Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy, Pneumatic Dilatation, and Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia.

Background

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilatation (PD), and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are common treatments for esophageal achalasia. Literature evidence is restricted to pairwise analysis and PD versus POEM comparison is missing. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to comprehensively compare outcomes within these three surgical approaches with those of esophageal achalasia. Materials and

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were consulted. A systematic review and a fully Bayesian study level arm-based random effect NMA were performed.

Results

Nineteen studies (14 observational and 5 randomized controlled trial) and 4407 patients were included. Overall, 50.4% underwent LHM, 42.8% PD, and 6.8% POEM. The postoperative dysphagia remission was statistically significantly improved in POEM compared with LHM and PD (risk ratio [RR] = 1.21; 95% credible intervals [CIs] = 1.04-1.47 and RR = 1.40; 95% CIs = 1.14-1.79, respectively). Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) rate was higher in POEM than in LHM and PD (RR = 1.75; 95% CIs = 1.35-2.03 and RR = 1.36; 95% CIs = 1.18-1.68, respectively). Postoperative Eckardt score was significantly lower in POEM than in LHM and PD (standardized mean difference (smd) = -0.6; 95% CIs = -1.4 to -0.2 and smd = -1.2; 95% CIs = -2.3 to -0.2, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found comparing LHM and PD in any of the analyzed outcomes.

Conclusions

In the short-term follow-up, POEM seems to be associated with better dysphagia improvement and higher postoperative GERD than LHM and PD. The choice of the ideal initial management should be left to multidisciplinary team discussion and personalized on each patient basis.