Feasibility of the peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) procedure with a new small-caliber endoscope (thin-POEM) in patients with achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a recognized technique for patients with achalasia. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a small-caliber endoscope (thin-POEM) to perform POEM in patients with achalasia. METHODS: Naïve or previously treated patients were included between February 2016 and April 2018. A small-caliber (5.9 mm) nasoendoscope was used, with a modified closure method using cyanoacrylate. Strict follow-up was performed. RESULTS: 45 patients were included, aged 45.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 22 - 69); 53 % (24/45) had type II achalasia. Median total time for thin-POEM was 54 minutes (IQR 37 - 77) and median myotomy length was 13.5 cm (IQR 6 - 20). Results pre-procedure and 3 months post were Eckardt score 10 vs. 1 (P < 0.001), integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) 25.3 vs. 8.5 mmHg (P < 0.001), and timed barium esophagram (TBE) 100 % severely delayed vs. 86 % normal (P < 0.001), respectively. Type III patients had the longest thin-POEM times (median 58 minutes [IQR 52 - 77]). Reflux was confirmed at 3 months clinically in 17 % of patients, endoscopically in 20 %, and on pH monitoring in 53 %. At 6 months and 12 months, 40 % and 33 % of patients remained positive on pH monitoring and were medically managed. CONCLUSIONS: Thin-POEM seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient procedure for POEM in patients with achalasia, with good short-term follow-up results.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease in children: how reliable is the gold standard?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the causes and degree of interobserver variability in esophageal pH monitoring for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: This retrospective study included all children (n = 72) who underwent pH monitoring during 1 year at Maxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. RESULTS: An interobserver variability of 18% was found. Variability was caused by differences in opinion about the duration of registration, doubts about probe position, artifacts and drift of baseline pH. CONCLUSIONS: Most of these problems can be eliminated by posttest calibration and assessment of the pH electrode position. However, a clear definition of monitoring artifacts is lacking. This study shows that mutual agreement in the interpretation of pH studies was fair (kappa coefficient of 0.70).

Doença do refluxo gastroesofágico em crianças: quão confiável é o padrão-ouro? / Gastroesophageal reflux disease in children: how reliable is the gold standard?

OBJETIVO: O monitoramento do pH esofágico é considerado o método mais confiável para diagnosticar o refluxo gastroesofágico. No entanto, a interpretação do mesmo estudo de pH pode diferir entre observadores. Neste estudo, investigamos as causas e o grau de variabilidade entre observadores. MÉTODOS: Este estudo retrospectivo incluiu todas as crianças (n = 72) que realizaram monitoramento de pH durante 1 ano no Maxima Medical Centre, em Veldhoven, Holanda. RESULTADOS: Foi encontrada uma variabilidade de 18 por cento entre observadores. A variabilidade foi causada por diferenças de opinião sobre a duração do registro, dúvidas sobre a posição da sonda, artefatos e flutuação do pH de base. CONCLUSÕES: A maioria desses problemas pode ser eliminada por avaliação da posição do eletrodo de pH e calibração pós-teste. No entanto, ainda falta uma definição clara dos artefatos de monitoramento. Este estudo mostra que a concordância mútua na interpretação dos estudos de pH foi regular (coeficiente kappa de 0,70).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the causes and degree of interobserver variability in esophageal pH monitoring for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. METHODS: This retrospective study included all children (n = 72) who underwent pH monitoring during 1 year at Maxima Medical Centre in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. RESULTS: An interobserver variability of 18 percent was found. Variability was caused by differences in opinion about the duration of registration, doubts about probe position, artifacts and drift of baseline pH. CONCLUSIONS: Most of these problems can be eliminated by posttest calibration and assessment of the pH electrode position. However, a clear definition of monitoring artifacts is lacking. This study shows that mutual agreement in the interpretation of pH studies was fair (kappa coefficient of 0.70).