Background and study aims Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as an efficacious treatment modality for the management of achalasia cardia (AC) and non-achalasia spastic esophageal motility disorders. Initial results are encouraging. We analyzed the safety and efficacy of POEM in a large cohort of patients with AC. Patients and methods The data from patients who underwent POEM (from January 2013 to June 2016) was prospectively collected and analyzed. Clinical success was defined as Eckardt score ≤ 3 after POEM procedure. Objective parameters including high-resolution manometry (HRM) and timed barium swallow (TBS) were analyzed and compared before and after the procedure. Gastroesophageal reflux was analyzed using 24-hour pH impedance study and esophagogastro-duodenoscopy. Results A total of 408 patients (mean age 40 years, range 4 – 77 years) underwent POEM during the specified period. POEM could be successfully completed in 396 (97 %) patients. Clinical success rates at 1, 2 and 3 years were 94 %, 91 % and 90 %, respectively. Mean Eckardt score was 7.07 ± 1.6 prior to POEM and 1.27 ± 1.06 after POEM (P = 0.001) at 1 year. Significant improvement in esophageal emptying on TBE (> 50 %) was documented in 93.8 % patients who completed 1-year follow up. Pre-procedure and post-procedure mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was 45 ± 16.5 mmHg and 15.6 ± 6.1 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.001). Technical and clinical success were comparable in naïve vs prior treated cases (97.3 % vs 96.8 %, P = 0.795) (95.7 % vs 92.6 %, P = 0.275). GERD was documented in 28.3 % patients with 24-hour pH-impedance study and erosive esophagitis was seen in 18.5 % of patients who underwent POEM. Conclusions POEM is safe, effective and has a durable response in patients with achalasia cardia. Prior treatment does not influence the outcomes of POEM.

published online; they have not yet been assigned to a journal issue. When these articles are published in an issue, they will be removed. Online First articles are copy-edited, typeset and approved by the authors before publication.

Background and study aims  Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) can be performed via an anterior or posterior approach, depending on the operator’s preference. Data are lacking on comparative outcomes of both approaches. Patients and methods  This is a pilot randomized study comparing endoscopic anterior and posterior myotomy during POEM in patients with Achalasia cardia (AC). Patients were randomized into 2 groups (n = 30 in each group); anterior myotomy group (AG) and posterior myotomy group (PG) and were followed at 1, 3 and 6 months after POEM. Results  Technical success was achieved in 100 % of cases in both groups and total operative time was comparable (AG – 65 ± 17.65 minutes versus PG – 61.2 ± 16.67; P  = 0.38); Mucosotomies were more frequent in AG (20 % vs 3.3 %; P  = 0.02). Difference in other perioperative adverse events (AE) including insufflation-related AE and bleeding in both groups were statistically insignificant. At 1-month follow-up Eckardt score AG 0.57 ± 0.56 vs PG 0.53 ± 0.71; ( P  = 0.81), mean LES pressure AG 11.93 ± 6.36 vs PG 11.77 ± 6.61; ( P  = 0.59) and esophageal emptying on timed barium swallow at 5 minutes AG 1.32 ± 1.08 cm vs PG 1.29 ± 0.79 cm; ( P  = 0.09) were comparable in both groups. At 3 months, Eckardt score (0.52 ± 0.59 vs 0.63 ± 0.62; P  = 0.51) was similar in both groups. Incidence of esophagitis on EGD was comparable in both groups (24 % vs 33.3 %; P  = 0.45), however, pH metry at 3 months showed significantly more esophageal acid exposure in posterior group (2.98 % ± 4.24 vs 13.99 % ± 14.48; P  < 0.01). At 6 months clinical efficacy and LES pressures were comparable in both groups. Conclusion  Anterior and posterior approaches to POEM seem to have equal efficacy. However, the occurrence of mucosotomies was higher in the anterior myotomy group and acid exposure was higher with the posterior myotomy approach during POEM.

Study demonstrates excellent safety profile of POEM with significant relief of symptoms, reduced pressure at HRM and improved emptying at TBE. Further prospective studies are required to compare with other treatment modalities.

No abstract