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

BACKGROUND Achalasia 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.AIM To compare POEM and laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication(LM-PF) regarding their efficacy and outcomes for the treatment of achalasia.METHODS Forty 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).RESULTS There 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.CONCLUSION POEM 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 with a significantly higher rate of gastroesophageal reflux.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions:A multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND While endoscopic ultrasound(EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration(FNA)is considered a preferred technique for tissue sampling for solid lesions,fine needle biopsy(FNB)has recently been developed.AIM To compare the accuracy of FNB vs FNA in determining the diagnosis of solid lesions.METHODS A retrospective,multi-center study of EUS-guided tissue sampling using FNA vs FNB needles.Measured outcomes included diagnostic test characteristics(i.e.,sensitivity,specificity,accuracy),use of rapid on-site evaluation(ROSE),and adverse events.Subgroup analyses were performed by type of lesion and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE.A multivariable logistic regression was also performed.RESULTS A total of 1168 patients with solid lesions(n=468 FNA;n=700 FNB)underwent EUS-guided sampling.Mean age was 65.02±12.13 years.Overall,sensitivity,specificity and accuracy were superior for FNB vs FNA(84.70%vs 74.53%;99.29%vs 96.62%;and 87.62%vs 81.55%,respectively;P<0.001).On subgroup analyses,sensitivity,specificity,and accuracy of FNB alone were similar to FNA+ROSE[(81.66%vs 86.45%;P=0.142),(100%vs 100%;P=1.00)and(88.40%vs 85.43%;P=0.320].There were no difference in diagnostic yield of FNB alone vs FNB+ROSE(P>0.05).Multivariate analysis showed no significant predictor for better accuracy.On subgroup analyses,FNB was superior to FNA for non-pancreatic lesions;however,there was no difference between the techniques among pancreatic lesions.One adverse event was reported in each group.CONCLUSION FNB is superior to FNA with equivalent diagnostic test characteristics compared to FNA+ROSE in the diagnosis of non-pancreatic solid lesions.Our results suggest that EUS-FNB may eliminate the need of ROSE and should be employed as a first-line method in the diagnosis of solid lesions.