Subscribe to RSS
Download PDF
DOI: 10.1055/a-2676-4230
Comparing peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy for esophageal motility disorders: Nationwide cohort study
Abstract
Background and study aims
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) are established treatments for esophageal motility disorders. However, previous comparative studies have been limited by small sample sizes, restricting generalizability. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative outcomes of POEM and LHM in the United States using a population-based database.
Patients and methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2016 to 2022. Patients with achalasia or non-achalasia spastic esophageal disorders who underwent POEM or LHM were included. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was applied to enhance comparability across treatments. Trends in the number of procedures and assessed outcomes included serious adverse events (SAEs), reintervention, mortality, length of stay, and cost.
Results
A total of 18,694 patients were identified (6,554 POEM and 12,140 LHM). Overall rates of SAEs, reintervention, and 30-day mortality were 7.9%, 5.0%, and 0.08%, respectively. IPTW analysis revealed significantly lower rates of SAEs (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.88) and reintervention (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68–0.93) in the POEM group. Length of stay and cost were also more favorable in the POEM group. Mortality was not significantly different (P = 0.97). Subgroup analysis supported these findings when considering either achalasia (n = 15,971) or non-achalasia spastic esophageal disorders (n = 2,723) individually.
Conclusions
In this nationwide cohort, LHM remained more commonly performed in the United States. However, our results confirm that POEM demonstrated favorable outcomes in management of esophageal motility disorders.
Introduction
Achalasia and other benign esophageal motility disorders manifest with symptoms such as regurgitation, dysphagia, and chest pain [1] [2] [3], significantly impacting patient quality of life. Current treatment options include peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), endoscopic pneumatic dilation, and endoscopic botulinum toxin injection. Since its introduction into clinical practice in 2010 [4], POEM has gained widespread global adoption, with studies demonstrating favorable outcomes [3] [4] [5]. Its advantages include being minimally invasive, enabling rapid recovery, and allowing for extended myotomies both proximally and onto the gastric side [4] [6]. Guidelines from the United States [7] [8], Europe [9], and Asia [10] endorse both POEM and LHM as viable treatments; however, limited comparative data prevent a clear consensus on the preferred first-line therapy.
The comparison between POEM and LHM has been the focus of ongoing debate [1] [11]. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [12] [13] and several retrospective studies [14] [15] [16] [17] have examined their outcomes. Although the RCTs demonstrated the non-inferiority of POEM compared with LHM in alleviating achalasia symptoms [12] [13], clinical superiority could not be established due to limited sample sizes. In addition, the strict enrollment criteria of the RCTs—excluding patients with significant comorbidities or non-achalasia esophageal spastic disorders—limited generalizability of their findings. Furthermore, prior RCTs and observational studies lacked sufficient statistical power to thoroughly evaluate outcomes such as serious adverse events and the need for reintervention.
We hypothesized that analyzing a population-based database in the United States could elucidate trends in the utilization of POEM and LHM, thereby complementing existing RCT findings and providing insights into their real-world effectiveness for further investigations.
Patients and methods
Study design and database description
This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with esophageal motility disorders at acute care hospitals across the United States. We utilized the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2016 to 2022 to obtain data on treatment incidence and perioperative outcomes. All data obtained from the NIS are publicly available and fully de-identified by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) before release. The de-identification process adheres to the standards outlined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule. No direct patient identifiers are included. Data access and use were conducted in accordance with HCUP’s Data Use Agreement, and all analyses were performed on secure institutional servers compliant with data privacy regulations. The NIS, the largest representative database in the United States, includes data from over 7 million inpatients across more than 4,000 hospitals, offering comprehensive coverage of the population. The expansion of clinical diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10-CM/PCS) in October 2015 enabled more precise classification of surgical and endoscopic treatments. Patients with a specific diagnosis code for esophageal motility disorders—including achalasia, esophageal spastic disorders, hypercontractile esophagus, or other specified esophageal motility disorders—who underwent POEM or LHM were included in the study. The corresponding codes are listed in Supplementary Table 1. Exclusion criteria included patients under 18 years of age and those who underwent POEM for periesophageal diverticulum. Data encompassed the number of procedures, patient and hospital characteristics, comorbidities, concurrent antireflux treatments, and clinical outcomes. This study was exempt from Institutional Review Board review at Maimonides Medical Center due to the de-identified nature of the dataset. As the dataset contained no identifiable patient information, the requirement for informed consent was waived.
