Table 1 Characteristics of the 42 POEM procedures performed with LED probe
From: Feasibility of using an led-probe in third-space endoscopy: a clinical study
Patients N = 42 | Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Age, mean (SD), years | 46.7 ± 14.3 | |||
Sex,male,n (%) | 18 (42.9%) | |||
Type of esophagus, n (%) | ||||
• Normal | 2 (5%) | |||
• Grade I | 8 (19%) | |||
• Grade II | 16 (38%) | |||
• Grade III | 8 (19%) | |||
• Grade IV | 8 (19%) | |||
Previous treatments, n (%) | ||||
• Treatment naïve | 32 (76.2%) | |||
• ‘Previously treated | 10 (23.8%) | |||
• +Post-LHM | 6 (60%) | |||
• +Botulinum toxin injection | 2 (20%) | |||
• +Pneumatic dilation | 2 (20%) | |||
Achalasia subtype, n (%) | ||||
• Type I | 11 (26.2%) | |||
• Type II | 20 (47.6%) | |||
• Type III | 11 (26.2%) | |||
Procedure | ||||
Tunnel length, mean (SD), cm | 12.9 ± 3.6 | |||
Myotomy length, mean (SD) cm | 10.5 ± 3.1 | |||
LP placement time, median (IQR), min | 5 (4–6) | |||
Patients with inadequate myotomy after initial classic POEM that benefited from LP use (difficult cases), n (%) | 6 (14.2%) | |||
Total POEM time, median (IQR), min | 50 (38–71) | |||
Adverse Events, n (%) | 4 (9.4%) | |||
• Minor bleeding | 2 (4.7%) | |||
• Pneumoperitoneum | 2 (4.7%) | |||
POEM outcomes | PRE-POEM | POST-POEM 3 m | POST-POEM 6 m | Pvalue |
Eckardt score, median (IQR), points | 9 (6–12) | 1 (0–3) | 1 (0–3) | < 0.0011 |
IRP pressure, mean (SD), mmHg | 27.3 ± 10.8 | 9.8 ± 3.8 | 9.5 ± 4.1 | < 0.0012 |
TBE | < 0.0013 | |||
• < 50% | 100% | 0% | 0% | |
• 50–80% | 0% | 14% | 9.5% | |
• > 80% | 0% | 86% | 90.5% | |