Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2016; 22(35): 7892-7907
Published online Sep 21, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i35.7892
Published online Sep 21, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i35.7892
Table 1 Current treatment options in achalasia
Treatment option | Pros | Cons | Success rate |
Oral agents | Non operative patients, on demand, dose adjustment | Adverse events, low duration, not a definitive method | 28%-66% reduction of LES pressure |
Pneumatic dilation | Short recovery, low procedure time, best non-surgical method | Perforation, multiple procedures needed, post procedure reflux | 66%-90% 1 yr and 48% 10 yr |
Heller myotomy | Most durable effect | Not applicable for high risk surgical patients, post-surgical reflux, anesthesia required | 93% 1 yr |
69%-80% 10 yr | |||
Self-expanding metal stent | Good palliative option, high risk surgical patients | Expensive, stent migration, reflux (single center experience) | 100% 1 mo, |
83% 10 yr | |||
POEM | Non-surgical, -low and -high risk patients | Complications (pneumothorax, reflux), not widely available, expertise | 5%-62% reduction of LES pressure |
- Citation: Furuzawa-Carballeda J, Torres-Landa S, Valdovinos M&, Coss-Adame E, Martín del Campo LA, Torres-Villalobos G. New insights into the pathophysiology of achalasia and implications for future treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(35): 7892-7907
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i35/7892.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i35.7892