Adopted healthy behaviors were inversely associated with the probability of ACN detection. Lifestyle assessment might be useful for risk stratification in CRC screening.
Objectives. Achalasia is a primary motility disorder of the esophagus characterized by aperistalsis and failure of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation. Treatment of achalasia aims at reducing LES pressure. The common treatment modalities are laparoscopic Heller myotomy and pneumatic dilatation, but during the last decade, a promising treatment, per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), has been introduced. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the outcome of POEM in treatmentnaive patients. Materials and Methods. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed using the terms 'Achalasia AND (POEM OR peroral endoscopic myotomy OR per-oral endoscopic myotomy)'. Inclusion criteria were: original article; English language; n ≥ 20 with ≥ 90 % treatment-naive patients; follow-up ≥ 3 months; and outcome evaluation of POEM including symptom score and objective tests. Exclusion criteria were: reviews and metaanalyses; pediatric data; duplicates; and articles with overlapping data material. Results. Of the 1641 articles identified, seven were included. The included studies all reported a short term clinical success of > 90%. Clinical success including post POEM reflux was mainly estimated by symptom scorings. There were few procedure-related complications. Conclusions. The studies of treatment-naive patients indicate a high rate of clinical success. Nevertheless, a more systematic and standardized evaluation is recommended to improve the reports on outcome of POEM. The follow-up rate should be high and the evaluation protocol should include both symptom scoring and objective testing with predefined treatment goals.
Background and aims Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an established therapy for achalasia, but outcome evaluation has often been limited to Eckardt score (ES). The present study was aimed to improve knowledge about outcome evaluation and predictive outcome factors by performing a comprehensive objective evaluation of achalasia patients treated by POEM. Methods This single centre prospective study reports outcome data 12 months after POEM in treatment-naive achalasia patients. A predefined follow-up protocol included ES, high resolution manometry, 24-h pH measurement, upper endoscopy and timed barium esophagogram (TBE). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to analyze association between post-POEM variables and identify predictive factors for objective outcome. Results Fifty patients were included with a drop-out rate of <5%. ES, lower oesophageal sphincter pressures, TBE heights and maximal oesophageal diameter were all reduced after POEM ( p < .001), and 28% (13/47) of the patients had a positive 24-h pH registration. An oesophageal diameter >3 cm after POEM was associated with treatment failure assessed by ES ( p = .04) and TBE ( p = .03). Advanced achalasia stage ( p = .02) and long symptom duration ( p = .04) were identified as independent predictive factors for poor outcome assessed by TBE. Conclusions The present study confirms that POEM is an efficient therapy for achalasia. The comprehensive objective evaluation after POEM demonstrates that long symptom duration and major changes in oesophageal anatomy at diagnosis imply poor treatment outcome, and a post-POEM dilated oesophagus is associated with treatment failure. Key messages Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is established as a safe and effective therapy for achalasia. Timed barium esophagogram offers objective variables that are valuable in treatment response evaluation. Advanced achalasia stage and long symptom duration are predictive factors for poor objective treatment response after POEM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.