Outcomes
The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), whereas secondary outcomes included reintervention, 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs during the admission. SAEs were defined as any AEs leading to an extended hospital stay (≥ 7 days) and graded as severe according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Lexicon [18]. These events were categorized into infections (e.g., peritonitis, mediastinitis, pneumonia, sepsis), bleeding requiring blood transfusion or hemostatic intervention (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding, hemoperitoneum, hematoma), and accidental injuries (e.g., esophageal perforation, pneumothorax, or injuries to other organs). To minimize misclassification, only AEs with a clear etiologic link to POEM or LHM were included. Prolonged hospitalization due to unrelated medical conditions (e.g., heart failure or urinary tract infection) was not considered an AE. Reintervention was defined as the additional requirement of any treatment, including pneumatic dilatation, repeat POEM, or LHM, performed on a separate day after the initial treatment. Total hospital costs, expressed in US dollars, were calculated by multiplying individual hospitalization charges by the cost-to-charge ratio specific to each hospital.
Statistical analysis
A propensity score was constructed using the following variables: age ≥ 65; sex; race; insurance status; hospital bed size, location, teaching status, and region; procedure year; obesity; hypertension; diabetes mellitus; hiatal hernia [19]; comorbidities such as cerebrovascular disease and chronic heart failure; hemodialysis; and a Charlson comorbidity index score ≥ 2 [20]. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to adjust for baseline characteristics between the groups because several variables had standardized differences greater than 10%, and the average treatment effect (ATE) of the procedure was evaluated for outcomes. ATE represents the average effect on all individuals in the study population. Variance and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a robust sandwich variance estimator.
Continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or t-test, whereas categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the study population (n = 18,694) using multivariate logistic and linear regression models. Clinical outcomes compared between the treatment groups included SAEs, reintervention, 30-day mortality, LOS, and costs.
Subgroup analyses were performed based on clinically relevant factors that may influence procedure outcomes. Age was stratified at 40 years, because younger patients may exhibit different baseline physiology, disease severity, and recovery profiles [12]. Sex-based differences were assessed due to previously reported variations in treatment response [21]. In addition, subtypes of esophageal motility disorders (achalasia vs. non-achalasia spastic disorders) were analyzed given their distinct pathophysiological mechanisms and corresponding treatment strategies (e.g., length of myotomy) [1] [2] [3]. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed P <0.05. All analyses were performed using Stata version 17 software (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, United States).
Results
Patient characteristics
Between January 2016 and December 2022, a total of 18,694 patients underwent POEM (n = 6,554) or LHM (n = 12,140) for achalasia or non-achalasia spastic disorders. The calculated incidence rate per 100,000 adults for LHM procedures exceeded that of POEM, as demonstrated by yearly trends shown in [Fig. 1]. Baseline characteristics and those after IPTW adjustment for patient and hospital backgrounds are summarized in [Table 1]. After IPTW adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced, with all absolute standardized differences reduced to < 10%.
The majority of patients were aged ≥ 65 years, female, and White. Procedures were predominantly performed in large, urban teaching hospitals. Antireflux fundoplication was performed during the perioperative period in 88.2% of LHM cases, whereas its use was not clearly documented in POEM cases. The mean follow-up period in this study was 6.5 ± 3.4 months.
