Peroral endoscopic myotomy vs laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication for esophageal achalasia: A single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUNDAchalasia is a rare benign esophageal motor disorder characterized by incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The treatment of achalasia is not curative, but rather is aimed at reducing LES pressure. In patients who have failed noninvasive therapy, surgery should be considered. Myotomy with partial fundoplication has been considered the first-line treatment for non-advanced achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), a technique that employs the principles of submucosal endoscopy to perform the equivalent of a surgical myotomy, has emerged as a promising minimally invasive technique for the management of this condition. AIMTo compare POEM and laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication (LM-PF) regarding their efficacy and outcomes for the treatment of achalasia. METHODSForty treatment-naive adult patients who had been diagnosed with achalasia based on clinical and manometric criteria (dysphagia score ≥ II and Eckardt score > 3) were randomized to undergo either LM-PF or POEM. The outcome measures were anesthesia time, procedure time, symptom improvement, reflux esophagitis (as determined with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire), barium column height at 1 and 5 min (on a barium esophagogram), pressure at the LES, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), length of stay (LOS), and quality of life (QoL). RESULTSThere were no statistically significant differences between the LM-PF and POEM groups regarding symptom improvement at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up (P = 0.192, P = 0.242, and P = 0.242, respectively). However, the rates of reflux esophagitis at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up were significantly higher in the POEM group (P = 0.014, P < 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively). There were also no statistical differences regarding the manometry values, the occurrence of AEs, or LOS. Anesthesia time and procedure time were significantly shorter in the POEM group than in the LM-PF group (185.00 ± 56.89 and 95.70 ± 30.47 min vs 296.75 ± 56.13 and 218.75 ± 50.88 min, respectively; P = 0.001 for both). In the POEM group, there were improvements in all domains of the QoL questionnaire, whereas there were improvements in only three domains in the LM-PF group. CONCLUSIONPOEM and LM-PF appear to be equally effective in controlling the symptoms of achalasia, shortening LOS, and minimizing AEs. Nevertheless, POEM has the advantage of improving all domains of QoL, and shortening anesthesia and procedure times but