Comparison of treatment outcomes of endoscope-guided pneumatic dilation and laparoscopic Heller myotomy

Abstract

The debate on which is the better choice between laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and endoscopic pneumatic dilation (PD) for esophageal achalasia has been ongoing for decades. This study aims to compare the results of endoscope-guided PD and LHM in 42 patients with achalasia between May 1996 and August 2011. Twenty-one patients who had received PD and 21 who had received LHM were enrolled. The cumulative remission rate was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method with the assessment of symptom scores between grades before and after PD or LHM done at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and then every year thereafter. Possible confounding factors related to the remissions were analyzed by Cox's proportional hazard model. For PD, the cumulative remission rates were 81.0% (1 year), 76.2% (2), 66.7% (3), 61.9% (4), and 47.6% (5). For LHM, the cumulative remission rates were 90.5% every year from the 1st to the 5th. The LHM patients had significantly better remission rates than the PD patients (p = 0.033, by log-rank test). The LHM group had a longer hospital stay than the PD group [median (interquartile range): 8 (6.5–10) days vs. 3 (2–3) days, p < 0.001) and had more reflux complications (52.4% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.024). No perforation occurred in either group. In conclusion, the 5-year cumulative effectiveness of LHM is better than that of PD despite the association of LHM with more reflux events (52.4%).

Keywords

• Clinical remission
• Endoscope-guided pneumatic dilation
• Esophageal achalasia
• Laparoscopic Heller myotomy