Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reduced postoperative pain scores and narcotic use favor per-oral endoscopic myotomy over laparoscopic Heller myotomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a less invasive therapy for achalasia with a shorter hospitalization but with similar short- and long-term outcomes as a laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM). Previous literature comparing POEM to LHM has focused primarily on postoperative outcome parameters such as complications, dysphagia scores and gastro-esophageal reflux severity. This study specifically compares postoperative pain following POEM to pain following LHM, the current gold-standard operation.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing POEM or LHM for achalasia was performed from 2006 to 2015. Data collection included demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS) and pain scores (arrival to the recovery room, 1 h postoperative, average first 24 h and upon discharge). Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t test and Chi-square test.

Results

Forty-four POEM patients and 122 LHM patients were identified. The average age (52.2 ± 20.75 vs 50.9 ± 17.89 years, p = 0.306) and BMI (28.1 ± 7.62 vs 27.6 ± 7.07 kg/m2, p = 0.824) did not differ between the POEM and LHM groups, respectively; however, the American Society of Anesthesiology scores were higher in the POEM patients (2.43 ± 0.62 vs 2.11 ± 0.71, p = 0.011). There were no differences in rates of smoking, diabetes, cardiac disease or pulmonary disease. The average pain scores upon arrival to the recovery room and 1 h postoperatively were lower in the POEM group (2.3 ± 3.014 vs 3.61 ± 3 0.418, p = 0.025 and 2.2 ± 2.579 vs 3.46 ± 3.063, p = 0.034, respectively). There was no difference in the average pain score over the first 24 h (2.7 ± 2.067 vs 3.29 ± 1.980, p = 0.472) or at the time of discharge (1.6 ± 2.420 vs 2.09 ± 2.157, p = 0.0657) between the POEM and LHM groups. After standardizing opioid administration against 10 mg of oral morphine, the POEM group used significantly less narcotics that the LHM group (35.8 vs 101.8 mg, p < 0.001) while hospitalized. The average LOS for the POEM group was 31.2 h and 55.79 for the LHM group (p < 0.0001). At discharge, fewer POEM patients required a prescription for a narcotic analgesic (6.81 vs 92.4 %, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

POEM demonstrated significantly less postoperative pain upon arrival to the recovery room and 1 h postoperatively. To achieve similar pain scores during the first 24 h and at discharge, LHM patients required more narcotic analgesic administration. Despite a significantly shorter LOS, fewer POEM patients require a prescription for narcotic analgesics compared to LHM. POEM is a less painful procedure for achalasia than LHM, permitting earlier hospital discharge with little need for home narcotic use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. O’Neill OM, Johnston BT, Coleman HG (2013) Achalasia: a review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 19:5806–5812

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Vaezi MF, Richter JE (1999) Diagnosis and management of achalasia. American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameter Committee. Am J Gastroenterol 94:3406–3412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reynolds JC, Parkman HP (1989) Achalasia. Gastroenterol Clin N Am 18:223–255

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bredenwood AJ, Rosch T, Fockens P (2014) Peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26:3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Karamanolis G, Sgouros S, Karatzias G, Papadopoulou E, Vasiliadis K, Stefanidis G, Mantides A (2005) Long-term outcome of pneumatic dilation in the treatment of achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol 100:270–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pasricha PJ, Rai R, Ravich WJ, Hendrix TR, Kalloo AN (1996) Botulinum toxin for achalasia: long-term outcome and predictors of response. Gastroenterology 110:1410–1415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zaninotto G, Annese V, Costantini M, Del Genio A, Costantino M, Epifani M, Gatto G, D’onofrio V, Benini L, Contini S, Molena D, Battaglia G, Tardio B, Andriulli A, Ancona E (2004) Randomized controlled trial of botulinum toxin versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for esophageal achalasia. Ann Surg 239(3):364–370

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y, Sato Y, Kaga M, Suzuki M, Satodate H, Odaka N, Itoh H, Kudo S (2010) Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 42:265–271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang L, Li Y-M, Li L (2009) Meta-analysis of randomized and controlled treatment trials for achalasia. Dig Dis Sci 54:2303–2311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Talukdar R, Inoue H, Reddy DN (2015) Efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in the treatment of achalasia: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 29:3030–3046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ponsky JL, Marks JM, Pauli EM (2012) How I Do It: per-Oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). J Gastrointest Surg 16(6):1251–1255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tomasko JM (2014) Quality of life comparing Dor and Toupet after Heller myotomy for achalasia. JSLS 18(3):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong DL, Baker CM (1988) Pediatr Nurs 14(1):9–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaheen PE, Walsh D, Lasheen W, Davis MP, Lagman RL (2009) Opiod equianalgesic tables: are they all equally dangerous? J Pain Symptom Manage 38(3):409–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Knotkova H, Fine PG, Portenoy RK (2009) Opioid rotation: the science and the limitations of the equianalgesic dose table. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(3):426–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bhayani NH, Kurian AA, Dunst CM, Sharata AM, Rieder E, Swanstrom LL (2014) A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic Heller myotomy with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 259(6):1098–1103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hungness ES, Teitelbaum EN, Santos BF, Arafat FO, Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ, Soper NJ (2013) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy. J Gastrointest Surg 17(2):228–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ujiki MB, Yetasook AK, Zapf M, Linn JG, Carbray JM, Denham W (2013) Peroral endoscopic myotomy: a short-term comparison with the standard laparoscopic approach. Surgery 154(4):893–897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Myotomy Inoue Per-Oral Endoscopic (2015) A series of 500 patients. JACS 221:256–264

    Google Scholar 

  20. Orenstein Peroral endoscopic myotomy (2015) (POEM) leads to similar results in patients with and without prior endoscopic surgical therapy. Surg Endosc 29(5):1064–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salvatore Docimo Jr..

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Docimo, Dr. Mathew, Dr. Alex Shope, Dr. Winder and Dr. Haluck have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Pauli is a paid consultant for WL Gore & Associates, Inc., and Cook Group, Inc., and has received clinical trial support from Cook Group, Inc., and Miromatrix Medical, Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Docimo, S., Mathew, A., Shope, A.J. et al. Reduced postoperative pain scores and narcotic use favor per-oral endoscopic myotomy over laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Surg Endosc 31, 795–800 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5034-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5034-3

Keywords

Navigation