Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 401–406 | Cite as

Current status of achalasia management: a review on diagnosis and treatment

  • Joshua TuasonEmail author
  • Haruhiro Inoue



Achalasia is a rare esophageal motility disorder that is characterized by loss of peristalsis and failure of relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), particularly during swallowing. This review focuses on the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders as defined by the Chicago Classification ver 3.0, and presents management options with regard to per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) as the treatment of choice.


A concise review of literature was performed for articles related to the management of achalasia, and this was contrasted with our institution’s current practice.


Achalasia is still incompletely understood, and management is focused on establishing a proper diagnosis, and relieving the obstructive symptoms.


Achalasia should be considered when dysphagia is present, and not otherwise caused by an obstruction or inflammation, and when criteria is met as per the Chicago Classification ver 3.0. Lowering LES tone and disruption of LES can be accomplished by various methods, most notably pneumatic balloon dilatation and surgical myotomy. POEM has been gaining momentum as a first line therapy for achalasia symptoms, and can be considered an important tool for motility disorders of the esophagus.


Achalasia Peroral endoscopic myotomy Esophageal motility disorders Dysphagia 


Achalasia is a neurodegenerative motility disorder of the esophagus that results in deranged peristalsis and loss of lower esophageal sphincter function, especially during swallowing [1, 2, 3, 4]. The incidence is still rare, approximately 1.6 per 100,000 [5, 6]. It occurs equally in males and females, without racial predilection, and across all ages, with a peak incidence between the ages of 30 and 60 [7].

The disease manifests as symptoms of dysphagia, regurgitation of food and retrosternal chest pain [8]. Even with advancements in diagnostic tools and accurate screening methods, the etiology remains unclear. The general consensus of the literature suggests that achalasia represents a family of disorders rather than a single disease with a fixed pathophysiologic profile [9, 10]. The current understanding suggests that three factors determine the clinical phenotype including genetic predisposition, environmental triggers, and autoimmune myenteric plexitis [11, 12, 13, 14]. The exact pathophysiology of the disease is not completely understood, and is beyond the scope of this review.

First-line treatment options have varied in the past, and well-established modalities such as pneumatic balloon dilation and surgical myotomy have been the mainstays over the past decade. Newer treatment options such as the peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) procedure have been practiced with increasing frequency in Asia and other parts of the world [15], but has yet to gain universal acceptance, though the data appears promising. POEM has the potential to be the preferred modality for achalasia and related esophageal motility disorders when personnel and logistics allow [16].

This review focuses on the diagnosis of achalasia based on the Chicago Classification ver. 3.0. A concise review of literature was conducted, focusing on the diagnosis and management of achalasia, and included papers discussing newer treatment modalities. We review the treatment options for achalasia and other motility disorders of the esophagus, and we draw special attention towards the POEM procedure as the primary management, and include our experience with its implementation.


When approaching a patient with dysphagia as the chief complaint, a high index of suspicion for achalasia must be maintained. Evaluation must rule out common disorders, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, mechanical obstruction, or malignancy [17]. Once such disorders are ruled out, work-up should then focus on motility disorders of the esophagus. A few technological advances have enhanced the diagnostic work-up for achalasia [18], but the modalities utilized most frequently include endoscopy, radiographic studies, and manometry. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is performed to rule out erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal cancer, and structural lesions, such as strictures, webs, or rings. A normal EGD should not dissuade a clinician from making the diagnosis because up to 40% of patients with achalasia will have normal endoscopy [19]. Barium esophagogram may reveal a classic “bird’s beak” appearance, esophageal dilation, or a corkscrew appearance with aperistalsis. In our institution, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, high-resolution manometry, barium esophagogram, as well as CT scan imaging have become the routine for patients presenting with dysphagia and a clinical history suggestive of an esophageal motility disorder.

