Pneumatic balloon dilatation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a failed attempt at meta-analysis

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pneumatic balloon dilatation versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a failed attempt at meta-analysis

AU - de Heer, Jocelyn

AU - Desai, Madhav

AU - Boeckxstaens, Guy

AU - Zaninotto, Giovanni

AU - Fuchs, Karl-Hermann

AU - Sharma, Prateek

AU - Schachschal, Guido

AU - Mann, Oliver

AU - Rösch, Thomas

AU - Werner, Yuki

PY - 2021/2

Y1 - 2021/2

N2 - INTRODUCTION: The advent of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) shed some light on the role of the current standards in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia, namely endoscopic pneumatic dilatation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). We analyzed the quality of the current evidence comparing LHM and PD.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane for meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing PD and LHM or open surgery, limited to English language full-text articles. After a detailed review of these meta-analyses, all studies included were analyzed further in depth with respect to treatment protocol, assessment of success, complications and sequelae such as gastroesophageal reflux (GER), as well as follow-up details.RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCT), 5 with LHM and 1 with open surgery, were found, published in 10 papers. In contrast to a rather homogeneous LHM technique, PD regimens as well as the clinical dysphagia scores were different in every RCT; most RCTs also showed methodological limitations. There were nine meta-analyses which included a variable number of these RCTs or other cohort studies. Meta-analyses between 2009 and 2013 favored surgery, while the 4 most recent ones reached divergent conclusions. The main difference might have been whether repeated dilatation was regarded as part of the PD protocol or as failure.CONCLUSIONS: The variability in PD techniques and in definition of clinical success utilized in the achalasia RCTs on PD versus LHM render the conclusions of meta-analyses unreliable. Further randomized studies should be based on uniform criteria; in the meantime, publication of even more meta-analyses should be avoided.

AB - INTRODUCTION: The advent of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) shed some light on the role of the current standards in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia, namely endoscopic pneumatic dilatation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). We analyzed the quality of the current evidence comparing LHM and PD.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane for meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing PD and LHM or open surgery, limited to English language full-text articles. After a detailed review of these meta-analyses, all studies included were analyzed further in depth with respect to treatment protocol, assessment of success, complications and sequelae such as gastroesophageal reflux (GER), as well as follow-up details.RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCT), 5 with LHM and 1 with open surgery, were found, published in 10 papers. In contrast to a rather homogeneous LHM technique, PD regimens as well as the clinical dysphagia scores were different in every RCT; most RCTs also showed methodological limitations. There were nine meta-analyses which included a variable number of these RCTs or other cohort studies. Meta-analyses between 2009 and 2013 favored surgery, while the 4 most recent ones reached divergent conclusions. The main difference might have been whether repeated dilatation was regarded as part of the PD protocol or as failure.CONCLUSIONS: The variability in PD techniques and in definition of clinical success utilized in the achalasia RCTs on PD versus LHM render the conclusions of meta-analyses unreliable. Further randomized studies should be based on uniform criteria; in the meantime, publication of even more meta-analyses should be avoided.

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-020-07421-x

DO - 10.1007/s00464-020-07421-x

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 32180002

VL - 35

SP - 602

EP - 611

JO - SURG ENDOSC

JF - SURG ENDOSC

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 2

ER -