Peroral endoscopic myotomy for Jackhammer esophagus: to cut or not to cut the lower esophageal sphincter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: With the success of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in treatment of achalasia, its successful application to other spastic esophageal motility disorders such as Jackhammer esophagus has been noted. The question of whether the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) should be included in the myotomy for Jackhammer esophagus is a topic of current debate. Here, we report our experience and results with four patients with Jackhammer esophagus treated with POEM. The clinical and manometric results are presented and their potential implications are discussed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2014 and July 2015, four patients underwent POEM for treatment of Jackhammer esophagus at our center. Manometry was performed prior to and after POEM. All patients met the Chicago classification criteria for Jackhammer esophagus and received a barium esophagram and endoscopic examination before having POEM. RESULTS: All patients had uneventful procedures without any intraoperative or post-procedure complications. Patients in which the LES was included during POEM had resolution or significant improvement in symptoms. One patient in whom the LES was preserved had resolution of chest pain but developed significant dysphagia and regurgitation. Subsequently this individual received a repeat POEM which included the LES, resulting in symptom resolution. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is a suitable treatment for patients with Jackhammer esophagus. Until there are larger-scale randomized studies, we speculate that based on our clinical experience and physiologic and manometric observations, obligatory inclusion of the LES is justified to reduce the risk of symptom development from iatrogenic ineffective esophageal motility or subsequent progression to achalasia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".