A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3098
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Attempt to read property "Count" on bool

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 3100

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3100
Function: _error_handler

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilation for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Presently, the primary endoscopic options for the treatment of achalasia are peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and pneumatic dilation. But the clinical outcomes of POEM and pneumatic dilation for achalasia have not yet to be fully evaluated. So, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the two treatment modalities. We searched all the relevant studies published up to September 2019 examining the comparative efficacy between POEM and pneumatic dilation. Outcomes included success rate, Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter pressure and adverse events. Outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratios and mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager 5.3. Seven studies with a total of 619 patients were identified. There were 298 patients underwent POEM treatment and 321 patients underwent pneumatic dilation treatment. The clinical success rate was higher in the POEM group than that in the pneumatic dilation group at 6, 12 and 24 months' follow-up, with a risk ratio of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06-1.22, P = 0.0002, I= 0%), 1.34 (95% CI, 1.24-1.45, P < 0.00001, I= 17%) and 1.35 (95% CI, 1.10-1.65, P = 0.004, I= 70%), respectively. The change of Eckardt scores was more obvious in the POEM group than in the pneumatic dilation group, with a mean difference of 1.19 (95% CI, 0.78-1.60, P < 0.00001, I= 70%). The rate of gastroesophageal reflux and other complications for POEM was significantly higher than for pneumatic dilation, with a risk ratio of 4.17 (95% CI, 1.52-11.45, P = 0.006, I= 61%) and 3.78 (95% CI, 1.41-10.16, P = 0.008, I= 0%). Our current evidence suggests that the long-term efficacy of POEM was superior to that of pneumatic dilation, but accompanied by higher complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000001800DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pneumatic dilation
24
poem pneumatic
12
peroral endoscopic
8
endoscopic myotomy
8
dilation achalasia
8
clinical outcomes
8
success rate
8
patients underwent
8
pneumatic
6
dilation
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!