The gold standard for achalasia diagnosis is esophageal manometry, with findings of aperistalsis and failure of relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) [20, 21]. With the incorporation of color pressure topography plots, we are provided with more information regarding the dynamics of the esophagus [22]. The Chicago Classification v3.0 categorizes esophageal motility disorders with high-resolution manometry (HRM), and presents a hierarchical approach to the interpretation. Motility disorders are divided into categories of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, major disorders of peristalsis, and minor disorders of peristalsis, as seen in Table 1 [23].
Table 1

Interpretation of HRM studies

Motility disorders of the esophagus based on Chicago Classification v3.0 [23]

Disorders with EGJOO

Achalasia type I: classic achalasia

Achalasia type II: with pan-pressurization

Achalasia type III: spastic achalasia


Major disorders of peristalsis

Absent contractility

Distal esophageal spasm

Jackhammer esophagus

Minor disorders of peristalsis

Ineffective esophageal motility

Fragmented peristalsis

EGJOO esophagogastric junction outlet obstruction

Another diagnostic modality that can determine the dynamic profile of the esophagus is the functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP), used mostly at the esophagogastric junction [24]. This device consists of a distensible bag surrounding a catheter with impedance electrodes that measures cross-sectional area and impedance patterns [25]. The advantage is that the results can be observed in real time, and therapy can be tailored appropriately to the findings [26]. Information regarding FLIP is still limited, and it is unknown whether its application will be valuable as an alternative or an adjunct to manometry.


The pathophysiology of the disease is not fully understood, therefore treatment modalities can neither reverse nor prevent the neurodegeneration of the myenteric plexus [8]. The primary goal of management should focus on early diagnosis and prevention of late complications, in order to preserve esophageal structure and function [17]. Available treatments aim to relieve esophageal outflow obstruction by lowering LES tone, or disrupting the LES, to facilitate passage of food across the LES. Available methods have used pharmacologic or interventional means. O’Neill et al. mentioned that patient preference, patient symptoms, and local expertise should guide the choice as to which modality to utilize [5].

Medical management has been used to relax smooth muscles, reduce LES pressure, and provide symptom relief, however the effects are limited clinically, and produce side effects. These therapies are now reserved for short-term treatment in patients who cannot tolerate invasive methods, or as a bridge to more definitive treatment [27]. Endoscopic botulinum toxin injection is still an accepted method for symptom relief, however the effects are often short lived [28, 29]. As with oral pharmacologic agents, Botox injection should be reserved for patients who cannot tolerate more invasive methods.

The mainstay of recent achalasia management focuses on the disruption of the LES by interventional means. Endoscopic pneumatic balloon dilatation (PD) positions a balloon across the LES and inflates it, effectively rupturing the muscle of the affected segment. Graded PD is performed by an initial dilation of 3.0 cm, progressing slowly at 0.5-cm intervals to reach a target of 4.0 cm. This is performed periodically with 4–6 weeks between each dilation. This modality is stated to have fewer major complications and deaths as compared to surgical myotomy [30]. Surgical LES myotomy also disrupts the LES fibers with a longitudinal incision. The preferred method has been the laparoscopic approach, or laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), due to decreased morbidity and faster recovery [31, 32]. Though this method effectively relieves the obstruction, it also increases the risk of gastroesophageal reflux, and most surgeons incorporate an anti-reflux procedure by way of a partial fundoplication [33, 34]. Studies initially showed superiority of surgical myotomy in terms of efficiency and durability compared to single balloon dilatation [35, 36]. Further comparison of these two modalities has shown similar outcomes in treatment success rates after 2-year follow-up when a graded approach to PD has been used [32, 37, 38]. Pneumatic balloon dilatation and surgical myotomy therefore remain the universally accepted treatments for achalasia presently, and patients should be followed up long term [39].

The advent of the peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) procedure by Inoue et al. in 2008 provided another means of treatment that has been presented worldwide [40]. Initially described by Pasricha et al. [41], this form of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has provided adequate symptom relief, shown similar short-term results, and is less invasive as compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy [42]. Short-term results have proven that POEM is a safe and effective approach for esophageal achalasia [43, 44, 45]. The patient is placed in a supine position under general anesthesia [46]. An endoscopic submucosal injection of dyed saline is followed by a mucosal incision, and subsequent creation of a submucosal tunnel to expose the circular muscle fibers at a length 2–3 cm beyond the LES. Selective circular muscle myotomy is then carried out under direct visualization, and the mucosa is closed with clips [47]. Advancements in technology as well as refinements in technique have led to safer procedures, as well as decreased operative time. The water-jet assisted triangle knife (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) used in the creation of the submucosal plane, as well as the selective myotomy, provides a reduction of procedure time [48]. The use of the double-scope POEM technique provides a safe and reliable method for ensuring adequate gastric myotomy length during POEM, and may help to ensure proper outcomes [49]. These advancements along with the increase in operator expertise are what drive the use of POEM to be more widespread.

