Submucosal tunnel endoscopy: Peroral endoscopic myotomy and peroral endoscopic tumor resection

Table 5 Efficacy and complications of peroral endoscopic myotomy

Ref.	Patients (n)	Mean age (yr)	Eckardt score (pre/post)	LES pressure (pre/post) (mmHg)	Follow-up (mo)	Efficacy	Objective GERD evidence n (%)
Onimaru et al[12], Yokohama, Japan	300	45 (3-87)	6.13/1.33	27.3/13.4	12	98%	10%
Zhou et al[4], Fudan, China	42	44 (10-70)			2.5 (1-6)	100%
Minami et al[32], Nagasaki, Japan	28	52 (19-84)	6.7/0.7	71.2/21	16	100%	Esophagitis 39.3%
Swanström et al[65], Portland, Oregon	18	59 (22-88)	6/0	45/16.8	6	94%	Esophagitis grade 1
							28%
							+pH study
							46%
Costamagna et al[39], Rome, Italy	11	41 (23-68)	7.1/1.1	45.1/16.9	3	100%
Chiu et al[64], Hong Kong, China	16	47 (22-87)	5.5/0	43.6/29.8	3	100%	+pH study 3/15 (20%)
Hungness et al[53], Chicago, Illinois	18	38 (22-69)	7/1	19/9	63	89%	Esophagitis LA 33.3%
							A 13.3%
							B 13.3%
							C 6.7%
Von Renteln et al[60], European, CT	70	45	6.9/1	27.6/8.9	12	82%	Esophagitis 42%
							LA class
							A 29.2%
							B 12.3%
Stavropoulos et al[85], Mineola, New York	100	52	7.8/0.2	44.2/17.6	13.3	96%	17/53 (32%)
		(17-93)
Verlaan et al[37], Amsterdam, The Netherlands	10	43	8/1	20.5/6.8	3	100%	60%
							LA class
							A 30%
							B 30%

GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux.