Table 5.

Comparison of Outcomes between Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy and Other Treatments for Esophageal Motility Disorders

Study	Treatment comparison	Patient (n)	Clinical responses (%)	Mean follow-up (mo)	Major complication (%)
Hungness et al. (2013) [30]	POEM vs. HM	18 vs. 55	89 (POEM)	6	17b) vs. 13b)
Bhayani et al. (2014) [46]	POEM vs. HM	37 vs. 64	95 vs. 90	6	13b) vs. 18b)
Kumbhari et al. (2015) [47]	POEM vs. HM	49 vs. 26	98 vs. 80	8.6 vs. 21.5	6b) vs. 27b)
Ponds et al. (2019) [48] a)	POEM vs. PD	67 vs. 66	92 vs. 54	24	0 vs. 3
Shea et al. (2020) [49]	POEM vs. HM	44 vs. 97	73.3 vs. 65.4	18.2 vs. 45.0	N/A
Wirsching et al. (2019) [50]	POEM vs. HM	23 vs. 28	Mean Eckardt score 0 at follow up (both)	2.8 vs. 3.4	9b) vs. 14b)
Werner et al. (2019) [38] a)	POEM vs. HM	112 vs. 109	83.0 vs. 81.7	24	2.7 vs. 7.3

HM, heller myotomy; N/A, not available; PD, pneumatic dilatation; POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy.

^a)Randomized trial.

^b)Minor complication rate was included.