POEM has been used for all types of esophageal motility disorders, including, but not restricted to, advanced sigmoid achalasia and spastic motility disorders of the esophagus [50, 51]. POEM has even been performed successfully on refractory cases of achalasia following previous balloon dilation or laparoscopic Heller myotomy [52, 53, 54, 55]. These cases should only be treated by highly experienced operators [47]. The advantage of POEM over surgical myotomy is that the length of the myotomy from the esophageal to gastric side can be adjusted freely to suit the individual case. This may make POEM a more appropriate, safe, and effective option for patients with sigmoid esophagus or history of surgical myotomy [56]. POEM has proven to be similar to LHM in terms of Eckardt score reduction, complications, operative time, and length of hospital stay [57, 58, 59]. POEM has also proven to be equally effective to pneumatic dilatation [60]. It is important to note, however, that data regarding the long-term effects of POEM are still limited, and randomized controlled trials comparing POEM with other treatment modalities are needed. This has been the barrier to the worldwide acceptance of the procedure, and its use has been confined to high-volume centers, though it is still believed that POEM represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of achalasia [61]. Post-procedure complications still arise, as with the other treatment modalities. On objective testing, the rate of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after POEM is 20–46%, which may not be significantly different from that observed after LHM with Dor fundoplication [62, 63].

At our institution, we have performed over 1200 cases of POEM since the innovation of the procedure, and this has become our treatment modality of choice for all motility disorders of the esophagus. Opinions have differed with regard to the length of the myotomy. Inoue et al. previously used a questionnaire regarding patients’ dysphagia symptoms to determine the length of the myotomy [56]. The current practice in our institution has evolved over the years. We determine the length of the myotomy based on the patient symptoms, the results of the diagnostic evaluation, and the endoscopic findings. From a decision-making standpoint, we present our treatment algorithm with POEM as the first-line therapy seen in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Treatment algorithm for POEM. EGJOO Esophagogastric junction outlet obstruction, LES lower esophageal sphincter

The different motility disorders of the esophagus are based on manometric study, barium esophagogram, and endoscopic findings and are further subdivided into categories depending on the area of involvement of each disease entity. It then follows that a standard-length myotomy through the LES is adequate treatment for classic achalasia (type I), achalasia with pan pressurization (type II), and esophagogastric junction outlet obstruction. An extended myotomy of the esophageal body and the LES should be considered for vigorous achalasia (type III) with premature contractions. Diffuse spasm and jackhammer esophagus cases can be managed with a focused myotomy of the esophageal body, and the LES may be preserved. In some cases, the specific motility disorder may not be clearly identified at the time of the procedure. It is important to note the presence of spastic simultaneous contractions, or non-peristaltic contractions, as these intraoperative findings may also affect the length of the myotomy. Previous interventional procedures, as well as anatomy of the esophagus itself will also affect the decision on myotomy length as well as placement. Further long-term studies are needed to properly evaluate the outcomes of cases that follow this algorithm and more studies are needed in order to determine what constitutes an adequate myotomy, whether that be measurable by pressurization studies (EndoFLIP) or subjective symptom relief based on the Eckardt score. The purpose of this algorithm is not to create a guideline for clinical practice, but to assist the decision-making process, and clarify the primary focus of the intervention.


