TRATAMENTO DO MEGAESÔFAGO AVANÇADO: QUAL TÉCNICA OFERECE MELHORES RESULTADOS? UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA

Arq Bras Cir Dig abcd ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo) ABCD, arq. bras. cir. dig. 0102-6720 2317-6326 Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva RESUMO RACIONAL: O megaesôfago avançado predispõe riscos clínicos de desnutrição, infecções e neoplasias, além de impacto significativo na qualidade de vida. Não há um consenso atual na literatura ante a melhor opção de seu tratamento cirúrgico, embora haja predileção pela esofagectomia, cirurgia de significativa morbimortalidade associada. Outras modalidades cirúrgicas têm sido propostas, com bons resultados, como a mucosectomia esofágica e a cardiomiotomia laparoscópica à Heller. OBJETIVOS: Realizar uma revisão sistemática com metanálise da literatura acerca do tratamento cirúrgico do megaesôfago avançado. MÉTODOS: As bases de dados utilizadas foram PubMed, Lilacs, Embase e MedLine, além de pesquisas de referências relacionadas. Os artigos foram selecionados por dois revisores independentemente. RESULTADOS: Foram selecionados 14 artigos, que incluem 1.862 pacientes. Os estudos foram divididos em dois grupos: cardiomiotomia laparoscópica com fundoplicatura (213 pacientes) e cirurgias de grande porte (1.649 pacientes). Os estudos analisados evidenciam que ambos os grupos apresentaram resultados semelhantes quanto ao desfecho tardio, considerado majoritariamente bom ou excelente, no entanto, houve significativa morbimortalidade associada ao grupo de cirurgias maiores. CONCLUSÕES: A cardiomiotomia laparoscópica com fundoplicatura pode ser realizada no megaesôfago avançado, com taxas de complicações e mortalidade reduzidas frente às cirurgias de grande porte, porém, com ressalvas quanto ao desfecho tardio a longo prazo. INTRODUCTION Achalasia is an inflammatory neurodegenerative disorder of the esophagus, which, through the destruction of neurons in the myenteric plexus of the distal esophagus, prevents relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and incoordination of esophageal peristalsis24,35,38. It is defined as a denervation esophagopathy with broad-spectrum dysmotility13 hampering emptying and dilation of the esophagus, clinically characterized as megaesophagus16. Terminal achalasia occurs in around 10–15% of all patients with the disease22 and is characterized by advanced megaesophagus (grades III and IV — Resende/Mascarenhas classification), with dolichomegaesophagus (“sigmoid-esophagus”), significant tortuosity, esophageal diameter above 6 cm. It occurs due to failure of previous treatments9,24. These patients present conditions with severe symptoms, which directly impact their quality of life. Furthermore, they commonly present life-threatening complications, such as malnutrition, immunodeficiency, repetitive bronchoaspiration and a high risk of developing sepsis and neoplasms9,24,38. In the world literature, there is still no consensus on the best surgical option for definitive treatment of advanced megaesophagus. Subtotal esophagectomy is still suggested as the main treatment option for advanced megaesophagus in elective cases; however, this procedure presents significant morbidity (19 to 69%) and mortality rates (0 to 9%)1,23,34. Alternative techniques such as esophageal mucosectomy, developed by Aquino et al.3, present significantly better results when compared to esophagectomy in the treatment of terminal achalasia. On the other hand, it involves carrying out a major abdominal surgery with all the risks inherent to such procedure5,6. With the purpose of achieving a less morbid treatment for these patients, who may already be weakened by this disease, some authors propose performing laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy, with results generally considered satisfactory. However, the accumulated risk of long-term neoplasia, regurgitation and bronchoaspiration is questioned when keeping the esophagus in situ, an inert pouch, and impaired emptying12,21. The present study is justified based on the need to provide a better understanding of the different types of surgical treatments for advanced megaesophagus, considering the risks and postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as results, effectiveness, and late outcomes. A more incisive guide to allow the surgeon’s selection of the best surgical treatment for advanced megaesophagus is required. Our work aimed to carry out a systematic review with meta-analysis on the surgical treatment of advanced megaesophagus, with view at describing the main modalities currently in use and whose scope involves the comparative assessment of such modalities’ morbidity, mortality, complications rates and outcomes and late results. METHODS Our systematic review was conducted in accordance with the recommendations and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)25 method checklist. After a prepared question, the Patient or Problem, Intervention, Control or Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) strategy was used in order to identify the outcome of advanced megaesophagus surgical treatment. The eligibility criteria included: Participant type (P): patients diagnosed with advanced megaesophagus. Types of intervention (I and C): esophagectomy, esophageal mucosectomy, Serra-Doria surgery, Heller cardiomyotomy. The types of intervention were not applicable to control patients. The survey included a review of non-comparative studies. Types of outcomes (O): surgical outcomes considering morbidity, mortality, complications, length of stay, late results, effectiveness, quality of life. The aim of our work was to search for the most current forms of surgical treatment for advanced megaesophagus, and, hence it was decided to include only articles published in the last ten years. Furthermore, as this is an uncommon disease, the included articles had to have a sample of patients greater than or equal to eight cases, submitted to previous treatments or not. Inclusion criteria Studies that included patients with advanced achalasia and/or advanced megaesophagus of any etiology (grades III and IV, sigmoid esophagus, terminal achalasia), undergoing any type of definitive surgical treatment. Studies with patients aged ≥18 years. Studies with a patient sample greater than or equal to eight cases. Cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, randomized or non-randomized clinical trials. Studies evaluated and selected by two independent reviewers. Studies written in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Articles published from 2012 onwards. Exclusion criteria Studies with patients without a diagnosis of advanced achalasia/advanced megaesophagus. Studies with patients diagnosed with advanced achalasia/megaesophagus undergoing definitive non-surgical treatments. Case reports, correspondence, animal models, literature reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Studies without full text. Selection of articles A search using a predefined strategy was carried out in electronic databases by two reviewers independently. Any disagreement between reviewers was settled by consensus after discussion with a third researcher. The articles were screened according to previously established inclusion/exclusion criteria. When similar articles from the same institution were found, the article with a larger patients’ sample was selected. Two separate reviews were carried out, one qualitative and one quantitative (meta-analysis). The latter compared the following outcomes: morbidity/complications, mortality and late outcomes considered good or excellent. Database The databases searched electronically were PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MedLine), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (Lilacs) and Embase. The structured search strategy involved the following terms: (esophageal achalasia) OR (achalasia) OR (end-stage achalasia) OR (megaesophagus) OR (advanced megaesophagus) OR (sigmoid-esophagus) AND (surgery) OR (minimally invasive surgery) OR (laparoscopic myotomy) OR (laparoscopic heller myotomy) OR (laparoscopic cardiomyotomy) OR (serra-doria surgery) OR (esophagectomy) OR (esophageal resection) OR (mucosectomy) OR (esophageal mucosectomy) AND (groups) OR (trial) OR (surgery) OR (randomly) OR (randomized) OR (clinical trial) OR (comparative study) OR (controlled clinical trial) OR (randomized controlled trial) AND (surgery outcomes) OR (outcomes) OR (morbidity) OR (mortality) OR (follow-up) OR (quality of life). The search for references of relevant articles and abstracts published in conference proceedings was also considered in the review. The last survey was carried out in June 2022. The survey results are reported in Table 1. Table 1 Search results. Data base Articles found Selected articles n n PubMed 127 2 MEDLINE 260 2 Lilacs 247 3 Others 11 6 Total 969 14 Bias risk analysis methodology in non-randomized studies Non-randomized studies were subjected to the risk of bias analysis using the ROBINS-I platform (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies — of Interventions); the same methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of a randomized study32. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was carried out through the development of a meta-analysis using the Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan) software (https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software/revman), organized in forest plot and funnel plot graphs. Statistical significance was considered at p<0.05 and confidence interval at 95% (95%CI)15. The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using the I test². RESULTS The total number of articles assessed was 969 and the total number of articles selected for the work which met the pre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria was 14, totaling 1,862 patients. The database screening involved 958 articles. Out of these, after excluding duplicate articles and those that were not relevant to the work, 84 articles were selected for full text reading. Finally, eight articles were selected for the work. The remaining articles were excluded because they did not present a scope relevant to the work or because data were missing in connection with the objective of this study. Within the data search carried out, some abstracts published in conference proceedings were identified and reviewed. A reference search for relevant articles was also carried out. A total of 11 pertinent articles were found and, after application of the exclusion criteria, six articles were finally selected. The papers were separated into two large groups: patients undergoing cardiomyotomy (six articles; n=213) and patients undergoing major surgeries (nine articles; n=1,649), and this group included the following surgeries: esophagectomy, subtotal esophagectomy, transhiatal esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, esophageal mucosectomy, Serra-Doria esophagocardioplasty. The major surgeries mentioned above were considered as such because they necessarily involved a digestive anastomosis. The article by Tassi et