• 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
    • 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 / Preoperative Endoscopic Treatment for Achalasia Does Not Affect Perioperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy

Preoperative Endoscopic Treatment for Achalasia Does Not Affect Perioperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy

Michael J Pucci, Richard A Burkhart, Wei Phin Tan, Alexandra Columbus, Ernest L Rosato, Karen A Chojnacki, Francesco Palazzo

Thomas Jefferson University

Introduction:
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has been proven to provide a safe, effective, and durable treatment for patients with achalasia. Despite good surgical outcomes, many patients continue to be referred for surgical evaluation only after multiple endoscopic interventions have failed. It remains unclear whether prior endoscopic treatments render the surgical myotomy more complex and increase procedure-related risks. Herein, we review our experience with LHM, focusing on prior endoscopic interventions and their effect on perioperative outcomes.

Methods:
We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent LHM for achalasia from August 2002 – August 2012 at a single high-volume center. Patients were stratified into groups based on preoperative endoscopic management (pneumatic dilation, botulinum toxin injection, both, or none). Operative notes and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Categorical variables were compared using Fischer exact testing. Continuous variables were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank-sum testing.

Results:
A total of 160 patients underwent LHM during the study period. While the vast majority of patients underwent preoperative endoscopic therapy (125 patients, 78%), the groups were well matched. There was no difference in recognized intraoperative mucosal injury, postoperative complications, or subjective perioperative outcomes. There was a trend towards shorter operative times in patient who underwent both endoscopic interventions preoperatively. There were no differences in return to the operating room, hospital length of stay, or readmission rates between the groups (See Table 1).

Conclusion:
In our experience, preoperative endoscopic interventions do not affect intraoperative esophageal mucosal injury or perioperative complication rates. LHM remains a safe procedure in the face of prior endoscopic therapies of the lower esophageal sphincter.

Table 1.

No intervention
(n=35, 22%)
Pneumatic dilations only
(n = 17, 11%)
Botox only
(n = 70, 43%)
Both interventions
(n = 38, 24%)
p-value
Age (years), median (range) 51 (21-83) 53 (30-80) 52 (10-85) 56 (24-90) NS
Female gender, number (%) 16 (46%) 3 (18%) 37 (53%) 21 (55%) <0.01
Pre-operative characteristics – – – – –
LES pressure, median (range) 50 (11-94) 36 (7-61) 45 (6-91) 36 (10-65) NS
Impaired sphincter relaxation, n (%) 6 (17%) 3 (18%) 10 (14%) 3 (8%) NS
Aperistalsis, n (%) 27 (77%) 12 (71%) 58 (83%) 27 (71%) NS
Intraoperative characteristics – – – – –
Operative time (min), median (range) 120 (73-238) 125 (71-224) 127.5 (73-248) 103 (67-277) 0.024
Intraoperative endoscopy performed, n (%) 7 (20%) 5 (29%) 14 (20%) 6 (16%) NS
Methylene blue leak check, n (%) 2 (6%) 4 (24%) 12 (17%) 2 (5%) NS
Recognized mucosal perforation, n (%) 3 (9%) 2 (12%) 7 (10%) 3 (8%) NS
Post-operative characteristics – – – – –
Subjective swallowing improvement, n (%) 28 (80%) 13 (76%) 59 (84%) 33 (87%) NS
Perioperative Complications, n (%) 2 (6%) 1 (6%) 6 (9%) 5 (13%) NS
Re-exploration, n (%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1(3%) NS
30 day readmission, n (%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) NS
Length of stay, median (range) 2 (1-10) 2 (1-7) 2 (1-12) 2 (1-19) NS

NS non-significant; LES lower esophageal sphincter.


Session: Poster Presentation

Program Number: P258

69

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