Achalasia remains a difficult to diagnose condition and a high index of suspicion must be maintained when patients present with dysphagia. Other causes of mechanical obstruction must be ruled out, and proper diagnostics must confirm a motility disorder of the esophagus. Treatment focused on disrupting the LES and lowering LES tone has been the mainstay of management, and has traditionally utilized pneumatic balloon dilatation and surgical myotomy. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is an effective treatment option for all types of motility disorders of the esophagus. With time and physician experience, POEM may become the ideal management for achalasia and its use may change the way we approach this rare disorder.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Cohen S. Motor disorders of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:184–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen S, Parkman HP. Treatment of achalasia–whalebone to botulinum toxin. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:815–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vantrappen G, Hellemans J. Treatment of achalasia and related motor disorders. Gastroenterology. 1980;79:144–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park W, Vaezi MF. Etiology and pathogenesis of achalasia: the current understanding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1404–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Neill OM, Johnston BT, Coleman HG. Achalasia: a review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(35):5806–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadowski DC, Ackah F, Jiang B, Svenson LW. Achalasia: incidence, prevalence and survival. A population-based study. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;22:e256–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francis DL, Katzka DA. Achalasia: an update on the disease and its treatment. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:369–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winter H, Shukla R, Elshaer M, Riaz AA. Current management of achalasia—a review. Br J Med Pract. 2015;8(2):a810.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA, Nealis T, Bulsiewicz W, Post J, Kahrilas PJ. Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1526–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sodikoff J, Lo A, Shetuni B, Kahrilas P, Yang G, Pandolfino JE. Histopathologic patterns across achalasia subtypes. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;28:139–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh R, Ghoshal UC, Misra A, Mittal B. Achalasia is associated with eNOS4a4a, iNOS22GA, and nNOS29TT genotypes: a case-control study. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;21:380–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shteyer E, Edvardson S, Wynia-Smith SL, Pierri CL, Zangen T, Hashavya S, Begin M, Yaacov B, et al. Truncating mutation in the nitric oxide synthase 1 gene is associated with infantile achalasia. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(533–6):e4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vigo AG, Martinez A, de la Concha EG, Urcelay E, de Ruiz Leon A. Suggested association of NOS2A polymorphism in idiopathic achalasia: no evidence in a large case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1326–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldblum JR, Rice TW, Richter JE. Histopathologic features in esophagomyotomy specimens from patients with achalasia. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:648–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minami H, Inoue H, Haji A, et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: emerging indications and evolving techniques. Dig Endosc. 2015;26:175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedel D, Modayil R, Stavropoulos SN. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: major advance in achalasia treatment and in endoscopic surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17746–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandolfino JE, Gawron AJ. Achalasia: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313(18):1841–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bogte A, Bredenoord AJ, Oors J, Siersema PD, Smout AJPM. Reproducibility of esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;23(7):e271–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howard PJ, Maher L, Pryde A, et al. Five-year prospective study of the incidence, clinical features, and diagnosis of achalasia in Edinburgh. Gut. 1992;33:1011–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar P, Clark M. Clinical medicine. 4th ed. Edinburgh: WB Saunders; 1998. p. 229–31.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pohl D, Tutuian R. Achalasia: an overview of diagnosis and treatment. J Gastrointest Liver Dis. 2007;16(3):297–303.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pandolfino JE, Ghosh SK, Rice J, Clarke JO, Kwiatek MA, Kahrilas PJ. Classifying esophageal motility by pressure topography characteristics: a study of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(1):27–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Gyawali CP, Roman S, Smout AJ, Pandolfino JE, IHRMWG. The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:160–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McMahon BP, Frøkjær JB, Kunwald P, Liao D, et al. The functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) for evaluation of the esophagogastric junction. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007;292:G377–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gyawali CP. Achalasia: new perspectives on an old disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28:4–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kwiatek MA, Pandolfino JE, Hirano I, Kahrilas PJ. Esophagogastric junction distensibility assessed with an endoscopic functional luminal imaging probe (EndoFLIP). Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(2):272–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vela MF. Management strategies for achalasia. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26:1215–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Vela MF. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1238–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pasricha PJ, Rai R, Ravich WJ, Hendrix TR, Kalloo AN. Botulinum toxin for achalasia: long-term outcome and predictors of response. Gastroenterology. 1996;110(5):1410–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lynch KL, Pandolfino JE, Howden CW, Kahrilas PJ. Major complications of pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy for achalasia: single-center experience and systematic review of the literature. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(12):1817–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ali A, Pellegrini CA. Laparoscopic myotomy: technique and efficacy in treating achalasia. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2001;11:347–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Campos GM, Vittinghoff E, Rabl C, et al. Endoscopic and surgical treatments for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):45–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Richards WO, Torquati A, Holzman MD, et al. Heller myotomy versus Heller myotomy with Dor fundoplication for achalasia: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2004;240(3):405–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rawlings A, Soper NJ, Oelschlager B, et al. Laparoscopic Dor versus Toupet fundoplication following Heller myotomy for achalasia: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized-controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(1):18–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Persson J, Johnsson E, Kostic S, Lundell L, Smedh U. Treatment of achalasia with laparoscopic myotomy or pneumatic dilatation: long-term results of a prospective, randomized study. World J Surg. 2015;39(3):713–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Novais PA, Lemme EMO. 24-h pH monitoring patterns and clinical response after achalasia treatment with pneumatic dilation or laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32(10):1257–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boeckxstaens GE, Annese V, des Varannes SB, Chaussade S, Costantini M, Cuttitta A, Elizalde JI, Fumagalli U, et al. Pneumatic dilation versus laparoscopic Hellers myotomy for idiopathic achalasia. N Engl J Med. 2011;36:1807–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vela MF, Richter JE, Khandwala F, et al. The long-term efficacy of pneumatic dilatation and Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:580–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gerson LB. Pneumatic dilation or myotomy for achalasia? Gastroenterology. 2007;132(2):811–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy. 2010;42(4):265–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pasricha PJ, Hawari R, Ahmed I, et al. Submucosal endoscopic esophageal myotomy: a novel experimental approach for the treatment of achalasia. Endoscopy. 2007;39:761–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ujiki MB, Yetasook AK, Zapf M, Linn JG, Carbray JM, Denham W. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: a short-term comparison with the standard laparoscopic approach. Surgery. 2013;154(4):893–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Von Renteln D, Inoue H, Minami H. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a prospective single center study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:411–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Von Renteln D, Fuchs KH, Fockens P. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: an international prospective multicenter study. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:309–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Patel K, Abbassi-Ghadi N, Markar S, Kumar S, Jethwa P, Zaninotto G. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: systematic review and pooled analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:807–19. doi: 10.1111/dote.12387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Inoue H, Tianle KM, Ikeda H, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: technique, indication, and outcomes. Thorac Surg Clin. 2011;21:519–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bechara R, Onimaru M, Ikeda H, et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy, 1000 cases later: pearls, pitfalls, and practical considerations. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84(2):330–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Balassone V, Ikeda H, Kazuya S, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: first human experience with a water-jet-assisted triangle knife. Gastrointest Endosc. (Epub 2016 May 6).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grimes KL, Inoue H, Onimaru M, et al. Double-scope per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1344–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Youn YH, Minami H, Chiu PW, Park H. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for treating achalasia and esophageal motility disorders. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;22:14–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shiwaku H, Inoue H, Beppu R, et al. Successful treatment of diffuse esophageal spasm by peroral endoscopic myotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:149–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ling T, Guo H, Zou X. Effect of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia patients with failure of prior pneumatic dilation: a prospective case-control study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:1609–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhou PH, Li QL, Yao LQ, et al. Peroral endoscopic remyotomy for failed Heller myotomy: a prospective single-center study. Endoscopy. 2013;45:161–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Onimaru M, Inoue H, Ikeda H, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is a viable option for failed surgical esophagocardiomyotomy instead of redo surgical Heller myotomy: a single center prospective study. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:598–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vigneswaran Y, Yetasook AK, Zhao JC, Denham W, Linn JG, Ujiki MB. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): feasible as reoperation following Heller myotomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1071–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Inoue H, Sato H, Ikeda H, Onimaru M, et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy: a series of 500 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:256–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Marano L, Pallabazzer G, Solito B, Santi S, Pigazzi A, De Luca R, Biondo FG, Spaziani A, Longaroni M, Di Martino N, et al. Surgery or peroral esophageal myotomy for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Talukdar R, Inoue H, Reddy DN. Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the treatment of achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(11):3030–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Chan SM, Wu JC, Teoh AY, et al. Comparison of early outcomes and quality of life after laparoscopic Heller’s cardiomyotomy to peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia. Dig Endosc. 2016;28(1):27–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sanaka MR, Hayat U, Thota PN, et al. Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy vs other achalasia treatments in improving esophageal function. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(20):4918–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stavropoulos SN, Modayil R, Friedel D, et al. The international per oral endoscopic myotomy survey (IPOEMS): a snapshot of the global POEM experience. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3322–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stavropoulos SN, Desilets DJ, Fuchs KH, et al. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy white paper summary. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(1):1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Swanstrom LL, Kurian A, Dunst CM, Sharata A, Bhayani N, Rieder E. Long-term outcomes of an endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: the POEM procedure. Ann Surg. 2012;256(4):659–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Gastroenterology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digestive Disease CenterShowa University Koto-Toyosu HospitalKoto-KuJapan

Personalised recommendations