A Matched Comparison of Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy to Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy in the Treatment of Achalasia

Background Per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly utilized to treat patients with achalasia. Early results have demonstrated significant improvement of symptoms, but there are concerns about postoperative reflux. With only limited comparative data available, we sought to compare POEM to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) with partial fundoplication. Methods This is a retrospective review of 42 POEM and 84 LHM patients undergoing primary myotomy for achalasia. Patients were matched by achalasia type, by Eckardt and dysphagia scores, and by quality of life (QOL) metrics. Analysis at 6–12-month follow-up evaluated these metrics, PPI use, pH, manometric, and endoscopic data. Results We matched 25 patients with achalasia types I (6), II (13), and III (6). Follow-up was longer for LHM at 158.1 (36.5–272.9) weeks versus 36.2 (22.2–41.2) weeks ( p = 0.001). Eckardt scores, QOL metrics, and dysphagia significantly improved in both groups. DeMeester scores and total percent time less than 4 were abnormal in both groups and comparable ( p = 0.925 and p = 0.838). Esophagitis was seen in 53.4 % (POEM) and 31.6 % (LHM) (Yates’ p = 0.91), and PPI use was equivalent at 36 %. Conclusion Early clinical outcomes are excellent with POEM and comparable to the standard of care LHM. Long-term follow-up is required as concerns for reflux persist.