- Journal List
- Endosc Int Open
- v.8(11); 2020 Nov
- PMC7584466
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Nov; 8(11): E1673–E1680.
Published online 2020 Oct 22. doi:10.1055/a-1261-3417
PMCID: PMC7584466
PMID: 33140023
Tatiana Morgado Conte,1 Luciana Bertocco de Paiva Haddad,2 Igor Braga Ribeiro,3 Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura,1 Luiz Augusto Carneiro DʼAlbuquerque,2 and Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura3
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Abstract
Background and study aims We aimed to perform an economic evaluation of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for the treatment of achalasia.
Materials and methods An economic cost-utility analysis was carried out over a time horizon of 1 year. Patients with achalasia who were admitted to the gastroenterology outpatient clinic of a public tertiary referral hospital were assigned to undergo POEM or LHM. The monetary amounts were extracted from the intranet of the institution using microcosting. All costs associated with the procedure, hospitalization, clinical follow-up and resolution of therapeutic complications were included. The utility data were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were estimated from the scores of a quality-of-life questionnaire.
Results Forty patients (20 POEM patients and 20 LHM patients) were included. The final cost associated with POEM and LHM was US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53 and US$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21, respectively (P < 0.001). However, the QALYs in the POEM group (0.434 ± 0.215 vs 0.332 ± 0.222,P = 0.397) were slightly higher than those in the LHM group. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) suggested that an additional US$ 9,046.41/QALY gained was required when using POEM.
Conclusion For the treatment of achalasia in the public health system, POEM appears to be more cost-effective than LHM in the short term.
Introduction
Achalasia is a rare esophageal motility disorder characterized by aperistalsis in the esophageal body and incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) in response to swallowing12345678, with progressive dysphagia from solids to liquids being the most important clinical manifestation9101112. Currently, laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) with fundoplication is considered the standard first-line therapy for achalasia1234561314.
Inoue et al.15introduced the concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)1617associated with submucosal dissection18and named this technique peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Studies have shown that the short- to mid-term efficacy of POEM is greater than 90 % and that the procedure is associated with less postoperative pain19202122232425. However, this procedure is frequently associated with some common adverse effects, such as pneumoperitoneum and surgical emphysema26.
Although this new treatment could revolutionize the treatment of achalasia, the lack of knowledge regarding its costs and learning curve are barriers to its adoption in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative cost-utility analysis of POEM and LHM with fundoplication.
Materials and methods
This economic pilot study consisted of a prospective economic cost-utility evaluation from a randomized controlled trial comparing POEM and LHM with fundoplication. Data were collected from a public tertiary university hospital for a period of 1 year. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo.
Randomized controlled trial
The randomized controlled trial was prospective, randomized, and conducted in a single center. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo and it was register in Clinical Trial by the number NCT02138643.
A simple randomization was carried out of patients diagnosed with symptomatic esophageal achalasia, eligible for the study and admitted on Gastrointestinal Department of the institution.
Patients
The patient inclusion criteria were: diagnosis of chagasic or idiopathic achalasia; age between 18 and 60 years; dysphagia score ≥ II; and Eckhardt score > 3.
The exclusion criteria were: prior treatment for achalasia; prior esophageal, mediastinal or gastric surgery; pseudoachalasia; hepatic cirrhosis; esophageal varices; Barrett’s esophagus; esophageal stenosis; malignant esophageal lesions; esophageal distal diverticulum; and coagulopathy.
Interventions
Peroral endoscopic myotomy
POEM was performed while the patient was under general anesthesia with positive pressure ventilation and CO2insufflation. A submucosal tunnel was created approximately 2 or 3 cm below the gastroesophageal transition (GET), and 10 mL of saline with methylene blue was injected into the posterior wall of the mid-esophagus.
ENDO CUT Q configuration of ERBE VIO (ERBE, Elektromedizin GmbH, US) equipment was used to create the submucosal tunnel. This configuration was selected considering that it is an alternating, monopolar and high frequency cutting mode that is characterized by alternating cutting and coagulation cycles.