al.33 was allocated to both groups as it encompasses patients studied using both surgical modalities. Some studies within the group of major surgeries presented results involving more than one surgical technique2,11,20. Of the 14 studies selected for the work, one18 was not eligible for meta-analysis due to missing data. Hence, the meta-analysis included a total of 13 articles and 686 patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart The selection and inclusion of articles is shown in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart25. Qualitative results: systematic review The results were summarized in tables, as explained below. The surgeries were divided into two large groups, named “cardiomyotomy” and “major surgeries” (Tables 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B). The objective items of study and comparison in this work were the following: study design, type of surgical treatment performed, number of patients, average age, gender, definition and classification of advanced achalasia/megaesophagus, general complications and morbidity, mortality, time of hospitalization, average follow-up time and late results. Table 2A Systematic review of studies of cardiomyotomy with fundoplication for advanced megaesophagus. Study Study design Treatment carried out No. of patients Average age (years) Gender (M/F) Classification of achalasia Panchanatheeswaran et al.26 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy + antireflux procedure 8 39.5 M50%F50% “Sigmoid esophagus” Pantanali et al.27 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy + Pain fundoplication 11 56 M6F5 >10 cm (diameter) Simić et al.31 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller-Dor cardiomyotomy 10 51 - “Sigmoid esophagus” Rosemurgy et al.29 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy + anterior fundoplication 10III: 3IV: 7 III: 61IV 56 III: M0M3IV: F4M3 III: >6 cm, IV: >3 esophageal curves and >6 cm(diameter) Costantini et al.7 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller-Dor cardiomyotomy 142III: 87IV: 55 46 - grade III: >6cm (diameter)grade IV: “sigmoid-shaped esophagus” Tassi et al.33 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller-Dor “Pull-down” cardiomyotomy (CLH) x Esophagectomy (E) CLH: 32 CLH: 57 CLH: M34.37%F65.62% “End-stage achalasia” M: male; F: female. Table 2B Systematic review of cardiomyotomy studies with fundoplication for advanced megaesophagus. Study Complications/morbidity Mortality Length of stay (days) Average follow-up time Late results Panchanatheeswaran et al.26 Morbidity 0%1 iatrogenic intraoperative complication None 4.25 19.5 months 100% Excellent or Good (50–50%) Pantanali et al. 27 Morbidity 0% None 1 31.5 months 72.8% Excellent or Good Simić et al.31 Morbidity 0%1 mucosal perforation1 trocar bleeding1 wound infection None 2 28 months 94.4% resolution of dysphagia Rosemurgy et al.29 Intraoperative: 0Postoperative period: 1 (atelectasia) None III: 4IV: 3 27 months III:33% Excellent66% GoodIV:25% Excellent75% Good Costantini et al.7 Morbidity 4.7%22 mucosal perforations1 splenic injury2 Trocar bleeding 0.1% (AMI) - 62 months 89.5% Good outcomeIII: 90.8%IV 76.4%Failure:III 9.2%IV 23.6% Tassi et al.33 CLH: 12.5%1 mucous fistula1 mucous membrane1 hyper-dysphagia1 hyper competent fundoplication There were none in both groups CLH: 6 CLH: 68 months CLH:46.87% Excellent34.37% Good CLH: Laparoscopic Heller-Dor “Pull-down” cardiomyotomy; AMI: acute myocardial infarction. Table 3A Systematic review of major surgery studies for advanced megaesophagus. Study Study design Treatment carried out No. of patients Average age (years) Gender (M/F) Classification of achalasia Molena et al.18 Retrospective cohort Esophagectomy 963 54.6 M49.01%F50.99% - Felix et al.10 Case series Transhiatal esophagectomy 11 44 M8 F3 “sink trap megaesophagus” Oliveira et al.20 Retrospective cohort Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) x Mucosectomy (ME) 40THE: 23ME: 17 - - Advanced megaesophagus Aquino et al.4 Retrospective cohort Serra-Doria esophagocardioplasty 19 63 a 78 M14F5 Grades III and IV (Rezende Classification) Aquino et al.2 Retrospective cohort Esophageal mucosectomy (ME) x Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) 229ME: 115THE: 114 15-76 years M70.3%F29.7% Advanced megaesophagus Crema et al.8 Cohort Transhiatal VLP esophagectomy with vagus nerve preservation 136 59.3 M59.5% F40.45% Advanced megaesophagus Fontan et al.11 Randomized clinical trial Open transhiatal esophagectomy vs. VLP 30open: 15VLP: 15 open: 47.2VLP: 44.1 open: M8F7VLP: M11F14 Grades III and IV (Rezende Classification) Torres-Landa et al.34 Retrospective cohort Esophagectomy (E) 209 56 M51.8% F48.2% - Tassi et al.33 Retrospective cohort Laparoscopic Heller-Dor “Pull-down” cardiomyotomy (CLH) x Esophagectomy (E) E: 12 E: 59 E:M62.5%F37.5% “End-stage achalasia” M: male; F: female; VLP: videolaparoscopic. Table 3B Systematic review of studies of major surgeries for advanced megaesophagus. Study Complications/morbidity Mortality Length of stay (days) Average follow-up time Late results Torres-Landa et al.34 Morbidity 43.5%Readmission 2.2%Reoperation 6.7%Sepsis 9.5%Pneumonia 12.4%Blood transfusion 20.5% None 10 1 month Not assessed Tassi et al.33 E: 43.75%3 anastomosis fistulas1 pyloroplasty fistula1 pleural empyema1 acute respiratory failure There were none in both groups E: 23 E: 61 months E:37.5% excellent25% good Quantitative results: meta-analysis The meta-analysis was carried out based on a systematic correlation between morbidity/complications and mortality and late