MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417087735 · doi:10.1093/dote/doaf111

Durability and reflux outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic heller myotomy in achalasia: a meta-analysis of long-term studies

2025· article· en· W4417087735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Abosheisha, É. Nasr, Tariq Alhammali, Ahmed Alemam, Mustafa Alqasem, Abdelrahman Abdelaal, Md Abdus Samad Hasan, Ahmed Swealem, Abdulrahman Ismaiel, Mohamed Ismaiel

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMyotomyRefluxHeller myotomyEndoscopyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of achalasia. While short-term outcomes have been widely studied, evidence on long-term efficacy and safety remains limited and heterogeneous. This meta-analysis aimed to compare long-term clinical outcomes between POEM and LHM. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 15th August 2025. Studies were included if they directly compared POEM with LHM, reported outcomes with ≥2 years of follow-up, and provided data on operative time, length of hospital stay, functional outcomes, or reflux-related outcomes. Pooled mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies involving 1158 patients (POEM = 609; LHM = 549) were included, comprising nine unique studies and one follow-up publication. POEM was associated with significantly shorter operative time (MD: -31.65 minutes, 95% CI: -46.39 to -16.92, P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (MD: -0.78 days, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.52, P < 0.001). Functional outcomes, including dysphagia scores (MD: -0.24, 95% CI: -0.62 to 0.15, P = 0.23), postoperative Eckardt scores (MD: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.60, P = 0.65), and treatment success rates (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.96 to 2.13, P = 0.08), were comparable between POEM and LHM at both 2-5 years and ≥ 5 years. Reflux-related outcomes, including RSI, GERD-HRQL, GERD symptoms, heartburn resolution, and incidence of esophagitis, did not significantly differ between groups. However, continued postoperative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use was significantly more frequent after POEM (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.35 to 2.78, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Both POEM and LHM provide durable long-term relief of achalasia symptoms with comparable efficacy and reflux-related outcomes. POEM offers advantages in shorter operative time and hospital stay but is associated with a higher need for long-term PPI therapy. These findings support POEM as an effective long-term alternative to LHM, though further randomized studies with extended follow-up are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.055
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Esophagus→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→