{"title":"Repeat Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: Technical Difficulty and Risk Factors.","authors":"Li-Yun Ma, Ke-Yi Guo, Zu-Qiang Liu, Shi-Yao Chen, Yun-Shi Zhong, Yi-Qun Zhang, Wei-Feng Chen, Li-Li Ma, Wen-Zheng Qin, Jian-Wei Hu, Ming-Yan Cai, Li-Qing Yao, Quan-Lin Li, Ping-Hong Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Repeat peroral endoscopic myotomy (Re-POEM) appeared to be a promising salvage option for patients with persistent/recurrent symptoms after initial POEM, but it may be more technical challenging. Here we aim to evaluate the safety and technical difficulty of Re-POEM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July 2012 and October 2023, 158 achalasia patients underwent Re-POEM were retrospectively enrolled. Another 2978 patients without prior myotomy were selected for naïve POEM. After propensity score matching (PSM), procedure-related parameters were compared between the two groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to reveal risk factors for difficult Re-POEM (defined as procedure time ≥ 90 min).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With similar baseline characteristics between two groups after PSM, the procedure time was comparable between Re-POEM and naïve POEM groups (61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9, p=0.496). The Re-POEM group showed shorter esophageal myotomy length (7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1, p<0.001) and longer gastric myotomy length (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.1±0.4, p=0.017), compared with the naïve POEM group. Mucosal injury in Re-POEM group was slightly higher, which was not statistically significant (20.3% vs. 13.9%, p=0.135). No differences were found in the incidence of gas-related adverse events (AEs), major AEs, and technical difficulty. Multivariate analysis determined mucosal edema (OR=4.942, 95% CI, 1.554-15.714, p=0.007) and submucosal fibrosis (OR=3.817, 95% CI, 1.333-10.931, p=0.013) to be independent risk factors for difficult Re-POEM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Re-POEM appears safe and feasible as a salvage option after initial POEM failure, with comparable procedure duration, incidence of AEs and technical difficulty to naïve POEM. Mucosal edema and submucosal fibrosis were associated with difficult Re-POEM.</p>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.11.019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Repeat peroral endoscopic myotomy (Re-POEM) appeared to be a promising salvage option for patients with persistent/recurrent symptoms after initial POEM, but it may be more technical challenging. Here we aim to evaluate the safety and technical difficulty of Re-POEM.
Methods: Between July 2012 and October 2023, 158 achalasia patients underwent Re-POEM were retrospectively enrolled. Another 2978 patients without prior myotomy were selected for naïve POEM. After propensity score matching (PSM), procedure-related parameters were compared between the two groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to reveal risk factors for difficult Re-POEM (defined as procedure time ≥ 90 min).
Results: With similar baseline characteristics between two groups after PSM, the procedure time was comparable between Re-POEM and naïve POEM groups (61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9, p=0.496). The Re-POEM group showed shorter esophageal myotomy length (7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1, p<0.001) and longer gastric myotomy length (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.1±0.4, p=0.017), compared with the naïve POEM group. Mucosal injury in Re-POEM group was slightly higher, which was not statistically significant (20.3% vs. 13.9%, p=0.135). No differences were found in the incidence of gas-related adverse events (AEs), major AEs, and technical difficulty. Multivariate analysis determined mucosal edema (OR=4.942, 95% CI, 1.554-15.714, p=0.007) and submucosal fibrosis (OR=3.817, 95% CI, 1.333-10.931, p=0.013) to be independent risk factors for difficult Re-POEM.
Conclusions: Re-POEM appears safe and feasible as a salvage option after initial POEM failure, with comparable procedure duration, incidence of AEs and technical difficulty to naïve POEM. Mucosal edema and submucosal fibrosis were associated with difficult Re-POEM.
背景和目的:对于初次口腔内镜肌切开术(POEM)后症状持续/复发的患者来说,重复口腔内镜肌切开术(Re-POEM)似乎是一种很有前景的挽救选择,但它可能更具技术挑战性。在此,我们旨在评估再POEM的安全性和技术难度:2012年7月至2023年10月期间,158名贲门失弛缓症患者接受了Re-POEM,我们对这些患者进行了回顾性研究。另外 2978 名未接受过肌切术的患者被选中接受天真 POEM。经过倾向评分匹配(PSM)后,比较了两组患者的手术相关参数。进行了单变量和多变量分析,以揭示困难再POEM(定义为手术时间≥90分钟)的风险因素:结果:在PSM术后两组患者基线特征相似的情况下,再POEM组与新POEM组的手术时间相当(61.4±27.0 vs. 59.3±29.9,P=0.496)。再POEM组的食管肌切开长度更短(7.0±2.1 vs. 8.2±1.1,p结论:再POEM作为初次POEM失败后的一种挽救方案似乎安全可行,手术持续时间、AEs发生率和技术难度与新POEM相当。粘膜水肿和粘膜下纤维化与再次 POEM 的难度有关。
期刊介绍:
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.