Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 685

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic and Surgical Treatments for Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Campos, Guilherme M., Vittinghoff, Eric, Rabl, Charlotte, Takata, Mark, Gadenstätter, Michael, Lin, Feng, Ciovica, Ruxandra·2009·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although rare, esophageal achalasia is the best described primary esophageal motility disorder. Commonly used treatments are endoscopic botulin toxin injection (EBTI), endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD), and surgical myotomy with or without a fundoplication; however, reported outcomes mostly come from cohort studies. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic and surgical treatments for esophageal achalasia. METHODS: A systematic electronic Medline literature search of articles on esophageal achalasia. Treatment options reviewed included EBTI, EBD, and surgical myotomy using open and minimally invasive techniques. Main outcome measures were frequency of symptom relief, prevalence of post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux (GER), and complications. Outcome probability was estimated using weighted averages of the sample prevalence in each study, with weights equal to the number of patients. Outcomes, within or across studies, were compared using meta-analysis and meta-regression, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 105 articles reporting on 7855 patients were selected, tabulated and reviewed. Symptom relief after EBD was better than after EBTI (68.2% vs. 40.6%; OR 3.4; 95% CI, 1.2-9.8; P = 0.02), and the need for additional therapy was greater for patients receiving EBTI (46.6% vs. 25%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.05-6.5; P = 0.04). Laparoscopic myotomy, when combined with an antireflux procedure, provided better symptom relief (90%) than all endoscopic and other surgical approaches and a low complication rate (6.3%). The incidence of postoperative GER was lower when a fundoplication was added to a laparoscopic myotomy (31.5% without a fundoplication vs. 8.8% with; OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.0-19.4; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: EBD is superior to EBTI. Laparoscopic myotomy with fundoplication was the most effective surgical technique and can be considered the operative procedure of choice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31818e43ab

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Campos, G. M., Vittinghoff, E., Rabl, C., Takata, M., Gadenstätter, M., Lin, F., & Ciovica, R.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2009-01
Volume
249
Issue
1
Pages
45-57
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970803263
Cited by
685
References
1
FWCI
23.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endoscopic and Surgical Treatments for Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31818e43ab
The paper
Campos, G. M., Vittinghoff, E., Rabl, C., Takata, M., Gadenstätter, M., Lin, F., & Ciovica, R. (2009). Endoscopic and Surgical Treatments for Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31818e43ab

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.