Table 2.
Reported Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy Treatment Data, Stratified By Quality of Evidence
| First author, year | Comparison, n | Follow-up, mo | Post-treatment reflux, % | Efficacy, % |
|
| ||||
| Randomized controlled trials | ||||
| Ponds,33 2017 | POEM 67 | 12 | POEM esophagitis, 40 | POEM 92 |
| PD 66 | PD esophagitis, 13.1 | PD 70 | ||
| Nonrandomized comparisons, LHM vs POEM | ||||
| Bhayani,34 2014 | POEM 37 | 6 | POEM 39 | POEM 100 |
| LHM 64 | LHM 32 | LHM 92 | ||
| Chan,35 2016 | POEM 33 | >6 | POEM 15 | POEM 100 |
| LHM 23 | LHM 26 | LHM 87 | ||
| Kumbhari,36 2015 | POEM 49 | 9 | POEM 39 | POEM 98 |
| LHM 26 | LHM 46 | LHM 81 | ||
| Schneider,37 2016 | POEM 42 | 12 | Not reported | POEM 91 |
| LHM 84 | LHM 84 | |||
| Teitelbaum,38 2013 | POEM 17 | Not reported | POEM 17 | POEM 100 |
| LHM 12 | LHM 31 | LHM 87 | ||
|
| ||||
| Author | Series, n | Mean follow-up, mo | Adverse events, % | Symptom improvement, % |
|
| ||||
| Uncontrolled trials (>100 patients, ≥12 month follow-up) | ||||
| Cai,39 2014 | 100 | 11.5 | 0 | 97 |
| Familiari,40 2016 | 100 | 11 | 0 | 95 |
| Hungness,41 2016 | 115 | 19 | 3 | 92 |
| Inoue,30 2015 | 500 | >36 | 3 | 89 |
| Kumbhari,42 2017 | 282 | 12 | 58 GERa | 94 |
| Ngamruengphong,43 2017 | 205 | 31 | 8 | 91 |
| Ramchandani,44 2016 | 200 | 12 | 0 | 92 |
GER, gastroesophageal reflux.
a
All patients were studied with pH-metry after POEM.