• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Laparoscopic Pyloroplasty Versus Endoscopic Per-Oral Pyloromyotomy for the Treatment of Gastroparesis

Laparoscopic Pyloroplasty Versus Endoscopic Per-Oral Pyloromyotomy for the Treatment of Gastroparesis

Joshua P Landreneau, MD1, Andrew T Strong, MD1, Kevin M El-Hayek, MD1, Matthew D Kroh, MD2, Jeffrey L Ponsky, MD1, John H Rodriguez, MD1. 1Cleveland Clinic, 2Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi

Introduction: Gastroparesis is a debilitating functional disorder of the stomach characterized by delayed gastric emptying absent an obstructive etiology.  Surgical or endoscopic disruption of the pylorus has been utilized to treat this disease, but there is little evidence comparing laparoscopic pyloroplasty (LP) with endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP).  Herein we describe our experience at our institution using a propensity matched cohort study to compare outcomes between these procedures.

Methods: All patients who underwent LP for the treatment of gastroparesis from October 2014 through September 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed.  Propensity scores were used to match these patients 1:1 to patients undergoing POP during this time period based on gender, age, and etiology of gastroparesis (idiopathic, diabetic, or post-surgical).  Symptom scoring using the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI), 4-hour solid-phase scintigraphic gastric emptying study, wireless motility capsule studies, and perioperative outcomes were compared between matched cohorts.

Results: Thirty patients underwent LP for gastroparesis during the study period. The cohort was 76.7% female with a mean age of 45.4 years and a median body mass index of 25.77 kg/m2. The etiology of gastroparesis was 63.3% idiopathic (n=19), 20.0% post-surgical (n=6), and 16.7% diabetic (n=5) in this cohort.  There were no significant differences in gender, age at the time of intervention, and etiology of gastroparesis in the POP cohort following propensity matching.  Patients who underwent LP had a longer average length of stay (4.6 vs. 1.4 days, p<0.001), operative time (123.3 vs. 33.9 minutes, p<0.001), and estimated blood loss (12.9 vs. 0.33 mL, p<0.001). There were more complications in the LP cohort (40.0% vs. 16.7%, p=0.02), which included superficial or organ-space surgical site infection (6.6% vs. 3.3%, p=0.28), unplanned ICU admission (10.0% vs. 0.0%, p=0.04), readmission within 30 days (16.7% vs. 3.3%, p=0.042), and re-operation (n=1 in both cohorts).  There were no mortalities in the LP cohort. One patient died within 30 days after undergoing POP from a cardiac event deemed unrelated to the procedure.  LP and POP resulted in similar improvements in  GCSI (LP 1.19 vs. POP 1.73, p=0.275).  Solid-phase scintigraphic gastric emptying studies were available in seven patients post LP and eight patients after POP, with normal gastric emptying at 4 hours in each case.

Conclusions: Endoscopic per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP) is a safe and effective intervention for the treatment of medical refractory gastroparesis.  POP has less perioperative morbidity compared to laparoscopic pyloroplasty with comparative functional outcomes.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 88201

Program Number: S046

Presentation Session: Foregut Session

Presentation Type: Podium

268

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals