Selective inner muscle layer myotomy is associated with lower pain and same clinical efficacy that full-thickness myotomy in patients treated by POEM for achalasia: A multicenter retrospective comparative analysis of 158 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of the depth of myotomy (selective inner layer myotomy (SIM) vs. full-thickness myotomy (FTM)) on the outcome of patients treated with POEM for achalasia. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, conducted in two tertiary centers between October 2018 and September 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: SIM and FTM. The primary endpoint was clinical efficacy at 6 months, while secondary endpoints were postoperative criteria (such as pain, length of hospital stay, complications) and occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (esophagitis at 6 months, heartburn, and pH-metry). RESULTS: 158 patients were included in the study (33 in the FTM group and 125 in the SIM group). The success rates at 6 and 12 months were similar in both groups, with 84 % and 70 % in the SIM group versus 90 % and 80 % in the FTM group, respectively (p = 0.57 and p = 0.74). However, more opioid analgesics were consumed in the FTM group compared to the SIM group (41% vs 21 %, p < 0.01). The length of hospitalization was longer in the FTM group than in the SIM group (2.17 ± 2.62 vs 2.94 ± 2.33, p < 0.001). The rate of esophagitis at 6 months was comparable (16 % in the SIM group vs 12 % in the FTM group, p = 0.73). There was no significant difference in terms of heartburn at 6 or 12 months between the SIM and FTM groups (18.5% vs 3.8 %, p = 0.07 and 27% vs 12.5 %, p = 0.35, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in terms of clinical efficacy and GERD occurrence between FTM and SIM. However, full-thickness myotomy was associated with more postoperative pain and a longer length of hospital stay. Therefore, selective internal myotomy should be preferred over full-thickness myotomy.

The Role of High-Resolution Manometry Prior to and Following Antireflux Surgery: The Padova Consensus.

BACKGROUND: In the last two decades the development of high-resolution manometry (HRM) has changed and revolutionized the diagnostic assessment of patients complain foregut symptoms. The role of HRM before and after antireflux procedure remains unclear, especially in surgical practice, where a clear understanding of esophageal physiology and hiatus anatomy is essential for optimal outcome of antireflux surgery (ARS). Surgeons and gastroenterologists (GIs) agree that assessing patients following antireflux procedures can be challenging. Although endoscopy and barium-swallow can reveal anatomic abnormalities, physiologic information on HRM allowing insight into the cause of eventually recurrent symptoms could be key to clinical decision making. METHOD: A multi-disciplinary international working group (14 surgeons and 15 GIs) collaborated to develop consensus on the role of HRM pre- and post- ARS, and to develop a postoperative classification to interpret HRM findings. The method utilized was detailed literature review to develop statements, and the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) to assess agreement with the statements. Only statements with an approval rate >80% or a final ranking with a median score of 7 were accepted in the consensus. The working groups evaluated the role of HRM prior to ARS and the role of HRM following ARS. CONCLUSION: This international initiative developed by surgeons and GIs together, summarizes the state of our knowledge of the use of HRM pre- and post-ARS. The Padova Classification was developed to facilitate the interpretation of HRM studies of patients underwent ARS.

Intrarectal injections of botulinum toxin versus placebo for the treatment of urge faecal incontinence in adults (FI-Toxin): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Non-randomised studies assessing intrarectal botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) injections for faecal incontinence are promising. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of BoNTA for the treatment of faecal incontinence in a randomised study. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we included adult patients who had at least one urgency or faecal incontinence episode per week for at least 3 months and who had experienced a failure of conservative or surgical treatment from eight French specialist hospital units with the skills to manage patients with faecal incontinence. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a central web form to receive intrarectal submucosal injections of either 200 units of BoNTA (Botox; Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA; BoNTA group) or an equivalent volume of saline (placebo group), stratified by Cleveland Clinic Severity scores (CCS score; ≥12 or <12). Patients, investigators, study site staff, and sponsor personnel were masked to treatment allocation up to the 6-month visit. The primary endpoint was the number of episodes of faecal incontinence and urgency per day assessed using 21-day patient bowel diaries 3 months after the treatment. The primary analysis was performed using a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) approach (ie, in all the randomised patients who had received a treatment) with adjustment for baseline faecal incontinence and urgency episodes. After the final data collection at 6 months after injections, patients were unmasked and offered the BoNTA treatment if they were in the placebo group (rescue therapy) without masking, with an additional 6 months of safety follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02414425. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2015, and Nov 25, 2020, we randomly assigned 200 patients to receive either BoNTA (n=100) or placebo (n=100) injections. Due to withdrawals before the injections, 96 patients were included in the BoNTA group and 95 patients were included in the placebo group (mITT analysis). The mean number of faecal incontinence and urgency episodes per day in the BoNTA group decreased from 1·9 (SD 2·2) at baseline to 0·8 (1·8) at 3 months after the injections, and from 1·4 (1·1) to 1·0 (1·0) in the placebo group, with a baseline-adjusted mean group difference at 3 months estimated at -0·51 (95% CI -0·80 to -0·21, p=0·0008). No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in the trial. The most frequently reported non-serious adverse event (treatment related or not) following the BoNTA or placebo injections was constipation (reported in 68 [40%] of 169 patients who received the BoNTA injections and 38 [40%] of 95 patients who received placebo injections). INTERPRETATION: BoNTA injections are an efficacious treatment for urge faecal incontinence. Further research will define the optimum selection criteria, dose, site of injection, re-injection frequency, and long-term results. FUNDING: General Direction of Healthcare (French Ministry of Health).