POEM versus LHM
Outcomes for the groups based on observed data ([Table 2]) and the IPTW-adjusted analysis ([Table 3]) are summarized. Overall rates of SAEs, reintervention, and 30-day mortality were 7.9%, 5.0%, and 0.08%, respectively. The most common reintervention in both groups was pneumatic dilatation. The POEM group demonstrated significantly lower rates of SAEs (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.70–0.88), reintervention (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68–0.93), LOS (coefficient -1.03, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.83), and costs (coefficient -$30,407, 95% CI -$33,348 to -$27,867) compared with the LHM group. Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ significantly between the groups (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.44–2.75, P = 0.97).
Sensitivity analysis
To assess robustness of our findings, we conducted multivariate logistic regression using the observed data (Supplementary Table 2). Consistent with the IPTW analysis, the POEM group demonstrated lower rates of SAEs and reintervention. The POEM group also had significantly shorter LOS and reduced costs. No significant differences in 30-day mortality were observed between the groups.
Subgroup analysis
Subgroup analyses were conducted based on clinically relevant variables, including age (< 40 or ≥ 40 years) [12], sex (male or female), and disorder type (achalasia or non-achalasia spastic disorders), to evaluate outcomes ([Table 4]). SAEs were lower with POEM than LHM in patients aged ≥ 40, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in patients aged < 40. POEM also demonstrated lower SAE rates compared with LHM regardless of sex. In the analysis stratified by disorder type, POEM showed lower SAE rates for both achalasia and non-achalasia spastic disorders.
Discussion
This nationwide study compared outcomes between POEM and LHM. POEM was associated with fewer SAEs and a reduced need for reintervention.
During the study period, the total number of procedures in the United States was higher for LHM than POEM (mean annual procedures: 2.89 vs. 1.54 per 100,000 adults), whereas the proportion of POEM has been increasing annually. Despite being introduced 15 years ago [4] and its growing adoption as a standard treatment for achalasia and related esophageal motility disorders worldwide, POEM remains less commonly performed than LHM in the United States. POEM offers several advantages, including its minimally invasive nature, shorter recovery time, and the ability to perform precise myotomies. However, the predominance of LHM may be attributed to POEM's relatively recent introduction, cautious adoption by certain facilities and physicians [20], a limited number of endoscopists trained in this advanced technique, and regional variability in insurance coverage for POEM among US providers [22].
Previous comparative RCTs [12] [13] between POEM and LHM demonstrated the non-inferiority of POEM to LHM. The first multicenter RCT [12] included 221 patients and reported clinical success rates of 83% for POEM and 82% for LHM (difference: 1.4 percentage points), which is defined as symptom improvement without the need for reintervention for 2 years. The second RCT [13], conducted at a single center, involved 40 patients and found no significant difference in primary treatment success without reintervention at 12 months (95% vs. 100%, P = 0.24). Although both RCTs assessed additional outcomes such as AEs, their sample sizes were insufficient to reliably evaluate these outcomes, introducing a potential risk of type II error. Retrospective studies have reported fewer AEs [11] and greater cost-effectiveness [23] for POEM than for LHM.
In our study, SAEs occurred in less than 10% of patients in both groups (difference: 1.5 percentage points), consistent with previous trials and observational studies reporting rates ranging from 3% to 20% [6] [12] [24]. Although LHM is generally considered safe, risks of perforation and trauma were relatively higher compared with the POEM group (Table 2). As previously reported, risk of trauma and full-thickness injury during LHM procedures is approximately 2.9% [11], with additional risks of complications such as wound infections and intraoperative or postoperative infections, particularly in longer surgeries [17]. Reintervention is often associated with incomplete myotomy [25]. POEM offers potentially more precise techniques, particularly for measuring myotomy length, especially on the gastric side [22], and for directing distensibility using a functional lumen imaging probe during the procedure [26]. Beyond these findings, our study observed shorter LOS and lower costs with POEM, underscoring its advantages for patients. A previous study using Medicare data further demonstrated that even with the inclusion of post-procedure gastroesophageal reflux disease management, POEM provided cost-effective value at a 1-year follow-up [20] [27].
In the subgroup analysis, no statistically significant difference in SAEs was observed in the age < 40 years group. Younger age has been considered a potential challenge for POEM [12], possibly due to mechanisms specific to esophageal motility disorders in young adults or atypical motility patterns [26]. In addition, the reduced sample size in this subgroup may have limited the statistical power of the analysis. When categorized by disorder type, SAEs occurred in 8.0% of achalasia cases and 7.4% of non-achalasia spastic disorder cases. POEM demonstrated significantly lower rates of SAEs than LHM in both subgroups. As part of recent updates, POEM has emerged as a preferred treatment option for type III achalasia due to its ability to perform extended myotomy tailored to the extent of spastic involvement. In contrast, the role of POEM in non-achalasia spastic disorders such as esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction and jackhammer esophagus remains more individualized, with treatment decisions made on a case-by-case basis [1] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. In achalasia, symptoms are effectively managed by reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure. In contrast, treating non-achalasia spastic disorders requires precise assessment of esophageal motility, adding complexity to their management. This complexity highlights the potential utility of POEM over LHM for these conditions [28] [32].
This study has several notable aspects. By utilizing nationally representative data that encompass patients and hospitals regardless of payer, it allowed for calculation of annual procedure rates per 100,000 population. To our knowledge, this represents the largest cohort comparing POEM and LHM, offering valuable insights into current clinical practice.
However, there are several limitations. First, use of administrative data introduces inherent biases, such as underestimation of procedures due to variability in coding practices or incomplete documentation. Despite use of the IPTW method, residual confounding from unmeasured variables may still be present. Second, the study did not include clinical details such as prior treatments or comprehensive symptom assessments, including the Eckardt score, which is traditionally utilized in this context. Third, analysis of achalasia subtypes was not performed due to unavailability of subtype data. Although POEM is now considered a preferred approach for type III achalasia due to its ability to extend myotomy length, this subtype remains technically challenging and may be associated with different outcomes compared with types I and II. In addition, management of non-achalasia spastic motility disorders requires individualized assessment, and effectiveness of POEM in these conditions is still being refined. Finally, with a mean follow-up period of 6.5 months, this study provides insights into short-term outcomes, such as SAEs, whereas longer-term outcomes remain an important area for future investigation.
Conclusions
In this nationwide study, we found that LHM remains more commonly performed than POEM for esophageal motility disorders in the United States. However, POEM demonstrated superior outcomes, including fewer SAEs, reduced need for reintervention, shorter LOS, and lower costs. Broader adoption and establishment of POEM as a first-line treatment are highly anticipated.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Department of Endoscopy at Maimonides Medical Center for their invaluable support and contributions to this study. Their expertise and commitment were essential to its completion.
-
References
- 1
Yang D,
Bechara R,
Dunst CM.
et al.
AGA Clinical Practice Update on Advances in Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and
Remaining Questions-What We Have Learned in the Past Decade: Expert Review. Gastroenterology
2024; 167: 1483-1490
MissingFormLabel
- 2
Ramchandani M,
Nabi Z,
Inavolu P.
et al.
Recent advancements and future perspectives of per oral endoscopic myotomy. Clin Gastroenterol
Hepatol 2024; 22: 1983-1996 e2
MissingFormLabel
- 3
Onimaru M,
Inoue H,
Fujiyoshi Y.
et al.
Long-term clinical results of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: First
report of more than 10-year patient experience as assessed with a questionnaire-based
survey. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E409-e416
MissingFormLabel
- 4
Inoue H,
Minami H,
Kobayashi Y.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
MissingFormLabel
- 5
Inoue H,
Shiwaku H,
Kobayashi Y.
et al.
Statement for gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy from
an international multicenter experience. Esophagus 2020; 17: 3-10
MissingFormLabel
- 6
Ponds FA,
Fockens P,
Lei A.
et al.
Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs pneumatic dilation on symptom severity and
treatment outcomes among treatment-naive patients with achalasia: A randomized clinical
trial. JAMA 2019; 322: 134-144
MissingFormLabel
- 7
Khashab MA,
Vela MF,
Thosani N.
et al.
