Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(04): E322-E329
DOI: 10.1055/a-1980-9942
Original article

Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy versus surgical pyloromyotomy/pyloroplasty for refractory gastroparesis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Muhammad Aziz
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, United States
,
Manesh Kumar Gangwani
2   Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, United States
,
Hossein Haghbin
3   Division of Gastroenterology, Ascension Providence Southfield, Southfield, Michigan, United States
,
Dushyant Singh Dahiya
4   Department of Internal Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Saginaw, Michigan, United States
,
Amir Humza Sohail
5   Department of Surgery, NYU Langone Health, Long Island, New York, United States
,
Faisal Kamal
6   Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
,
Wade Lee-Smith
7   University of Toledo Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, United States
,
Douglas G. Adler
8   Centura Health, Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, Englewood, Colorado, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) has been recently compared with surgical techniques (i. e. pyloromyotomy and pyloroplasty) for managing patients with refractory gastroparesis. Given the varying results, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies to assess the safety and efficacy of each technique.

Patients and methods A comprehensive review of the literature using the following databases was undertaken through July 29, 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, KCI – Koran Journal index, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. Comparative studies including case-control, cohort and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Random effects model using DerSimonian laird approach was used to compare outcomes. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes respectively.

Results A total of four studies with 385 patients (216 in the G-POEM group and 169 in the surgical group were included. The mean age was 46.9 (± 3.41) and 46.2 (± 0.86) and the female proportion was 79.6 % and 74.0 % for the G-POEM and surgery group respectively. The mean procedural time (MD: –59.47 mins, P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD: –3.10 days, P < 0.001) was significantly lower for G-POEM compared to surgery. The post procedure GCSI score (MD: –0.33, P = 0.39) and reduction in GCSI score preoperatively and postoperatively (MD: 0.27, P = 0.55) was not significantly different.

Conclusions G-POEM appears promising as it may provide a cost-effective approach for managing refractory gastroparesis compared to surgical techniques. RCTs are needed to further confirm these results.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 09 September 2022

Accepted after revision: 15 November 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 November 2022

Article published online:
04 April 2023

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Camilleri M, Bharucha AE, Farrugia G. Epidemiology, mechanisms and management of diabetic gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: e5-e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Waseem S, Moshiree B, Draganov PV. Gastroparesis: current diagnostic challenges and management considerations. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 25-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ye Y, Yin Y, Huh SY. et al. Epidemiology, etiology, and treatment of gastroparesis: real-world evidence from a large US national claims database. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 109-121.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jones MP, Maganti K. A systematic review of surgical therapy for gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2122-2129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tan J, Shrestha SM, Wei M. et al. Feasibility, safety, and long-term efficacy of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for postsurgical gastroparesis: a single-center and retrospective study of a prospective database. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 3459-3470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Xu J, Chen T, Elkholy S. et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) as a treatment for refractory gastroparesis: long-term outcomes. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 2018: 6409698
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Aghaie Meybodi M, Qumseya BJ, Shakoor D. et al. Efficacy and feasibility of G-POEM in management of patients with refractory gastroparesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E322-E329
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kamal F, Khan MA, Lee-Smith W. et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: one-year outcomes of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2022; 55: 168-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Revicki DA, Rentz AM, Dubois D. et al. Development and validation of a patient-assessed gastroparesis symptom severity measure: the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 141-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shuster J. Review: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for interventions, Version 5.1.0, published 3/2011. Julian P.T. Higgins and Sally Green, Editors. Res Synth Methods 2011; 2: 126-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Deeks J, Dinnes J, D'Amico R. et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 3-10 , 1–173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Higgins J, Altman D, Gotzsche P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928-d5928
    Google Scholar
  • 14 AbiMansour JP, Meybodi MA, Ichkhanian Y. et al. Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy compared to surgical pyloromyotomy in the treatment of gastroparesis: A case-matched multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: AB6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Landreneau JP, Strong AT, El-Hayek K. et al. Laparoscopic pyloroplasty versus endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy for the treatment of gastroparesis. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 773-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pioppo L, Reja D, Gaidhane M. et al. Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy versus pyloromyotomy for gastroparesis: An international comparative study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 3177-3182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Clapp JH, Gaskins JT, Kehdy FJ. [S156] Comparing outcomes of per-oral pyloromyotomy and robotic pyloroplasty for the treatment of gastroparesis. Surg Endosc 2022; DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09437-x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Okuyama H, Urao M, Starr GA. et al. A comparison of the efficacy of pyloromyotomy and pyloroplasty in patients with gastroesophageal reflux and delayed gastric emptying. J Pediatr Surg 1997; 32: 316-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Toro JP, Lytle NW, Patel AD. et al. Efficacy of laparoscopic pyloroplasty for the treatment of gastroparesis. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 218: 652-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shada AL, Dunst CM, Pescarus R. et al. Laparoscopic pyloroplasty is a safe and effective first-line surgical therapy for refractory gastroparesis. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 1326-1332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mekaroonkamol P, Dacha S, Christofaro S. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (GPOEM) in treatment of refractory gastroparesis 1135. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: S619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mohan BP, Chandan S, Jha LK. et al. Clinical efficacy of gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis and predictors of outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis using surgical pyloroplasty as a comparator group. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 3352-3367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar