Effect and safety of mark-guided vs standard peroral endoscopic myotomy: A retrospective case control study

Table 2 Primary and secondary outcomes in patients at 3 mo follow-up

	Mark-guided POEM (n = 64)	Standard POEM (n = 69)	P value
Overall clinical success (n)	63 (98.4%)	68 (98.6%)	0.3
Eckart score	1 (1-2)	1 (1-2)	0.78
GERDQ score	6 (5-9)	6 (5-7)	0.35
SF-36 score	78 (76-80)	78 (75-80.5)	0.87
Barium esophagraphy
Height (cm)	3 (2-4)	3 (2-4)	0.94
Diameter (cm)	2 (2-2.5)	2 (2-2.75)	0.86
HRM (mmHg)	12.2 ± 2.37	12.06 ± 1.93	0.7
Reflux symptom (n)
Yes	7 (10.9%)	17 (24.6%)	0.04
No	57 (89.1%)	52(75.4%)
PPI use (n)
Yes	8 (12.7%)	19 (27.5%)	0.03
No	56 (87.3%)	60 (72.5%)

POEM: Peroral endoscopic myotomy; HRM: High-resolution manometry; GERDQ: Gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire; SF-36: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; PPI: Proton pump inhibitor.