ASGE guideline on the management of achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 213-227
e6
MissingFormLabel
- 8
Vaezi MF,
Pandolfino JE,
Yadlapati RH.
et al.
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol
2020; 115: 1393-1411
MissingFormLabel
- 9
Weusten B,
Barret M,
Bredenoord AJ.
et al.
Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders - part 1: European Society
of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 498-515
MissingFormLabel
- 10
Inoue H,
Shiwaku H,
Iwakiri K.
et al.
Clinical practice guidelines for peroral endoscopic myotomy. Dig Endosc 2018; 30:
563-579
MissingFormLabel
- 11
Ali AB,
Khan NA,
Nguyen DT.
et al.
Robotic and per-oral endoscopic myotomy have fewer technical complications compared
to laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 3191-3196
MissingFormLabel
- 12
Werner YB,
Hakanson B,
Martinek J.
et al.
Endoscopic or Surgical Myotomy in Patients with Idiopathic Achalasia. N Engl J Med
2019; 381: 2219-2229
MissingFormLabel
- 13
de Moura ETH,
Jukemura J,
Ribeiro IB.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy vs laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication for
esophageal achalasia: A single-center randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol
2022; 28: 4875-4889
MissingFormLabel
- 14
Bhayani NH,
Kurian AA,
Dunst CM.
et al.
A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy
with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 1098-1103
MissingFormLabel
- 15
Chan SM,
Wu JC,
Teoh AY.
et al.
Comparison of early outcomes and quality of life after laparoscopic Heller's cardiomyotomy
to peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 27-32
MissingFormLabel
- 16
Schneider AM,
Louie BE,
Warren HF.
et al.
A matched comparison of per oral endoscopic myotomy to laparoscopic Heller myotomy
in the treatment of achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20: 1789-1796
MissingFormLabel
- 17
Peng L,
Tian S,
Du C.
et al.
Outcome of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treating achalasia compared with
laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2017; 27: 60-64
MissingFormLabel
- 18
Cotton PB,
Eisen GM,
Aabakken L.
et al.
A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest
Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
MissingFormLabel
- 19
Xu P,
Liu Z,
Zhang J.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy is an effective treatment for achalasia combined with hiatal
hernia. Surg Endosc 2024; 38: 4543-4549
MissingFormLabel
- 20
Charlson ME,
Pompei P,
Ales KL.
et al.
A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development
and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373-383
MissingFormLabel
- 21
Zhao CY,
Xu N,
Dong H.
et al.
Effect of sex on the outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.
World J Gastroenterol 2025; 31: 104579
MissingFormLabel
- 22
Lois AW,
Oelschlager BK,
Wright AS.
et al.
Use and safety of per-oral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia in the US. JAMA Surg 2022;
157: 490-497
MissingFormLabel
- 23
Attaar M,
Su B,
Wong HJ.
et al.
Comparing cost and outcomes between peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic heller
myotomy. Am J Surg 2021; 222: 208-213
MissingFormLabel
- 24
Inoue H,
Sato H,
Ikeda H.
et al.
Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: A series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221: 256-264
MissingFormLabel
- 25
Quénéhervé L,
Vauquelin B,
Berger A.
et al.
Risk factors for clinical failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia. Front
Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9: 1099533
MissingFormLabel
- 26
Fujiyoshi Y,
Fujiyoshi MRA,
Khalaf K.
et al.
Association of gastric myotomy length in peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) with gastro-esophageal
junction distensibility measured by Endoluminal Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (EndoFLIP).
Esophagus 2024; 21: 563-570
MissingFormLabel
- 27
Shah ED,
Chang AC,
Law R.
Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: per-oral endoscopic myotomy for the management
of achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 264-273 e3
MissingFormLabel
- 28
Shiwaku H,
Sato H,
Shimamura Y.
et al.
