Recent advancement of therapeutic endoscopy in the esophageal benign diseases

Table 1 Series reporting Eckardt post Per-oral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia

Ref.	Country	No. of patients	Success rate (%)	Complications (%)	Mean follow-up (mo)
inoue et al[82] 2010a	Japan	17	100	0	5
von Renteln et al[79] 2012	Germany	16	94	12.5	3
Swanstrom et al[67] 2012	United States	18	100	16.7	11
Ren et al[85] 2012	China	119	94	55	3
Costamagna et al[65] 2012	Italy	11	100	0	3
Lee et al[66] 2013	South Korea	13	100	0	7
Hungness et al[76] 2013	United States	18	89	22	6
Teitelbaum et al[77] 2013	United States	12	100	NR	9
Zhou et al[83] 2013b	China	12	92	16.7	10
Von Renteln et al[64] 2013c	International	70	82.4	14.3	12
Sharata et al[84] 2013d	United States	31	100	12.5	6
Freidel et al[68] 2013	United States	45	95	33	3
Inoue et al[80] 2013	Japan	300	100	6	12
Sharata et al[73] 2014	United States	75	98	11	16
Bhayani et al[78] 2014	United States	37	100	13.5	6
Minami et al[63] 2014	Japan	28	96	0	3

^aEckard score was not used, but rather a dysphagia symptoms score which decreased from mean of 10 to 1.3;

^bAll patient had previous laparoscopic Heller myotomy;

^cEuropean and North American;

^dIncluded other spastic esophageal disorders, total 31 achalasia cases; Complications rate reported is for all 40 cases performed. NR: Not reported.

Table 2 Series reporting on safety and efficacy of per-oral endoscopic tumor resection

Ref.	Country	No. of patients	Mean tumor size (mm)	Complete resectionb (%)	Piecemeal or disrupted capsule (%)	Complications(%)
Inoue et al[97] 2011a	Japan	9	29.4	100 (7/9)	0	0
Cai et al[105] 2012	China	1	20	100	NS	100
Gong et al[106] 2012	China	12	19.5	83.3 (10/12)	16.7 (2/12)	16.7
Xu et al[107] 2012	China	15	19	100	0	13.3
Liu et al[103] 2013	China	12	18.5	100	0	66.7
Xu et al[108] 2013	China	23	21	100	0	39
Wang et al[99] 2013	China	18	33	NS	NS	16.7
Chen et al[109] 2014	China	1	#1 = 25 #2 = 30	100	0	0
Kumbhari et al[100] 2014	United States	1	60	0	100	NS
Lu et al[110] 2014	China	42	12.1	97.7 (44/45)	2.3 (1/45)	15.6
Ye et al[104] 2014	China	85	19.2	100	0	9.4
Wang et al[98] 2014	China	57	21.5	100	0	21
Lu et al[111] 2014c	China	18	21	100	0	11.1

^aThe 2 subepithelial tumors (SETs) that could not be resected were 60 and 75 mm in size and an adequate endoscopic field for safe extraction was not possible;

^bComplete resection refers to en bloc extraction of the tumor with intact capsule and clear margins;

^cSeries included only cardia and gastric SETs. NS: Not specified.

Table 3 General differences between stents for benign esophageal disease

Stent type	Advantages	Disadvantages
FCSEMS	No requirement for pre-dilation Recapture is possible	Expensive High migration risk Increased tissue hyperplasia
SEPS	Cheaper than other covered stents Decreased tissue hyperplasia	High migration risk (potentially more than FCSEMS) Require manual loading Require pre-dilation
BDS	No need to remove Less migration risk	Expensive Increased risk of post-procedure pain Require manual loading Require pre-dilation

FCSEMS: Fully covered self-expandable metal stents; SEPS: Self-expandable plastic stents; BDS: Biodegradable stents.