Search

Background: Previous studies analyzing short-term outcomes for per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) have shown excellent clinical response rates and shorter operative times compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Despite this, many payors have been slow to recognize POEM as a valid treatment option. Furthermore, comparative studies analyzing long-term outcomes are limited. This study compares perioperative and long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and reimbursement for POEM and LHM at a single institution. Methods: Adult patients who underwent POEM or LHM between 2014 and 2021 and had complete preoperative data with at least one complete follow up, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, success rate, operative time, myotomy length, length of stay, pre- and postoperative symptom scores, anti-reflux medication use, cost and reimbursement were compared. Results: 58 patients met inclusion with 25 undergoing LHM and 33 undergoing POEM. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics. Treatment success (Eckardt ≤ 3) for POEM and LHM was achieved by 88% and 76% of patients, respectively (p = 0.302). POEM patients had a shorter median operative time (106 min. vs. 145 min., p = 0.003) and longer median myotomy length (11 cm vs. 8 cm, p < 0.001). All LHM patients had a length of stay (LOS) ≥ 1 day vs. 51.5% for POEM patients (p < 0.001). Both groups showed improvements in dysphagia, heartburn, regurgitation, Eckardt score, GERD HRQL, RSI, and anti-reflux medication use. The improvement in dysphagia score was greater in patients undergoing POEM (2.30 vs 1.12, p = 0.003). Median hospital reimbursement was dramatically less for POEM ($3,658 vs. $14,152, p = 0.002), despite median hospital costs being significantly lower compared to LHM ($2,420 vs. $3,132, p = 0.029). Results: POEM is associated with a shorter operative time and LOS, longer myotomy length, and greater resolution of dysphagia compared to LHM. POEM costs are significantly less than LHM but is poorly reimbursed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Revision of a failed laparoscopic fundoplication carries higher risk of complication and lower chance of success compared to the original surgery. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an endoscopic alternative for select GERD patients without need of a moderate/large hiatal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TIF 2.0 after failed laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplication (TIFFF). Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TIFFF between September 2017 and December 2020 using TIF 2.0 technique (EsophyX Z/Z+) performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. Patients were included if they had (1) recurrent GERD symptoms, (2) pathologic reflux based upon pH testing or Grade C/D esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, and (3) hiatal hernia ≤ 2 cm. The primary outcome was improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) post-TIFFF. The TIFFF cohort was also compared to a similar surgical re-operative cohort using propensity score matching. Results: Twenty patients underwent TIFFF (median 4.1 years after prior fundoplication) and mean GERD-HRQL score improved from 24.3 ± 22.9 to 14.75 ± 21.6 (p = 0.014); mean Reflux Severity Index (RSI) score improved from 14.1 ± 14.6 to 9.1 ± 8.0 (p = 0.046) with 8/10 (80%) of patients with normal RSI (< 13) post-TIF. Esophagitis healed in 78% of patients. PPI use decreased from 85 to 55% with 8/20 (45%) patients off of PPI. Importantly, mean acid exposure time decreased from 12% ± 17.8 to 0.8% ± 1.1 (p = 0.028) with 9/9 (100%) of patients with normalized pH post-TIF. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy outcomes between TIFFF and surgical revision, but TIFFF had significantly fewer late adverse events. Conclusion: Endoscopic rescue with TIF is a safe and efficacious alternative to redo laparoscopic surgery in symptomatic patients with appropriate anatomy and objective evidence of persistent or recurrent reflux. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Symptomatic Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) occurs mostly in the elderly, who often have significant comorbidities, and poor neck hyperextension, putting them at high risk for surgical management while also increasing the potential of technical failure. Flexible endoscopic incisional therapy for Zenker's diverticulum (FEIT-Z) offers a safe approach to this problem with high technical and clinical success rates. There are limited data on its use following a failed surgical approach or in patients unfit for a surgical approach. The aim of this study was to assess clinical and technical outcomes of FEIT-Z in patients who were non-operative candidates or refused or failed surgical management. Methods: Patients who underwent FEIT-Z from January 2015 to February 2019 at a tertiary referral center were included. Patient demographics, prior ZD surgical history, procedural data, dysphagia scores, clinical success, and adverse events (AE) were collected. Univariable analysis was performed to assess differences between pre- and post-FEIT-Z dysphagia scores. Results: 30 patients undergoing FEIT-Z were included. Seven had a prior failed ZD surgical approach, 6 refused surgical management, and 17 were deemed to be non-operative candidates based on medical comorbidities. Mean age was 78.4 (± 12.1) and 36.7% were male. Technical success of FEIT-Z was 96.7%. There was a significant improvement in dysphagia scores after FEIT-Z: 2.3 (± 0.64) vs. before, 0.4 (± 0.76) (p < 0.001). Long-term clinical success was achieved in 73.3% of patients. Adverse events were seen in 23.3% of patients; however, these were graded as mild in 85.7% of patients. One microperforation was managed with antibiotics. Conclusion: FEIT-Z is a safe procedure with low adverse events and a high rate of technical and clinical success. FEIT-Z can be done in patients who fail previous surgical treatment, refuse a surgical approach, or are not surgical candidates due to medical comorbidity or other factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy poses challenges for deep enteroscopy. Current overtube-assisted methods have long procedure times and utilize endoscopes with smaller working channels that preclude use of standard accessories. A through-the-scope balloon-assisted enteroscopy (TTS-BAE) device uses standard endoscopes with a large working channel to allow metallic and plastic stent insertion. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of TTS-BAE in patients with altered surgical anatomy.Methods: A retrospective, multicenter study of TTS-BAE in altered anatomy patients at two USA and one German institution was performed between January 2013 and December 2014. Type of anatomy, procedure indication and duration, adverse events, and target, technical, and clinical success were recorded.Results: A total of 32 patients (mean age 54 years, Caucasian 81.6%, female 42.1%, mean BMI 25.4 kg/m2) underwent 38 TTS-BAE procedures. Thirty-two percent of cases had a prior attempt at conventional enteroscopy which failed to reach the target site. The target was successfully reached in 23 (60.5%) cases. Of the 23 cases that reached the intended target, 22 (95.7%) achieved technical success and 21 (91.3%) achieved clinical success. The median procedure time was 43 min. Target, technical, and clinical success rates for TTS-BAE-assisted ERCP (n = 31) were 58.1, 54.8 and 54.8%. Seven self-expandable metallic stents (five biliary, two jejunal) were attempted, and all successfully deployed. Adverse events occurred in 4 (10.4%) cases, including one luminal perforation.Conclusion: TTS-BAE is an alternative to overtube-assisted enteroscopy that is comparable in safety in patients with surgically altered anatomies. Technical success in the instances where the target had been reached was excellent. TTS-BAE confers an advantage over overtube-assisted enteroscopy as it can facilitate the deployment of self-expandable metallic stents in the biliary tree and deep small bowel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]