44. LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF PERORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY FOR PATIENTS WITH ACHALASIA: A SINGLE-CENTRE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and study aims: The short-term outcomes of Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia are well described, however, there is limited long-term data in the literature. This study aims to retrospectively assess the long-term outcomes of the POEM in a Canadian tertiary care centre. Methods All patients who underwent POEM for treatment of Achalasia with minimum follow-up of at least 4 years at a tertiary care centre were enrolled in this study. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success defined as a post-POEM Eckardt score ≤ 3 at ≥48 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in body mass index (BMI), incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), adverse events and length of hospital stay. Result Thirty-eight patient (aged 53.9 ± 17.9) underwent POEM, with a median follow-up period of 61 months (48–79). The mean Eckardt score was significantly reduced from 7.7 ± 1.9 to 1.2 ± 0.6 (P < 0.001). All patients achieved post-POEM Eckardt scores of ≤3 at ≥48 months. BMI increased from 27.4 ± 6.5 pre-POEM to 29.4 ± 6.7 (P < 0.003) post-POEM. Twelve (31.5%) patients developed pathologic reflux. Conclusion POEM is an effective and safe procedure for achalasia with durable long-term outcomes. Larger series with longer follow-up are required to confirm these results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".