Risk factors and long-term course of gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral
endoscopic myotomy: A large-scale multicenter cohort study in Japan. Endoscopy 2022;
54: 839-847
MissingFormLabel
- 29
Ichkhanian Y,
Sanaei O,
Canakis A.
et al.
Esophageal peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treatment of esophagogastric junction
outflow obstruction: results from the first prospective trial. Endosc Int Open 2020;
8: E1137-e1143
MissingFormLabel
- 30
Morley TJ,
Mikulski MF,
Rade M.
et al.
Per-oral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of non-achalasia esophageal dysmotility
disorders: experience from a single high-volume center. Surg Endosc 2023; 37: 1013-1020
MissingFormLabel
- 31
Khashab MA,
Familiari P,
Draganov PV.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy is effective and safe in non-achalasia esophageal motility
disorders: an international multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E1031-e1036
MissingFormLabel
- 32
Puri R,
Giri S,
Panigrahi SC.
et al.
Efficacy and safety of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in non-achalasia esophageal motility
disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Esophagus 2024; 21: 419-429
MissingFormLabel
Correspondence
Publication History
Received: 14 June 2025
Accepted after revision: 02 August 2025
Accepted Manuscript online:
04 August 2025
Article published online:
27 August 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Yasutoshi Shiratori, Neha Sharma, Syed Matthew Kodilinye, Carla Barberan Parraga, Sarah Meribout, Aaron Tokayer, Susan Hutfless, Anthony Kalloo. Comparing peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic Heller myotomy for esophageal motility disorders: Nationwide cohort study. Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a26764230.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2676-4230
-
References
- 1
Yang D,
Bechara R,
Dunst CM.
et al.
AGA Clinical Practice Update on Advances in Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and
Remaining Questions-What We Have Learned in the Past Decade: Expert Review. Gastroenterology
2024; 167: 1483-1490
MissingFormLabel
- 2
Ramchandani M,
Nabi Z,
Inavolu P.
et al.
Recent advancements and future perspectives of per oral endoscopic myotomy. Clin Gastroenterol
Hepatol 2024; 22: 1983-1996 e2
MissingFormLabel
- 3
Onimaru M,
Inoue H,
Fujiyoshi Y.
et al.
Long-term clinical results of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: First
report of more than 10-year patient experience as assessed with a questionnaire-based
survey. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E409-e416
MissingFormLabel
- 4
Inoue H,
Minami H,
Kobayashi Y.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
MissingFormLabel
- 5
Inoue H,
Shiwaku H,
Kobayashi Y.
et al.
Statement for gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral endoscopic myotomy from
an international multicenter experience. Esophagus 2020; 17: 3-10
MissingFormLabel
- 6
Ponds FA,
Fockens P,
Lei A.
et al.
Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs pneumatic dilation on symptom severity and
treatment outcomes among treatment-naive patients with achalasia: A randomized clinical
trial. JAMA 2019; 322: 134-144
MissingFormLabel
- 7
Khashab MA,
Vela MF,
Thosani N.
et al.
ASGE guideline on the management of achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 213-227
e6
MissingFormLabel
- 8
Vaezi MF,
Pandolfino JE,
Yadlapati RH.
et al.
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol
2020; 115: 1393-1411
MissingFormLabel
- 9
Weusten B,
Barret M,
Bredenoord AJ.
et al.
Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders - part 1: European Society
of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 498-515
MissingFormLabel
- 10
Inoue H,
Shiwaku H,
Iwakiri K.
et al.
Clinical practice guidelines for peroral endoscopic myotomy. Dig Endosc 2018; 30:
563-579
MissingFormLabel
- 11
Ali AB,
Khan NA,
Nguyen DT.
et al.
Robotic and per-oral endoscopic myotomy have fewer technical complications compared
to laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 3191-3196
MissingFormLabel
- 12
Werner YB,
Hakanson B,
Martinek J.
et al.