After creating an adequate submucosal tunnel and performing haemostatic revision, myotomy of the distal (2 to 3 cm below the GET) to proximal (up to 8 cm above the GET and approximately 2 cm below the mucosal access) region was performed. SPRAY COAG (ERBE, Elektromedizin GmbH) configuration was also used to ensure effective surface coagulation without contact with depth of thermal penetration, being suitable for tissue devitalization and to stop diffuse bleeding. In addition, the submucosal tunnel was performed using T-type hybrid knives (ERBE, Elektromedizin GmbH) and ERBEJet2 pump cartridges (ERBE, Elektromedizin GmbH).
Total myotomy, which involved sectioning of the longitudinal muscle fibers, allowed endoscopic passage without resistance through the GET. After revision of the mucosal aspect of the esophagus and stomach with thermal or surgical probing in the submucosal tunnel, the mucosal access was closed with clips.
Resolution Clip (Resolution Clips, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, United States) was used to close the endoscopic myotomy. The choice of this device took into account the high retention rate, greater penetration into the tissue, possibility of repositioning, and ease of handling.
Laparoscopic Heller MYOTOMY WITH FUNDOPLICATION
LHM was performed with the patient under general anesthesia. Five to six incisions were made in the abdominal region to introduce the trocars. After the introduction of five or six trocars, the gastric vessels were sectioned, and the gastric fundus was mobilized. Then, the GET was dissected, and the hepatogastric ligament membrane was sectioned.
The diaphragmatic pillars were dissected, and the esophagus was isolated from the gap; the adhesions in the mediastinum were disconnected. Then, myotomy was performed by sectioning the muscle fibers in the LES and advancing 3 cm into the stomach and at least 6 cm into the esophagus. Hiatoplasty (approximation of the diaphragm abutments) was performed at separate points.
Fundoplication was performed by means of three suture lines (Pinottiʼs technique) covering the entire myotomy as follows: the first line was between the posterior wall of the esophagus and the posterior wall of the stomach; the second line was between the left lateral wall of the esophageal myotomy and the gastric fundus between the transition from the anterior to the posterior wall; and the third line was between the right lateral wall of the esophageal myotomy and the anterior surface of the gastric fundus.
Economic analysis
Direct medical costs were obtained via prospective data collection from the local database of the institution and estimated using microcosting. The costs were obtained in Brazilian Real (R$) in January 2017 and adjusted using the Broad National Consumer Price Index from the period (2.61897 %), followed by conversion to United States dollars (US$) in August 2018 (US$ 1.00 = R$ 3.77).
The study included all direct medical costs associated with the treatment in the time horizon of the study and represented the institutionʼs direct monetary expenses for the treatment and clinical follow-up of the patient.Table 1shows how the monetary data were obtained. The costs were grouped into three categories: intraoperative, postoperative and clinical follow-up.
Table 1
Description of the methodology for obtaining cost data.
| Department | Component | Costs |
| Human Resources | Doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and administrative professionals | Based on the standard cost indicated in the hospital budget per profession per month divided by the time required for treatment |
| Pharmacy sector | Medicine and hospital material | Based on the unit values paid in the last public bidding |
| Medicinal gases | Oxygen, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen | Based on the cost of medical gas per liter per minute |
| Laboratory sector | Laboratory examinations | Based on the unit price of each laboratory examination |
| Imaging sector | Esophageal manometry, upper digestive endoscopy, abdominal ultrasound, and electrocardiogram | Based on the unit price of each imaging examination |
Open in a separate window
The first category included monetary data associated with the procedure and anesthetic recovery. The second category comprised the costs from the immediate postoperative period until up to 30 days after the procedure, including costs due to complications. Finally, the third category covered all of the costs of clinical follow-up, such as medical interviews and conventional and high-resolution esophageal manometry and endoscopy. Medical interviews and endoscopic examinations were performed at one, six and 12 months. Conventional and high-resolution esophageal manometry were performed at 6 and 12 months.
Utility
Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to measure efficacy, being defined as a year of life with remission of achalasia symptoms. The QALYs is a generic measure of disease burden, including the quality and the quantity of life lived. The QALYs of each patient were estimated for one year, respecting the time horizon. The participants used this instrument to self-record their health status in the following five areas: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.
