pISSN 2636-0004
eISSN 2636-0012

Table. 1.

Summary of the Results of Systematic Reviews on Clinical Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM)

Author Search period Studies included No. of cases POEM operative time (min)* Clinical success Complication (%) Mean follow-up duration (mo) GERD (%)
Barbieri et al (2015)21 2010–2013 16 551 156 (42–112) 93% as defined by clinically relevant improvement in dysphagia Adverse event (14) 6 13
Talukdar et al (2015)22 2005–2014 19 1,045 NA Significant reduction in Eckardt score overall effect size (Z) of –7.95 (P < 0.0001) Bleeding (1.0) 6.5 10.9
Mediastinal emphysema (5.2)
Perforation (2.3)
Pleural effusion (17.4)
Pneumonia (9.9)
Pneumoperitoneum (16.2)
Pneumothorax (8.7)
Subcutaneous emphysema (21.8)
Akintoye et al (2016)23 Up to 2014 27 1,733 88 ± 6 97% as defined by Eckardt score < 3 Bleeding (0.6) 8.8 15
Esophageal perforation (0.3)
Mucosal injury (9.4)
Pleural effusion (9.5)
Pneumoperitoneum (13)
Pneumothorax (5.4)
Subcutaneous emphysema (11)
Crespin et al (2017)24 Up to February 2015 19 1,310 NA 89.4% defined as Eckardt score < 3 in all studies except one using Eckardt score < 4 Mucosal perforation (9.0) 11.1 NA
Pleural effusion (10.1)
Pneumonia (7.9)
Pneumoperitoneum (16.9)
Pneumomediastinum (4.4)
Pneumothorax (5.3)
Subcutaneous emphysema (10.0)
Andolfi and Fisichella (2019)25 2008–2018 20 449 NA 95.8% defined by relevant clinical improvement of dysphagia NA 20.9 NA
Li et al (2019)26 Up to November 2017 10 373 66.7 (17.9–220) 92.9% defined as Eckardt score ≤ 3 Mediastinal emphysema (5.6) 30.0 10.2
Mucosal perforation (7.2)
Pneumothorax (1.9)
Pneumoperitoneum (5.6)
Subcutaneous emphysema (4.0)
Others (4.0)

GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; NA, not available.

*Values are presented as median (range) or mean ± standard deviation.

Int J Gastrointest Interv 2020;9:42~52 https://doi.org/10.18528/ijgii200007
© Int J Gastrointest Interv