Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Heller’s Myotomy Versus Pneumatic Dilatation for Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Achalasia has several treatment modalities. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) with those of pneumatic dilatation (PD) in adult patients suffering from achalasia. We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Embase for related clinical trials about patients suffering from achalasia. The quality appraisal and assessment of risk of bias were conducted with GRADE and Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, respectively. Homogeneous and heterogeneous data was analyzed under fixed and random-effects models, respectively. The pooled analysis of 10 studies showed that PD was associated with a higher rate of remission at three months, one year, three years and five years (RR = 1.25 [1.09, 1.42] (p = 0.001); RR = 1.13 [1.05, 1.20] (p = 0.0004); RR = 1.48 [1.19, 1.82] (p = 0.0003); RR = 1.49 [1.18, 1.89] (p = 0.001)), respectively. LHM was associated with lower number of cases suffering from adverse events, dysphagia and relapses (RR = 0.50 [0.25, 0.98] (p = 0.04); RR = 0.33 [0.16, 0.71] (p = 0.004); RR = 0.38 [0.15, 0.97] (p = 0.04)), respectively. There is no significant difference between both groups regarding the lower esophageal pressure, perforations, remission rate at two years, Eckardt score after one year and reflux. PD had higher remission rates than LHM at three months, one year and three years, but not at two years or five years. More research is needed to determine whether PD has a significant advantage over LHM in terms of long-term remission rates.