Early clinical experience with the POEM procedure for achalasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a viable alternative to standard Heller myotomy for surgical treatment of achalasia. Outcomes from the United States, Europe and Asia have been reported. We sought to report data after the initiation of POEM in a Canadian centre. METHODS: We enrolled patients with achalasia in a research ethics board-approved pilot study. Surgeons learned the POEM procedure in a systematic manner that included visiting experts in POEM, practice in an animal laboratory and mentoring from POEM experts. Preoperative evaluation included manometry, 24-hour pH, barium swallow, endoscopy and Eckhardt Symptom Score. All patients underwent gastrograffin swallow on postoperative day 1. Patients were re-evaluated using the Eckhardt score on postoperative day 14. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent POEM. Seven patients had previous endoscopic treatments: 6 had balloon dilatation and 1 had botulinum toxin injection. Mean preoperative Eckhardt score was 8.1 ± 2.4. Mean preoperative lower esophageal sphincter resting and residual pressure was 32.3 ± 9.2 and 20.8 ± 5.3, respectively. Mean duration of surgery was 141.3 ± 43.7 minutes. Mean length of hospital stay was 1 day. No major perioperative complications occurred. On postoperative day 14, the mean Eckhardt score was 1 ± 1.2. CONCLUSION: Our approach to POEM introduction was systematic and deliberate. The procedure is safe, feasible and has good perioperative outcomes. Our early results are consistent with current literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".