interpretation, based on CCv4.0, using Manoview ESO analysis software, version 3.3 (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN).

Due to the unclear quality of the current guidelines, users may be confused about how to diagnose and treat achalasia. The objective of this work is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current guidelines for diagnosing and treating achalasia and to determine the heterogeneity among recommendations. We systematically searched literature databases to retrieve relevant guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines. Key recommendations in the guidelines were extracted, and the reasons for the heterogeneity of the key recommendations between different guidelines were further analyzed. Seven guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia are included in this study. The overall score of three guidelines exceeded 60%. The average score in domain 5 was the lowest, at 41.8%. The average scores in domain 2, domain 3, and domain 6 were also low, at 45.4%, 57.1% and 56.9%, respectively. The main recommendations and quality of evidence for different guidelines vary greatly, mainly due to the different emphases among different guidelines, the lack of systematic retrieval, or the unfairness of evidence use in some guidelines. There are considerable differences in the methodological quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for achalasia. Additionally, the differences in the main recommendations and evidence support among guidelines are also obvious. Guideline developers should improve the above related factors to decrease the heterogeneity, and they should further formulate or update the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of achalasia.

The best way to start a paper like this is with a citation from W. Edwards Deming: Without data, you\'re just another person with an opinion. In the era of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) every surgical procedure has to be backed up by solid statistical data to offer our patients the best treatment. But is EBM always the path to truth? We decided to analyze the literature for achalasia and see if the guidelines and the data are reliable enough to justify a certain attitude. Practically, we engaged in this endeavor not because we do not trust the statements of the guidelines, but to see if a surgeon can find by themselves the proper attitude in this disease. Achalasia is a motility disorder of the esophagus characterized by deficient relaxation of the inferior esophageal sphincter that results in dysphagia. There are several methods of treatment, with various statements in the guidelines. Currently, every treatment should be sustained by data and statistics, evidence-based medicine being mandatory when a method is preferred over another. This article reviews several studies and also the available guidelines in search for an answer to the question which procedure is the best.

The Endoluminal Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (Endoflip™) is a balloon-based catheter that provides real-time, objective feedback regarding the distensibility of any sphincter in the gastrointestinal tract. Usage of the Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (FLIP) has not been standardized, which has limited the interpretation and generalizability of published data. The purpose of this consensus statement is to provide a standardized protocol for obtaining FLIP measurements in order to create a more uniform approach to data collection.
Five expert foregut surgeons, all of whom utilize the FLIP system in their daily practice, convened on March 19, 2019, to create a standardized protocol for obtaining FLIP measurements during hiatal hernia repair and fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. Existing literature was presented and reviewed. Each step of the protocol was discussed in detail until a unanimous consensus was reached.
A standardized protocol was developed for obtaining FLIP measurements during hiatal hernia repair and fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy.
The FLIP impedance planimetry system is the only technology available that provides surgeons an objective way to assess the tightness of a fundoplication or adequacy of a myotomy during an operation. While considerable research remains to correlate FLIP measurements to patient outcomes, this consensus statement will provide standardization of data collection among FLIP users that will enhance the understanding of future study results.

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.

These are updated guidelines which supersede the original version published in 2004. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG. The original guidelines have undergone extensive revision by the 16 members of the Guideline Development Group with representation from individuals across all relevant disciplines, including the Heartburn Cancer UK charity, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The methodological rigour and transparency of the guideline development processes were appraised using the revised Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.Dilatation of the oesophagus is a relatively high-risk intervention, and is required by an increasing range of disease states. Moreover, there is scarcity of evidence in the literature to guide clinicians on how to safely perform this procedure. These guidelines deal specifically with the dilatation procedure using balloon or bougie devices as a primary treatment strategy for non-malignant narrowing of the oesophagus. The use of stents is outside the remit of this paper; however, for cases of dilatation failure, alternative techniques-including stents-will be listed. The guideline is divided into the following subheadings: (1) patient preparation; (2) the dilatation procedure; (3) aftercare and (4) disease-specific considerations. A systematic literature search was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Develop-ment and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of recommendations made.

Achalasia is an important but relatively uncommon disorder. While highly effective therapeutic options exist, esophageal cancer remains a long-term potential complication. The risk of esophageal cancer in achalasia remains unclear, with current guidelines recommending against routine endoscopic screening. However, given limited data and conflicting opinion, it is unknown whether consensus regarding screening practices in achalasia among experts exists. A 10-question survey to assess screening practices in achalasia was created and distributed to 28 experts in the area of achalasia. Experts were identified based on publications and meeting presentations in the field. Survey responses were received from 17 of 28 (61%) experts. Wide geographic distribution was seen among respondents, with eight (47%) from Europe or Australia, seven (41%) from the United States, and two (12%) from Asia. Screening for esophageal cancer was inconsistent, with nine (53%) experts endorsing the practice and eight (47%) not. Screening practices did not differ among geographic regions. No consensus regarding the risk for esophageal cancer in achalasia was seen, with three experts reporting no increased risk compared with the general population, eight experts a lifetime risk of 0.1-0.5%, three experts a 0.5-1% risk, two experts a 1-2% risk, and one expert a 3-5% risk. However, these differences in perception of risk did not influence screening practices. Upper endoscopy was utilized among all experts who endorsed screening. However, practices still varied with screening commencing at or within 1 year of diagnosis in two practices compared with 5 and 10 years in three respective practices each. Surveillance intervals also varied, performed every 2 years in four practices, every 3 years in four practices, and every 5 years in one practice. Practice variation in the management of achalasia itself was also seen, with initial treatment with Heller myotomy endorsed by eight experts, pneumatic dilation by five experts, and two each endorsing peroral endoscopic myotomy or no specific preference. In addition, while 82% (14/17) of experts endorsed long-term follow up of patients, no consensus regarding long-term follow up existed, with annual follow up in eight practices, every 3-6 months in three practices, and every 2 years in three practices. Large practice variation in the long-term management of achalasia exists among experts in the field. Only a slight majority of experts endorse screening for esophageal cancer in achalasia, and no consensus exists regarding how surveillance should be structured even among this group. Interestingly, the lack of consensus on cancer screening parallels a lack of agreement on initial treatment of achalasia. These findings suggest a need for greater homogeneity in the management of longstanding achalasia and cancer screening. Further, this study highlights the need for more data on this topic to foster greater agreement.