The QALY instrumental was applied at two points during a clinical consultation: immediately after randomization and in the last cycle of the time horizon. The purpose of the first point was self-assessment of health status before the procedure, while the goal of the second point was to identify the degree of improvement in self-assessment 1 year after treatment. The difference in the first and second QALYs was assumed to be directly related to the intervention for achalasia.
Statistical analysis
The results are presented as the average and standard deviation. The monetary results are described as the average and standard deviation. Student’s t-test was used to compare averages.
To test the hypothesis that both treatments are equally effective, a non-parametric repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used2728. The 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was used in the hypothesis test. The tests were performed using R Software and Excel 2017.
Cost-utility analysis
A cost-utility analysis was performed in which the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was estimated using the final costs and the differences in the pre-procedure and post-procedure efficacy derived from the patient interviews to determine the incremental cost per QALY gained. The ICUR was calculated as the result between in the total cost of POEM and LHM divided by the difference in the utility between the therapeutic alternatives.
Uncertainty regarding the ICUR was determined by a sensitivity analysis, which considered the costs and QALYs associated with minor and major complications in each group. Minor complications were defined as bronchoaspiration, subcutaneous emphysema and intraoperative bleeding during myotomy; major complications included esophageal or gastric iatrogenic perforation, pneumothorax, hypertension, pneumonia, haemothorax and pleural effusion. These results were compared with the reference ICUR.
Results
In total, 40 patients with achalasia were recruited; 20 patients were treated with POEM, and 20 patients were treated with LHM. The demographic data and the details of the POEM and LHM procedures are summarized inTable 2andTable 3. POEM and LHM were successfully completed in all patients (technical success rates, 100 %,P = 1.000), and the operative duration of the endoscopic procedure was half of that for the surgical procedure (P = 0.001). The total myotomy extent in the POEM group was on average 1.5 cm greater than that in the LHM group (P = 0.001). The patients who underwent POEM had shorter hospital stays than did the patients who underwent LHM (P = 0.009).
Table 2
Baseline demographics.
| POEM (n = 20) | LHM (n = 20) | Pvalue | |
| Male, n (%) | 12 (60) | 14 (70) | 0.507 |
| Age (years), average ± SD (range) | 44.9 ± 14.6 (21–72) | 44.2 ± 13.2 (21–64) | 0.875 |
| Aetiology of achalasia, n (%) | |||
| Chagasic | 5 (25) | 4 (20) | |
| Idiopathic | 15 (75) | 16 (80) | |
| Eckardt score, average (range) | 8.0 ± 1.7 (6–9.00) | 8.5 ± 1.9 (7.25–9.75) | 0.558 |
| Tolerated diet, n (%) | |||
| 0 | 0 | |
| 4 (20) | 4 (20) | |
| 5 (25) | 4 (20) | |
| 10 (50) | 12 (60) | |
| 1 (5) | 0 | |
| LES pressure (mmHg), average ± SD (range) | 34.6 ± 11.3 (16.1–55.5) | 29.4 ± 9.8 (20.4–59) | 0.177 |
Open in a separate window
LES, lower oesophageal sphincter; LHM, laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication; POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy; SD, standard deviation.
Table 3
Short-term outcomes of POEM and LHM.
