Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Review Article

An Updated Meta-analysis: Similar Clinical Efficacy of Anterior and Posterior Approaches in Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) for Achalasia

Table 3

Summary of the results before balancing baseline.


Outcome	Effective size (95% CI; ; )
Outcome	Anterior	Posterior	value^a

LES pressures^b (mmHg)	-24.56 (-31.29, -17.82; ; 96.25%)	-20.14 (-23.44.-16.85; ; 94.72%)	0.25
POEM Eckardt^b	-5.83 (-6.22, -5.45; ; 83.15%)	-6.07 (-6.52, -5.62; ; 88.93%)	0.44
Clinical success at 12 months^c (%)	94 (90, 97; ; 46.74%)	95 (92, 98; ; 22.00%)	-
Clinical months^c (%)	86 (78, 94; ; 69.24%)	92 (87, 97; ; 72.59%)	0.19
Procedure time^d (min)	78.33 (56.44, 100.22; ; 98.72%)	70.46 (59.05, 81.87; ; 98.47%)	0.53
Length of total myotomy^d (cm)	12.30 (10.04, 14.56; ; 97.70%)	10.81 (9.86, 11.76; ; 97.80%)	0.23
Hospital stays^d (day)	4.95 (3.29, 6.60; ; 99.23%)	4.65 (3.09, 6.22; ; 99.07%)	0.80
GERD by EGD^c (%)	22 (17, 27; ; 58.27%)	16 (12, 21; ; 51.38%)	0.11
Adverse events^c (%)	2 (0, 7; ; 84.88%)	5 (1, 9; ; 74.76%)	-

^a value of subgroup analysis between anterior and posterior approaches. ^bDifferences in the pre- and postoperative mean of the anterior/posterior approach in the subgroup analysis. ^cPooled rate of clinical success at 12 months, clinical months, GERD by EGD, and adverse events in subgroup analysis. ^dPooled mean procedure time, length of total myotomy, and hospital stays in the subgroup analysis.