After 2 years of follow-up, LHM, as compared with pneumatic dilation, was not associated with superior rates of therapeutic success. (European Achalasia Trial Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR37, and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN56304564.).

Achalasia is a rare motility disorder of the oesophagus characterised by loss of enteric neurons leading to absence of peristalsis and impaired relaxation of the lower oesophageal sphincter. Although its cause remains largely unknown, ganglionitis resulting from an aberrant immune response triggered by a viral infection has been proposed to underlie the loss of oesophageal neurons, particularly in genetically susceptible individuals. The subsequent stasis of ingested food not only leads to symptoms of dysphagia, regurgitation, chest pain, and weight loss, but also results in an increased risk of oesophageal carcinoma. At present, pneumatic dilatation and Heller myotomy combined with an anti-reflux procedure are the treatments of choice and have comparable success rates. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy has recently been introduced as a new minimally invasive treatment for achalasia, but there have not yet been any randomised clinical trials comparing this option with pneumatic dilatation and Heller myotomy.

No abstract

No abstract

Netherlands trial register (NTR37) and Current Controlled Trials registry (ISRCTN56304564).

Achalasia is a relatively rare primary motor esophageal disorder, characterized by absence of relaxations of the lower esophageal sphincter and of peristalsis along the esophageal body. As a result, patients typically present with dysphagia, regurgitation and occasionally chest pain, pulmonary complication and malnutrition. New diagnostic methodologies and therapeutic techniques have been recently added to the armamentarium for treating achalasia. With the aim to offer clinicians and patients an up-to-date framework for making informed decisions on the management of this disease, the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus Guidelines proposed and endorsed the Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines (I-GOAL). The guidelines were prepared according the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-REX) tool, accredited for guideline production by NICE UK. A systematic literature search was performed and the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations were graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Given the relative rarity of this disease and the paucity of high-level evidence in the literature, this process was integrated with a three-step process of anonymous voting on each statement (DELPHI). Only statements with an approval rate >80% were accepted in the guidelines. Fifty-one experts from 11 countries and 3 representatives from patient support associations participated to the preparations of the guidelines. These guidelines deal specifically with the following achalasia issues: Diagnostic workup, Definition of the disease, Severity of presentation, Medical treatment, Botulinum Toxin injection, Pneumatic dilatation, POEM, Other endoscopic treatments, Laparoscopic myotomy, Definition of recurrence, Follow up and risk of cancer, Management of end stage achalasia, Treatment options for failure, Achalasia in children, Achalasia secondary to Chagas' disease.

Over a 17-year period, 92 patients with esophageal disease underwent colon interposition or bypass, with each operation performed by the same surgeon. The indication was cure of cancer in 20 patients, relief of dysphagia in 55 (cancer in 17 patients and benign in 38), loss of gastrointestinal (G.I.) continuity in ten, and tracheoesophageal fistula in seven patients (malignant in five, benign in 2). The thirty-day operative mortality rate was 5%, and the hospital mortality rate was 9%. Graft necrosis occurred in seven of 92 patients, four of whom later underwent a successful second reconstruction. Thirteen patients required subsequent revisional surgery. In 85 patients, the left colon based on the inferior mesenteric artery was used, and in seven, the right colon was used. Technical insights were gained to help preserve the blood supply to the graft and improve its function in transporting food. Thirty-four patients were available for interview 2-17 years after operation (median of 5 years) 28 of whom had benign disease, and six of whom had malignant disease); 82% of the patients felt they were cured of their preoperative symptoms, 18% improved, and none worsened. Eighty-eight per cent of the patients were able to receive an unrestricted diet. All patients except one were satisfied with the results of surgery, and, asked what they would do if they had to make the choice again, all responded that they would have the operation. Twenty-six of the interviewed patients had their eating ability evaluated with a test meal and the transit time of a liquid and solid barium bolus measured. Compared to controls, patients with colon interpositions consumed a smaller capacity meal over a longer period of time and were not dependent on liquids to flush the food through the colon graft. A colon interposition provides good quality of deglutition, is very durable, and is the organ of choice for patients who require an esophageal substitute and are potential candidates for long survival.

No abstract