| POEM (n = 20) | LHM (n = 20) | Pvalue | |
| Technical success rate, n (%) | 20 (100) | 20 (100) | – |
| Length of myotomy (cm), average ± SD | 0.001 | ||
| Total | 10.9 ± 1.1 | 8.3 ± 1.5 | |
| Esophageal myotomy | 7.3 ± 1.2 | 5.5 ± 1.1 | |
| Gastric myotomy | 3.6 ± 0.7 | 2.8 ± 0.7 | |
| Operative duration (minutes), average ± SD | 95.7 ± 30.5 | 218.7 ± 50.9 | 0.001 |
| Length of hospital stay (days), average | 3.7 | 5.4 | 0.009 |
| Recurrence of dysphagia, n (%) | 1 (5) | – | 0.001 |
| Complication rate, n (%) | 9 (64,3) | 5 (35,7) | 0.016 |
| Low-risk complications, n | 7 | – | |
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 3 | – | |
| Bleeding | 3 | – | |
| Bronchoaspiration | 1 | – | |
| High-risk complications, n | 2 | 5 | |
| Pleural effusion | – | 1 | |
| Pneumonia | – | 1 | |
| Esophageal or gastric iatrogenic perforation | 2 | – | |
| Pneumothorax | – | 2 | |
| Hemothorax | – | 1 | |
| LES pressure (mmHg), average ± SD | |||
| 15.8 ± 7.4 | 14.4 ± 6.8 | 0.448 |
| 19.2 ± 7.1 | 13.4 ± 3.3 | 0.073 |
| Eckardt score, average ± SD | |||
| 1.0 ± 1.4 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.186 |
| 0.6 ± 1.2 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.380 |
Open in a separate window
LES, lower oesophageal sphincter; LHM, laparoscopic Heller myotomy with fundoplication; POEM, peroral endoscopic myotomy; SD, standard deviation.
Fourteen adverse events (AEs) (35 %) were observed in 12 of 40 patients, including three patients in the LHM group and nine in the POEM group (P = 0.016). AEs were classified as low risk, including subcutaneous emphysema, bleeding, and bronchoaspiration, and high risk, including pleural effusion, pneumonia, esophageal or gastric iatrogenic perforation, pneumothorax, and hemothorax.
All five complications in LHM patients were high risk: one case of pleural effusion, one case of pneumonia, two cases of pneumothorax, and one case of hemothorax. In the POEM group, seven complications were low risk: three cases of subcutaneous emphysema, three cases of bleeding, and one case of bronchoaspiration. Two patients had high-risk complications, including two cases of esophageal or gastric iatrogenic perforation.
Of the 40 patients involved in the study, 37 underwent upper digestive endoscopy in 1 month, 34 in 6 months and 35 in 1 year. The reflux rate was 64.6 % in POEM and 11.1 % in LHM (P < 0.002). The esophagitis rate was significantly higher in POEM in all periods (P = 0.014;P < 0.001;P = 0.002). After 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year, esophagitis rates were 0 %, 5.6 % and 11.1 % in LHM and 29.4 %, 62.5 % and 64.6 % in POEM, respectively.
At 3 months 57 % of patients who had POEM and 20 % who had LHM had reflux esophagitis. In the POEM group, esophagitis was observed in five patients in 1 month (Grade A: 1; GradeB: 3 and Grade C: 1); 10 patients in 6 months (Grade A: 3; Grade B: 2 and Grade C: 5) and 11 patients in 1 year (Grade A: 5; Grade B: 4 and Grade C: 2). These patients were treated conservatively with oral use of proton pump inhibitors. In the LHM group, one patient had esophagitis at 6 month (Grade A) and two patients at 1 year (Grade B: 1; Grade C: 1).
The Eckardt score and LES pressure were significantly reduced in both groups during all cycles of the time horizon, although they were similar in both groups independent of the cycle analyzed (Table 3).
Costs
The total cost, including the costs incurred intraoperatively, postoperatively and during the follow-up period, was US$ 86,312.63, and POEM was responsible for 60.7 % (US$ 52,383.85) of this value. The average cost per patient in the POEM group was significantly higher than that in the LHM group (US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53vs 1,696.44 ± 412.21,P < 0.001).
Costs incurred intraoperatively accounted for 56 % (US$ 48,335.07) of the total cost. Although this period represented the component with the highest financial cost in both groups, the cost in the LHM group was half of the cost in the POEM group (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Comparison of the average cost of POEM and LHM for each cost component.
The component with the second highest financial cost (25 %, US$ 21,620.51) was the postoperative period; on average, the cost in the LHM group was 22 % less than that in the POEM group (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1).
Overall, the average cost of complications was higher in the POEM group than in the LHM group. For POEM patients without complications, the average cost was US$ 2,477.60 ± 158.01, while for POEM patients with minor and major complications, the average cost was US$ 2,527.99 ± 163.53 and US$ 3,666.78 ± 375.22, respectively. The average cost in the LHM group was US$ 1,621.67 ± 246.22 and US$ 2,120.13 ± 901.33 for patients without and with major surgical complications, respectively.
