Intraoperative determination of the adequacy of myotomy length during peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): the double-endoscope transillumination for extent confirmation technique (DETECT)

Background and study aims: Precise identification of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) is a challenging prerequisite for adequate length of an esophageal myotomy. Multiple standard methods to identify the GEJ have been described; however, a more objective modality is needed to ensure effective peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).

Patients and methods: In the double-endoscope transillumination for extent confirmation technique (DETECT), an ultraslim gastroscope is passed to the most distal aspect of the submucosal tunnel created during POEM. A regular gastroscope is advanced into the stomach, and the visualization of transillumination from the ultraslim gastroscope enables identification of the extent of the submucosal tunnel.

Results: A total of 10 patients underwent POEM with DETECT. Initial submucosal tunneling was performed based on a determination of the GEJ location via standard methods. DETECT indicated the tunnel extent to be inadequate in 50 % of patients, and the tunnel was extended a further 1 to 2 cm. The mean initial tunnel length was 15.4 cm, with a mean initial myotomy length of 11.9 cm. DETECT was performed in less than 10 minutes without complications.

Conclusion: DETECT is an objective method for determining the adequacy of the submucosal tunnel length during POEM.

• References

• 1 Pasricha PJ, Hawari R, Ahmed I et al. Submucosal endoscopic esophageal myotomy: a novel experimental approach for the treatment of achalasia. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 761-764
• 2 Stavropoulos SN, Modayil RJ, Friedel D et al. The International Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy Survey (IPOEMS): a snapshot of the global POEM experience. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3322-3338
• 3 Inoue H, Minami H, Kobayashi Y et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 265-271
• 4 Khashab MA, Saxena P, Kumbhari V et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy as a platform for the treatment of spastic esophageal disorders refractory to medical therapy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 136-139
• 5 Onimaru M, Inoue H, Ikeda H et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy is a viable option for failed surgical esophagocardiomyotomy instead of redo surgical Heller myotomy: a single center prospective study. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 598-605
• 6 von Renteln D, Inoue H, Minami H et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: a prospective single center study. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 411-417
• 7 Teitelbaum EN, Soper NJ, Arafat FO et al. Analysis of a learning curve and predictors of intraoperative difficulty for peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM). J Gastrointest Surg 2014; 18: 92-98 ; discussion 98 – 99
• 8 Hungness ES, Teitelbaum EN, Santos BF et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between peroral esophageal myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17: 228-235
• 9 Zhou PH, Li QL, Yao LQ et al. Peroral endoscopic remyotomy for failed Heller myotomy: a prospective single-center study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 161-166
• 10 Bhayani NH, Kurian AA, Dunst CM et al. A comparative study on comprehensive, objective outcomes of laparoscopic heller myotomy with per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 1098-1103
• 11 Swanstrom LL, Rieder E, Dunst CM. A stepwise approach and early clinical experience in peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia and esophageal motility disorders. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 213: 751-756
• 12 Inoue H, Tianle KM, Ikeda H et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia: technique, indication, and outcomes. Thorac Surg Clin 2011; 21: 519-525
• 13 Oelschlager BK, Chang L, Pellegrini CA. Improved outcome after extended gastric myotomy for achalasia. Arch Surg 2003; 138: 490-495 ; discussion 495–497
• 14 Baldaque-Silva F, Marques M, Vilas-Boas F et al. New transillumination auxiliary technique for peroral endoscopic myotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 544-545