outcomes considered good or excellent, for both groups. In this way, four forest plot graphs were generated, two for the cardiomyotomy group and two for the major surgery group (Figures 2, 3, 4, 5). Analysis of the risk of bias of the selected studies was carried out based on the ROBINS-I platform, as shown in Table 4. A correlation was made between the relative risk (RR) generated from the meta-analyses for the outcomes assessed. Table 5 demonstrates such comparative analysis. Figure 2 Comparative meta-analysis between morbidity/complications x good or excellent late outcome in cardiomyotomy – Forest plot15. Figure 3 Comparative meta-analysis between mortality x good or excellent late outcome in cardiomyotomy — Forest plot15. Figure 4 Comparative meta-analysis between morbidity/complications x good or excellent late outcome in major surgeries – Forest plot15. Figure 5 Comparative meta-analysis between mortality x good or excellent late outcome in major surgeries – Forest plot15. Table 4 Risk of bias in the studies included in the meta-analysis32. Study Risk of bias domains D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Overall Rosemurgy et al.29 Fontan et al.11 Pantanali et al.27 Torres-Landa et al.34 Aquino et al.4 Oliveira et al.20 Crema et al.8 Aquino et al.2 Felix et al.10 Panchanatheeswaran et al.26 Simic et al.31 Molena et al.18 Costantini et al.7 Tassi et al.33 Domains: Judgment D1: Bias due to confounding. Critical D2: Bias due to selection of participants. D3: Bias in classification of interventions. Serious D4: Bias due to deviations from intended interventions. D5: Bias due to missing data. Moderate D6: Bias in measurement of outcomes. D7: Bias in selection of the reported result. Low Table 5 Relative risk between the cardiomyotomy and major surgery groups compared to the comparative analysis of morbidity/complications and mortality x good or excellent late outcomes. Groups Morbidity/complications Mortality Cardiomyotomy 0.08 0.03 Major surgeries 0.49 0.05 DISCUSSION From the review of the data gathered in this work, we can detect some significant aspects of the surgical treatment of advanced megaesophagus. The systematic review and meta-analysis carried out allow for sufficient data to be provided for an in-depth analysis of the two large treatment groups evaluated. The late results of the cardiomyotomy group were considered satisfactory by the authors (good or excellent) and are indeed very impressive. Although most studies involved less than 12 patients, even in studies with a greater number of patients, such as those by Costantini et al.7 (142 patients), and Tassi et al.33 (32 patients), these numbers reached rates of 89.5 and 81.24% respectively, in a late assessment with more than 60 months follow-up. Complications and morbidity in the major surgery group were significantly higher than in the cardiomyotomy group. In most studies, between 40 and 50% of patients underwent this form of treatment; in one series it reached 69.2%. Late results in this group, unlike the case of the cardiomyotomy group, were assessed heterogeneously. In general, they were also considered mostly satisfactory in all the series. From the comparative meta-analysis between complications/morbidity and good or excellent late outcomes in the cardiomyotomy group, it was concluded that there is a low impact of morbidity/complications in relation to cardiomyotomy with fundoplication for patients with advanced megaesophagus. The RR was 0.08 (p<0.00001, 95%CI 0.05–0.13). In the comparative analysis between mortality and good or excellent late outcomes in the cardiomyotomy group, the RR for this outcome was 0.03 (p<0.00001, 95%CI 0.01–0.09), that is, there is also a considerably low impact of the outcome in this analysis. When evaluating the comparative review between morbidity/complications and good or excellent late outcomes in the group of major surgeries, there is a relatively low impact of morbidity/complications compared to good or excellent late outcomes for major surgeries, with a RR of 0.49 (p=0.01, 95%CI 0.27–0.86). The comparative analysis between mortality and good or excellent late outcomes in the group of major surgeries also shows that there is a low impact of mortality compared to the late outcome, with a RR of 0.05 (p<0.00001, 95%CI 0.03–0.08). When comparing these two groups, it can be concluded that they both present similar results from their treatments, with a low impact on morbidity and mortality and a tendency to favorable late outcomes. The RR of complications in relation to a favorable late outcome in the cardiomyotomy group was 0.08 and that of mortality was 0.03. This risk was considerably lower than the RR of complications and mortality in relation to the favorable late outcome in the major surgery group, 0.49 and 0.05, respectively. This allows us to conclude that both modalities show good general surgical results; however, patients undergoing cardiomyotomy have lower risks of developing complications and/or mortality, compared to patients undergoing major surgeries, as already assessed in the systematic review of this study. Furthermore, there are other considerable underlying factors in this framework, such as shorter hospital stays, reduced hospital costs and lower demand for treatment complexity — when compared to major surgeries. An important caveat must be made regarding the term “definitive treatment”, since most studies present a short to medium-term follow-up period. There are still questions regarding relapses and/or progression of the disease in this treatment modality. The data found are in accordance with the world literature. Meta-analysis by Niño-Ramírez et al.19 involving 5,492 patients undergoing laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy revealed a 4.9% rate of adverse events, most of them associated with perforation of the esophageal mucosa. The 30-day mortality rate in this group of patients was 0.09%. The systematic review with meta-analysis by Orlandini et al.22 evaluated 350 patients who underwent surgical Heller cardiomyotomy for advanced sigmoid megaesophagus with the following late results rates: complication, 8.0%; mortality, 0.8%; retreatment requirement, 12.8%; and 76.2% probability of results considered good or excellent after this surgical procedure. It was concluded that this surgical modality is acceptable as definitive treatment for patients with advanced/sigmoid megaesophagus, because it avoids esophagectomy, has low morbidity and mortality rates and low rates of retreatment requirements22. In a similar review, Herbella and Patti14, in an assessment of 122 patients in eight studies, found an average of 79% good or excellent late results without any associated mortality, in patients with advanced megaesophagus undergoing Heller cardiomyotomy. They concluded that laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy is a viable option as a definitive treatment for advanced megaesophagus, with relief of dysphagia in a significant number of patients, the possibility of use in more fragile patients, in addition to preventing or hindering the possible indication of esophagectomy in the future14. Panchanatheeswaran et al.26 concluded that this surgical modality should be considered the first therapy line for patients with sigmoid megaesophagus. They also suggest that esophagectomy should be reserved for cases of cardiomyotomy failure26. Costantini et al.7, who included in their work 1,001 patients with all-grade achalasia who underwent Heller-Dor laparoscopic surgical cardiomyotomy, concluded that there is a high probability of dysphagia relief in around 80% of these patients even 20 years after the procedure. Furthermore, they concluded that surgical complications are rare and that recurrences can be treated in most cases endoscopically, through dilation, besides obtaining acceptable rates of late reflux. On the other hand, they claim that the main predictors of unsatisfactory late results are the manometric pattern of achalasia, type III, the presence of sigmoid esophagus (2.5 odds ratio) and a high chest pain score7. The recurrence of symptoms after esophageal cardiomyotomy requires thorough evaluation, as pointed out by Orlandini et al.21 and Tustumi et al.37. The rationale for classifying the condition as “persistent”, “early recurrence” and “late recurrence” is suggested, which should help guiding the diagnosis and treatment of those patients. Clinical history data and exams such as the esophagram and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) are essential in a logical approach that can encompass diagnoses ranging from incomplete myotomy and very tight or migrated antireflux valves to neoplasia or even disease progression (megaesophagus). With reservations about the individuality of conduct in each case, after a thorough study, cases of “persistence” and “early recurrence” are more likely to require less invasive treatments, such as re-myotomy, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), or even endoscopic dilation, while cases of “late recurrence” can be considered individually, for major surgeries21,37. In relation to alternative and/or secondary treatments, such as POEM, Mandavdhare et al.17 carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis with 11 studies covering a total of 428 patients undergoing POEM for definitive treatment of advanced megaesophagus/terminal achalasia and concluded that the therapy was successful, with 89.3% clinical success after one to three years of follow-up. It is evident that POEM can be a viable alternative in cases of patients with advanced megaesophagus with recurrence of symptoms after surgical cardiomyotomy or even after re-myotomy17. In a recent study, Prado Junior et al.28 demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the procedure, carried out systematically and by an experienced team28. Regarding esophageal neoplasia – an obvious concern in patients with achalasia undergoing surgical treatment or not –, Tustumi et al.,36 in a meta-analysis with 11,978 patients with achalasia, concluded that there is an increased prevalence of esophageal carcinoma in this population, 28 cases for every one thousand patients. This fact is in accordance with the world literature and corroborates the need for vigilant endoscopic follow-up in patients, even after definitive surgical procedures30. Finally, it should be noted that, as achalasia/advanced megaesophagus is a complex disease in itself, each case should be individualized, preferably treated by experts and in a specialized, multidisciplinary environment. The patient must be guided and informed regarding the therapeutic possibilities, expectations and risk-benefit associated with each proposed treatment modality. Due to the increased risk of neoplasia and the possibility of esophagitis, endoscopic surveillance should be performed. The limitations of our work lie in the fact that there is a low “n” sample in the studies, which generates data inaccuracy. This is probably due to the low frequency of the disease in question. Furthermore, there is a heterogeneity of the studies discriminated. Also, different modalities of evaluation and classification of terminal achalasia/advanced megaesophagus, different periods of evaluation of late results and different modalities of evaluation of outcomes used such as questionnaires, classifications (Brandt, Eckardt), evaluation of the dysphagia symptom and levels of personal satisfaction. Given the findings of this review study, randomized clinical trials are required to confirm them. It is not possible to determine the best profile of patients with advanced megaesophagus indicated for major surgery; however, it is estimated that they constitute a small portion of this patients’ population. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review with meta-analysis allows us to conclude that patients with advanced megaesophagus can be safely treated with laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy with fundoplication. This surgical modality, which encompasses less complex abdominal surgery, presents high symptom resolution rates, low complication rates, low mortality rates and satisfactory results. Caveats must be considered regarding the late long-term outcome. Even so, the present study indicates a favorable indication for the challenging surgical treatment of this complex disease. This fact can certainly guide the surgeon in his/her decision making. REFERENCES 1. 1. Aiolfi A, Asti E, Bonitta G, Siboni S, Bonavina L. Esophageal resection for end-stage achalasia. Am Surg. 2018;84(4):506-11. PMID: 29712597. Aiolfi A Asti E Bonitta G Siboni S Bonavina L Esophageal resection for end-stage achalasia. Am Surg. 2018 84 4 506 11 29712597 2. 2. Aquino JLB, Said MM, Pereira DAR, Machado FR, Ramos JPZ, Brandi Filho LA, et al. Análise comparativa da mucosectomia esofágica e da esofagectomia transmediastinal no tratamento do megaesôfago avançado: estudo comparativo em 229 pacientes. Anais do 32o Congresso Brasileiro de Cirurgia; 2017; Brasília. Brasília: CBC; 2017. Aquino JLB Said MM Pereira DAR Machado FR Ramos JPZ Brandi LA Filho Análise comparativa da mucosectomia esofágica e da esofagectomia transmediastinal no tratamento do megaesôfago avançado: estudo comparativo em 229 pacientes. Anais do 32o Congresso Brasileiro de Cirurgia; 2017; Brasília. Brasília CBC 2017 3. 3. Aquino JLB, Leandro-Mehri VA, Mendonça JA, Mendes FDT, Clairet CMAV, Reis LO. Comparative analysis of late results of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis by manual and mechanical suture in patients submitted to esophageal mucosectomy through advanced megaesophagus. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2019;32(4):e1462. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020190001e1462 Aquino JLB Leandro-Mehri VA Mendonça JA Mendes FDT Clairet CMAV Reis LO Comparative analysis of late results of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis by manual and mechanical suture in patients submitted to esophageal mucosectomy through advanced megaesophagus. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2019 32 4 e1462 10.1590/0102-672020190001e1462 4. 4. Aquino JLB, Said MM, Pereira DAR, Leandro-Merhi VA, Nascimento PC, Reis VV. Early and late assessment of esophagocardioplasty in the surgical treatment of advanced recurrent megaesophagus. Arq Gastroenterol. 2016;53(4):235-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-28032016000400005 Aquino JLB Said MM Pereira DAR Leandro-Merhi VA Nascimento PC Reis VV Early and late assessment of esophagocardioplasty in the surgical treatment of advanced recurrent megaesophagus. Arq Gastroenterol. 2016 53 4 235 9 10.1590/S0004-28032016000400005 5. 5. Aquino JLB, Reis Neto JA, Muraro CLPM, Camargo JGT. Mucosectomia esofágica no tratamento do megaesôfago avançado: análise de 60 casos. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2000;27(2):108-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69912000000200008 Aquino JLB Reis JA Neto Muraro CLPM Camargo JGT Mucosectomia esofágica no tratamento do megaesôfago avançado: análise de 60 casos. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2000 27 2 108 13 10.1590/S0100-69912000000200008 6. 6. Aquino JLB, Said MM, Camargo JGT. Non-conventional surgical approach to achalasia: mucosectomy and endomuscular pull-through. Mini-invasive Surg. 2017;1:167-72. https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2017.29 Aquino JLB Said MM Camargo JGT Non-conventional surgical approach to achalasia: mucosectomy and endomuscular pull-through. Mini-invasive Surg. 2017 1 167 72 10.20517/2574-1225.2017.29 7. 7. Costantini M, Salvador R, Capovilla G, Vallese L, Costantini A, Nicoletti L, et al. A thousand and one laparoscopic Heller myotomies for esophageal achalasia: a 25-year experience at a single tertiary center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(1):23-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3956-x Costantini M Salvador R Capovilla G Vallese L Costantini A Nicoletti L A thousand and one laparoscopic Heller myotomies for esophageal achalasia: a 25-year experience at a single tertiary center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 23 1 23 35 10.1007/s11605-018-3956-x 8. 8. Crema E, Terra Júnior JA, Borges MA, Queiroz CAS, Soares LA, da Silva AA. Preservation of the vagus nerves in subtotal esophagectomy without thoracotomy. Acta Cir Bras. 2018;33(9):834-41. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020180090000012 Crema E Terra Júnior JA Borges MA Queiroz CAS Soares LA da Silva AA Preservation of the vagus nerves in subtotal esophagectomy without thoracotomy. Acta Cir Bras. 2018 33 9 834 41 10.1590/s0102-865020180090000012 9. 