Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Highlights from the literature
  1. Ayodele Sasegbon1,
  2. Dipesh Harshvadan Vasant1,2
  1. 1Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Gastroenterology Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dipesh Harshvadan Vasant, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; dipesh.vasant{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Network meta-analysis comparing surgical and endoscopic treatments in achalasia

Recent advances in motility diagnostics and novel endoscopic approaches have revolutionised the landscape for the management of idiopathic achalasia. In this context, Mundre et al1 performed a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pneumatic dilatation (PD), per-oral endoscopic myomectomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myomectomy (LHM).

Nine eligible RCTs comprising 911 patients were analysed and results were dichotomised into either treatment failure or success, after a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. A total of 317 patients underwent PD; 222 had POEM; and 372 had LHM. While POEM was least likely to result in treatment failure (relative risk (RR) 0.33, P-0.89) with LHM ranked second (RR 0.45, P-0.61), both POEM and LHM were superior to PD. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of POEM and LHM. There were no significant differences between the three treatments in terms of perforation rates, need for reintervention or serious adverse events.

In summary, the authors report that POEM and LHM are equally efficacious and should be considered …

View Full Text


  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. The provenance and peer review statement has been included.

  • Contributors AS and DHV both performed literature review, selected the articles included and contributed to the composition of the paper. DHV is the supervising author and guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.