QALYs
QALYs did not significantly differ between the groups before the procedure (POEM = 0.506 ± 0.181 vs LHM = 0.653 ± 0.083,P > 0.05). Over the time horizon, the QALYs increased in both groups (POEM = 0.940 ± 0.200 vs LHM = 0.985 ± 0.069,P = 0.385). The difference between the final and preoperative QALYs for POEM and LHM was 0.434 ± 0.164 and 0.332 ± 0.100, respectively; however, this difference was not significant (P = 0.397).
Cost-utility analysis
The difference in the final cost of the interventions was US$ 922.75, and the difference in the final QALYs was 0.102. Therefore, the ICUR was US$ 9,046.41/QALY.
Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis revealed variation in the ICUR when we analyzed the costs of major and minor complications and the clinical success in both groups (Fig. 2). The ICUR was directly proportional to the cost of POEM and, consequently, inversely proportional to LHM. Major endoscopic complications associated with the treatment of mucosal perforation increased the ICUR by 114 % compared to the reference ICUR because the cost of POEM in this situation increased 40 % (US$ 3,666.78 ± 375.22 vs US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53).
Fig. 2
Sensitivity analysis of POEM and LHM comparing the reference ICUR with ICUR from major, minor, and clinical success of each group. The ICUR was calculated as the difference in cost of POEM and LHM divided by the difference in QALYs of POEM and LHM of according with each condition analyzed. The arrow indicates the percentage of impact of the ICUR result comparing reference ICUR with ICUR of the condition analyzed.
In contrast, the clinical success of POEM decreased the ICUR by 17 % because the cost of POEM was 5.5 % lower than the reference cost (US$ 2,477.60 ± 158.01 vs US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53). Similarly, when a major surgical complication occurred, the cost of LHM increased by 25 % (US$ 2,120.13 ± 901.33 vs U$$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21) and, consequently, the ICUR decreased by 46 % (US$ 4.892,74 vs US$ 9,046.41/QALY).
Discussion
Until recently, the only options available for treatment of achalasia were pharmacological treatments, Botox, pneumatic dilation, and surgery29. However, technological progress and the development of minimally invasive surgery have allowed the creation of NOTES1617associated with submucosal dissection18, and the called POEM, revolutionizing the treatment of achalasia30313233.
This study is the first economic evaluation of achalasia management strategies and was performed using data from a prospective randomized controlled study based on real public costs. These costs were analyzed using a bottom-up analysis, which is an economic methodology that guarantees a high degree of detail and precision in determining costs for health institutions3435, as the monetary values exactly reflect the reality of health system costs.
This economic methodology differs from previous economic studies1920based on results extracted retrospectively, in which main disadvantage is the lack of precision in collecting cost data. The total cost of POEM and LHM was US$ 2,619.19 ± 399.53 and US$ 1,696.44 ± 412.21, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, the QALYs associated with POEM were slightly higher than those associated with LHM (0.434 ± 0.164 vs 0.332 ± 0.100,P = 0.397).
Thus, the ICUR was US$ 9,046.41/QALY, which is consistent with previous reports1920. The component with the highest financial cost in our study was the intraoperative period, with POEM costing twice as much as LHM (P < 0.001). This difference could be explained by: (1) the high cost of disposable endoscopic materials; and (2) the use of depreciated equipment in public hospitals.
Disposable endoscopic materials, including metal clips (Resolution Clips,Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, United States), T-type hybrid knives (ERBE, Elektromedizin GmbH, GA, US) and ERBEJet2 pump cartridges (ERBE, Elektromedizin GmbH), accounted for 75 % (US$ 23,933.23, average US$ 1,196.66 ± 285.39 per patient) of the intraoperative cost of POEM. In Brazil, these materials are imported, representing an important part of the total cost of the treatment of complex patients in public hospitals36.