Endoscopic or Surgical Myotomy in Patients with Idiopathic Achalasia. N Engl J Med
2019; 381: 2219-2229
MissingFormLabel
- 13
de Moura ETH,
Jukemura J,
Ribeiro IB.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy vs laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication for
esophageal achalasia: A single-center randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol
2022; 28: 4875-4889
MissingFormLabel
- 14
Bhayani NH,
Kurian AA,
Dunst CM.
et al.
A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy
with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 1098-1103
MissingFormLabel
- 15
Chan SM,
Wu JC,
Teoh AY.
et al.
Comparison of early outcomes and quality of life after laparoscopic Heller's cardiomyotomy
to peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 27-32
MissingFormLabel
- 16
Schneider AM,
Louie BE,
Warren HF.
et al.
A matched comparison of per oral endoscopic myotomy to laparoscopic Heller myotomy
in the treatment of achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20: 1789-1796
MissingFormLabel
- 17
Peng L,
Tian S,
Du C.
et al.
Outcome of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treating achalasia compared with
laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2017; 27: 60-64
MissingFormLabel
- 18
Cotton PB,
Eisen GM,
Aabakken L.
et al.
A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest
Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
MissingFormLabel
- 19
Xu P,
Liu Z,
Zhang J.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy is an effective treatment for achalasia combined with hiatal
hernia. Surg Endosc 2024; 38: 4543-4549
MissingFormLabel
- 20
Charlson ME,
Pompei P,
Ales KL.
et al.
A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development
and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373-383
MissingFormLabel
- 21
Zhao CY,
Xu N,
Dong H.
et al.
Effect of sex on the outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia.
World J Gastroenterol 2025; 31: 104579
MissingFormLabel
- 22
Lois AW,
Oelschlager BK,
Wright AS.
et al.
Use and safety of per-oral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia in the US. JAMA Surg 2022;
157: 490-497
MissingFormLabel
- 23
Attaar M,
Su B,
Wong HJ.
et al.
Comparing cost and outcomes between peroral endoscopic myotomy and laparoscopic heller
myotomy. Am J Surg 2021; 222: 208-213
MissingFormLabel
- 24
Inoue H,
Sato H,
Ikeda H.
et al.
Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: A series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221: 256-264
MissingFormLabel
- 25
Quénéhervé L,
Vauquelin B,
Berger A.
et al.
Risk factors for clinical failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia. Front
Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9: 1099533
MissingFormLabel
- 26
Fujiyoshi Y,
Fujiyoshi MRA,
Khalaf K.
et al.
Association of gastric myotomy length in peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) with gastro-esophageal
junction distensibility measured by Endoluminal Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (EndoFLIP).
Esophagus 2024; 21: 563-570
MissingFormLabel
- 27
Shah ED,
Chang AC,
Law R.
Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: per-oral endoscopic myotomy for the management
of achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 264-273 e3
MissingFormLabel
- 28
Shiwaku H,
Sato H,
Shimamura Y.
et al.
Risk factors and long-term course of gastroesophageal reflux disease after peroral
endoscopic myotomy: A large-scale multicenter cohort study in Japan. Endoscopy 2022;
54: 839-847
MissingFormLabel
- 29
Ichkhanian Y,
Sanaei O,
Canakis A.
et al.
Esophageal peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for treatment of esophagogastric junction
outflow obstruction: results from the first prospective trial. Endosc Int Open 2020;
8: E1137-e1143
MissingFormLabel
- 30
Morley TJ,
Mikulski MF,
Rade M.
et al.
Per-oral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of non-achalasia esophageal dysmotility
disorders: experience from a single high-volume center. Surg Endosc 2023; 37: 1013-1020
MissingFormLabel
- 31
Khashab MA,
Familiari P,
Draganov PV.
et al.
Peroral endoscopic myotomy is effective and safe in non-achalasia esophageal motility
disorders: an international multicenter study. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E1031-e1036
MissingFormLabel
- 32
Puri R,
Giri S,
Panigrahi SC.
et al.
Efficacy and safety of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in non-achalasia esophageal motility
disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Esophagus 2024; 21: 419-429
MissingFormLabel