Search

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is nowadays a standard method for treatment of achalasia; nevertheless, it remains an invasive intervention with corresponding risk of adverse events (AEs). The classification and grading of AEs are still a matter of discussion. The aim of our retrospective study was to assess the occurrence of all "undesirable" events and "true" adverse events in patients undergoing POEM and to compare the outcomes when either Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) or American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon classification applied., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively managed database of all patients who had undergone POEM between December 2012 and August 2018. We assessed the pre-, peri-, and early-postoperative (up to patient's discharge) undesirable events (including those not fulfilling criteria for AEs) and "true" AEs according the definition in either of the classifications., Results: A total of 231 patients have successfully undergone 244 POEM procedures (13 × re-POEM). Twenty-nine procedures (11.9%) passed uneventfully, while in 215 procedures (88.1%), a total of 440 undesirable events occurred. The CDC identified 27 AEs (17 minor, 10 major) occurring in 23/244 (9.4%) procedures. The ASGE lexicon identified identical 27 AEs (21 mild or moderate, 6 severe or fatal) resulting in the severity distribution of AEs being the only difference between the two classifications. Only the absence of previous treatment was found to be a risk factor [p = 0.047, OR with 95% CI: 4.55 (1.02; 20.25)] in the combined logistic regression model., Conclusion: Undesirable events are common in patients undergoing POEM but the incidence of true AEs is low according to both classifications. Severe adverse events are infrequent irrespective of the classification applied. CDC may be more appropriate than ASGE lexicon for classifying POEM-related AEs given a surgical nature of this procedure., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The sixth EURO-NOTES workshop (4 - 6 October 2012, Prague, Czech Republic) focused on enabling intensive scientific dialogue and interaction between surgeons, gastroenterologists, and engineers/industry representatives and discussion of the state of the practice and development of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in Europe. In accordance with previous meetings, five working groups were formed. In 2012, emphasis was put on specific indications for NOTES and interventional endoscopy. Each group was assigned an important indication related to ongoing research in NOTES and interventional endoscopy: cholecystectomy and appendectomy, therapy of colorectal diseases, therapy of adenocarcinoma and neoplasia in the upper gastrointestinal tract, treating obesity, and new therapeutic approaches for achalasia. This review summarizes consensus statements of the working groups., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Aim: To investigate perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) as a potential technique for appendectomy., Methods: One hundred patients undergoing endoscopy and 100 physicians were given a questionnaire describing in detail the techniques of NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy. They were asked about the reasons for their preference, choice of orifice, and extent of complication risk they were willing to accept., Results: Fifty patients (50%) and only 21 physicians (21%) preferred NOTES (P < 0.001). Patients had previously heard of NOTES less frequently (7% vs 73%, P < 0.001) and had undergone endoscopy more frequently (88% vs 36%, P < 0.001) than physicians. Absence of hernia was the most common reason for NOTES preference in physicians (80% vs 44%, P = 0.003), whereas reduced pain was the most common reason in patients (66% vs 52%). Physicians were more likely to refuse NOTES as a novel and unsure technique (P < 0.001) and having an increased risk of infection (P < 0.001). The preferred access site in both groups was colon followed by stomach, with vagina being rarely preferred. In multivariable modeling, those with high-school education [odds ratio (OR): 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23-5.83] and prior colonoscopy (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19) were more likely to prefer NOTES over laparoscopic appendectomy. There was a steep decline in NOTES preference with increased rate of procedural complications. Male patients were more likely to consent to their wives vaginal NOTES appendectomy than male physicians (P = 0.02)., Conclusion: The preference of NOTES for appendectomy was greater in patients than physicians and was related to reduced pain and absence of hernia rather than lack of scarring.