Negotiations between public managers and medical companies are necessary to ensure the attainment of good-quality disposable endoscopic materials at lower costs. If the cost of disposable endoscopic materials decreased by 10 %, there would be a savings of US$ 1,196.66 ± 285.39, reducing the ICUR by 17 % relative to the reference ICUR. Thus, this result represents an area of potential cost reduction for POEM.
Regarding the second reason, public hospitals are maintained by the System Unit Health (Sistema Único de Saúde–SUS). This system is financed by the government, making it a reference for private systems in the country. The goal of the SUS is to ensure comprehensive care for patients, prioritizing strategies for public health conditions. In this context, surgical instruments are considered as items of lower importance, and the purchase of new products is a long-term process. Thus, the vast majority of these instruments have depreciated, and their cost is incorporated throughout the process, justifying the lower cost of LHM in the intraoperative period.
A total of 14 AEs (35 %) were observed, which is higher than the rate reported in the literature. Of these, 64.3 % were in the POEM group and 35.7 % were in the LHM group. Iatrogenic perforations of the mucosa were responsible for 14 % of complications in the POEM group, thus increasing the cost of this procedure, especially due to the greater number of clips used to close the lesion. Pneumothorax was the main major surgical complication in LHM, which impacted the increase in the cost of this group too.
The institutional experience with LHM is more consolidated than with POEM, with a protocol with the treatment guidelines for the main adverse surgical events. The lack of expertise with management of POEM complications had a direct impact on postoperative costs (POEM US$823.99 vs LHM US$474.75,P < 0.001),because extra resources were used, including imaging exams to assess contrast leakage.
Therefore, hospital costs are inversely proportional to technical and clinical experience: the lower the level of expertise, the higher the institutional cost. Our sensitivity analysis (Fig. 2) reinforces this condition, because the clinical success rate for POEM decreased the ICUR by 17 %, given that the overall cost of treatment was 5.5 % lower. This finding was also confirmed by an economic evaluation, which indicated that high performance levels for POEM will decrease complication rates, directly impacting the reduction in hospital costs20.
Cost-effectiveness is difficult to define but is generally understood as good value or good results not costing much money. Brazil has not officially adopted a willingness-to-pay threshold; however, one study37has reported that there is an implied threshold of one to three times the Brazilian gross domestic product. Therefore, we can consider POEM a cost-effective technology in a time horizon of 1 year, as reported in the literature1920.
Conclusion
POEM is more cost-effective than LHM over a 1-year time horizon. POEM costs can be minimized by reducing the cost of the endoscopic materials and improving experience with this procedure.
Footnotes
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Lake J M, Wong R KH. Review article: the management of achalasia – a comparison of different treatment modalities1. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:909–918. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Vaezi M F, Pandolfino J E, Vela M F. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1238–1249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Gunasingam N, Perczuk A, Talbot M et al. Update on therapeutic interventions for the management of achalasia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1422–1428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Richter J E. Achalasia - An Update. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010;16:232–242. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Winter H, Shukla R, Elshaer M. Current management of achalasia – A review. https://www.bjmp.org/content/current-management-achalasia-review Br J Med Pract. 2015;8:a810. [Google Scholar]
6. Pandolfino J E, Gawron A J. Achalasia. JAMA. 2015;313:1841. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Anefalos A, Herbella F AM, Patti M G. Upper esophageal sphincter motility and thoracic pressure are determinants of pressurized waves in achalasia subtypes according to the Chicago Classification. World J Surg. 2020;44:1932–1938. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Jung H-K, Hong S J, Lee O Y et al. 2019 Seoul Consensus on Esophageal Achalasia Guidelines. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;26:180–203. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Tsuboi K, Hoshino M, Srinivasan A et al. Insights gained from symptom evaluation of esophageal motility disorders: a review of 4,215 patients. Digestion. 2012;85:236–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Sinan H, Tatum R P, Soares R V et al. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms in patients with achalasia. Dis Esophagus. 2011;24:224–228. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Coronel M A, Bernardo W M, de Moura D TH et al. The efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments versus sham, pharmacologic or surgical methods for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Gastroenterol. 2019;55:296–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Gupta M, Ghoshal U C, Jindal S et al. Respiratory dysfunction is common in patients with achalasia and improves after pneumatic dilation. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:744–752. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Bianchi E T, Sallum R AA, Szachnowicz S. Heller-Pinotti, a modified partial fundoplication associated with myotomy to treat achalasia: technical and final results from 445 patients. Mini-invasive Surg. 2017;1:153–159. doi:10.20517/2574-1225.2017.41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Inaba C S, Wright A S. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and Toupet fundoplication for achalasia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2020;30 doi:10.1089/lap.2020.0158. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy. 2010;42:265–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Montalvo-Javé E E, Crisanto-Campos B A, Tapia-Jurado J. Perspectiva actual de la cirugía endoscópica transluminal por orificios naturales (CETON) [A current perspective of natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)] Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2016;36:242–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Nesargikar P N, Jaunoo S S. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (N.O.T.E.S) Int J Surg. 2009;7:232–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Pasricha P, Hawari R, Ahmed I et al. Submucosal endoscopic esophageal myotomy: a novel experimental approach for the treatment of achalasia. Endoscopy. 2007;39:761–764. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Miller H J, Neupane R, Fayezizadeh M et al. POEM is a cost-effective procedure: cost-utility analysis of endoscopic and surgical treatment options in the management of achalasia. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1636–1642. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Greenleaf E K, Winder J S, Hollenbeak C S et al. Cost-effectiveness of per oral endoscopic myotomy relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:39–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Delgado A AA, de Moura D TH, Ribeiro I B. Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;11:573–588. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Hathorn K E, Chan W W, Aihara H. Determining the safety and effectiveness of electrocautery enhanced scissors for peroral endoscopic myotomy (with video) Clin Endosc. 2020;53:443–451. doi:10.5946/ce.2019.214. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Martins R K, Ribeiro I B, de Moura D TH et al. Peroral (POME) or surgical myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analyis. Arq Gastroenterol. 2020;57:79–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Weusten B LAM, Barret M, Bredenoord A J et al. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders – part 1: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2020;52:498–515. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Runge T M, Ichkhanian Y, Khashab M A. POEM for achalasia: endoscopic myotomy enters its golden age, and we are taking NOTES. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91:1045–10490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Werner Y B, Hakanson B, Martinek J et al. Endoscopic or Surgical myotomy in patients with idiopathic achalasia. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2219–2229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Noguchi K, Gel Y, Brunner E et al. nparLD: An R Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. J Stat Software. 2012;50:1–23. [Google Scholar]
28. Noguchi K, Latif M, Thangalevu K . New York: John Wiley & Sons; Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. [Google Scholar]
29. Swanström L L. Achalasia: treatment, current status and future advances. Korean J Intern Med. 2019;34:1173–1180. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Martins R K, Bernardo W M, Moura E T et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus surgical myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:AB538–AB539. [Google Scholar]
31. Mohan B P, Ofosu A, Chandan S et al. Anterior versus posterior approach in peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;52:251–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Hashimoto R, Inoue H, Shimamura Y.POEM as salvage therapy in patients with achalasia refractory to endoscopic or surgical therapy is technically feasible and safe: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Dig Endosc 2020 10.1111/den.13643[Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32012360] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Farias G FA, de Moura D TH, de Moura E TH et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): a comparative study between Chagasic and idiopathic achalasia. Endosc Int Open. 2020;08:E506–E512. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Antonini Ribeiro R, Lavanholi Neyeloff J, Itria A et al. Diretriz metodológica para estudos de avaliação econômica de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil. J Bras Econ da Saúde. 2016;8:174–184. [Google Scholar]
35. Ministério da Saúde . Brasília: 2014. Diretrizes metodológicas: diretriz de avaliação econômica. 2 ed. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/diretrizes_metodologicas_diretriz_avaliacao_economica.pdf
36. Kahaleh M, Xu M-M, Zamarripa F et al. POEM in Latin America. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019;53:e352–e355. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Schwarzer R, Rochau U, Saverno K J et al. Systematic overview of cost– effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:485–504. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Endoscopy International Open are provided here courtesy of Thieme Medical Publishers