9. Felix VN, Murayama KM, Bonavina L, Park MI. Achalasia: what to do in the face of failures of Heller myotomy. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2020;1481(1):236-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14440 Felix VN Murayama KM Bonavina L Park MI Achalasia: what to do in the face of failures of Heller myotomy. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2020 1481 1 236 46 10.1111/nyas.14440 10. 10. Felix VN, Yogi I, Martins CEN, Padrão EMH, Silva AGM, Faria KVM. Maximizing results of esophagectomy for advanced achalasia. Available from: http://www.valterniltonfelix.com.br/pdf/medicina/profissionais/Artigo-14.pdf. Assessed: Jan. 25, 2016. Felix VN Yogi I Martins CEN Padrão EMH Silva AGM Faria KVM Maximizing results of esophagectomy for advanced achalasia Available from: http://www.valterniltonfelix.com.br/pdf/medicina/profissionais/Artigo-14.pdf Assessed: Jan. 25, 2016 11. 11. Fontan AJA, Batista-Neto J, Pontes ACP, Nepomuceno MC, Muritiba TG, Furtado RS. Esofagectomia minimamente invasiva laparoscópica vs. esofagectomia trans-hiatal aberta no megaesôfago avançado: estudo randomizado. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2018;31(3):e1382. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020180001e1382 Fontan AJA Batista J Neto Pontes ACP Nepomuceno MC Muritiba TG Furtado RS Esofagectomia minimamente invasiva laparoscópica vs. esofagectomia trans-hiatal aberta no megaesôfago avançado: estudo randomizado. ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2018 31 3 e1382 10.1590/0102-672020180001e1382 12. 12. Hammad A, Lu VF, Dahiya DS, Kichloo A, Tuma F. Treatment challenges of sigmoid-shaped esophagus and severe achalasia. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020;61:30-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.11.077 Hammad A Lu VF Dahiya DS Kichloo A Tuma F Treatment challenges of sigmoid-shaped esophagus and severe achalasia. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020 61 30 4 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.11.077 13. 13. Herbella FAM, Malafaia O, Patti MG. New classification for esophageal motility disorders (Chicago classification version 4.0©) and chagas disease esophagopathy (achalasia). Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2022;34(4):e1624. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020210002e1624 Herbella FAM Malafaia O Patti MG New classification for esophageal motility disorders (Chicago classification version 4.0©) and chagas disease esophagopathy (achalasia). Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2022 34 4 e1624 10.1590/0102-672020210002e1624 14. 14. Herbella FA, Patti MG. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and fundoplication in patients with end-stage achalasia. World J Surg. 2015;39(7):1631-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2940-1 Herbella FA Patti MG Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and fundoplication in patients with end-stage achalasia. World J Surg. 2015 39 7 1631 3 10.1007/s00268-014-2940-1 15. 15. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane; 2022. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Assessed: July 16, 2022. Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J Cumpston M Li T Page MJ Welch VA Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane 2022 Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook Assessed: July 16, 2022 16. 16. Kraichely RE, Farrugia G. Achalasia: physiology and etiopathogenesis. Dis Esophagus. 2006;19(4):213-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2050.2006.00569.x Kraichely RE Farrugia G Achalasia: physiology and etiopathogenesis. Dis Esophagus. 2006 19 4 213 23 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2006.00569.x 17. 17. Mandavdhare HS, M PK, Shukla J, Kumar A, Sharma V. Role of peroral endoscopic myotomy in advanced achalasia cardia with sigmoid and/or megaesophagus: a systematic review and metanalysis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022;28(1):15-27. https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm21122 Mandavdhare HS M PK Shukla J Kumar A Sharma V Role of peroral endoscopic myotomy in advanced achalasia cardia with sigmoid and/or megaesophagus: a systematic review and metanalysis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2022 28 1 15 27 10.5056/jnm21122 18. 18. Molena D, Mungo B, Stem M, Feinberg RL, Lidor AO. Outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal achalasia in the United States. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(2):310-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2318-y Molena D Mungo B Stem M Feinberg RL Lidor AO Outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal achalasia in the United States. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 18 2 310 7 10.1007/s11605-013-2318-y 19. 19. Niño-Ramírez S, Ardila O, Rodríguez FH, Londoño J, Pérez S, Sánchez S, et al. Major adverse events related to endoscopic or laparoscopic procedures in acalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl). 2023;88(1):36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmxen.2021.11.012 Niño-Ramírez S Ardila O Rodríguez FH Londoño J Pérez S Sánchez S Major adverse events related to endoscopic or laparoscopic procedures in acalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl). 2023 88 1 36 43 10.1016/j.rgmxen.2021.11.012 20. 20. Oliveira GC, Rocha RLB, Coelho-Neto JS, Terciotti-Junior V, Lopes LR, Andreollo NA. Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2015;28(1):28-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-67202015000100008 Oliveira GC Rocha RLB Coelho JS Neto Terciotti V Junior Lopes LR Andreollo NA Esophageal mucosal resection versus esophagectomy: a comparative study of surgical results in patients with advanced megaesophagus. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2015 28 1 28 31 10.1590/S0102-67202015000100008 21. 21. Orlandini MF, Bernardo WM, Tustumi F. Recurrence of dysphagia post-myotomy: etiologies and management. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2021;48:e20202973. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20202973 Orlandini MF Bernardo WM Tustumi F Recurrence of dysphagia post-myotomy: etiologies and management. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2021 48 e20202973 10.1590/0100-6991e-20202973 22. 22. Orlandini MF, Serafim MCA, Datrino LN, Tavares G, Tristão LS, Dos Santos CL, et al. Myotomy in sigmoid megaesophagus: is it applicable? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2021;34(10):doab053. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doab053 Orlandini MF Serafim MCA Datrino LN Tavares G Tristão LS Dos Santos CL Myotomy in sigmoid megaesophagus: is it applicable? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2021 34 10 doab053 10.1093/dote/doab053 23. 23. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Chang AC, Lee J, Pickens A, Lau CL. Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned. Ann Surg. 2007;246(3):363-72; discussion 372-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31814697f2 Orringer MB Marshall B Chang AC Lee J Pickens A Lau CL Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned. Ann Surg. 2007 246 3 363 72 discussion 372-4 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31814697f2 24. 24. Oude Nijhuis RAB, Zaninotto G, Roman S, Boeckxstaens GE, Fockens P, Langendam MW, et al. European guidelines on achalasia: United European Gastroenterology and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility recommendations. United European Gastroenterol J. 2020;8(1):13-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640620903213 Oude Nijhuis RAB Zaninotto G Roman S Boeckxstaens GE Fockens P Langendam MW European guidelines on achalasia: United European Gastroenterology and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility recommendations. United European Gastroenterol J. 2020 8 1 13 33 10.1177/2050640620903213 25. 25. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 372 71 10.1136/bmj.n71 26. 26. Panchanatheeswaran K, Parshad R, Rohila J, Saraya A, Makharia GK, Sharma R. Laparoscopic Heller’s cardiomyotomy: a viable treatment option for sigmoid oesophagus. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;16(1):49-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivs427 Panchanatheeswaran K Parshad R Rohila J Saraya A Makharia GK Sharma R Laparoscopic Heller’s cardiomyotomy: a viable treatment option for sigmoid oesophagus. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 16 1 49 54 10.1093/icvts/ivs427 27. 27. Pantanali CA, Herbella FA, Henry MA, Farah JFM, Patti MG. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and fundoplication in patients with Chagas’ disease achalasia and massively dilated esophagus. Am Surg. 2013;79(1):72-5. PMID: 23317615. Pantanali CA Herbella FA Henry MA Farah JFM Patti MG Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and fundoplication in patients with Chagas’ disease achalasia and massively dilated esophagus. Am Surg. 2013 79 1 72 5 23317615 28. 28. Prado Junior FPP, Machado IFS, Prado MPLP, Leite RBC, Gurgel SM, Gomes JWF, et al. Peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: safety profile, complications and results of 94 patients. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2023;36:e1784. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020230066e1784 Prado Junior FPP Machado IFS Prado MPLP Leite RBC Gurgel SM Gomes JWF Peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: safety profile, complications and results of 94 patients. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2023 36 e1784 10.1590/0102-672020230066e1784 29. 29. Rosemurgy A, Downs D, Luberice K, Rodriguez C, Swaid F, Patel K, et al. Laparoscopic heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication improves frequency and severity of symptoms of achalasia, regardless of preoperative severity determined by esophagography. Am Surg. 2018;84(2):165-73. PMID: 29580341. Rosemurgy A Downs D Luberice K Rodriguez C Swaid F Patel K Laparoscopic heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication improves frequency and severity of symptoms of achalasia, regardless of preoperative severity determined by esophagography. Am Surg. 2018 84 2 165 73 29580341 30. 30. Sato H, Terai S, Shimamura Y, Tanaka S, Shiwaku H, Minami H, et al. Achalasia and esophageal cancer: a large data base analysis in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2021;56(4):360-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-021-01763-6 Sato H Terai S Shimamura Y Tanaka S Shiwaku H Minami H Achalasia and esophageal cancer: a large data base analysis in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2021 56 4 360 70 10.1007/s00535-021-01763-6 31. 31. Simić AP, Skrobić OM, Velicković D, Ražnatović Z, Šaranović D, Šljukić V, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for benign esophageal disorders: first 200 cases. Eur Surg. 2015;47(1):25-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-015-0296-x Simić AP Skrobić OM Velicković D Ražnatović Z Šaranović D Šljukić V Minimally invasive surgery for benign esophageal disorders: first 200 cases. Eur Surg. 2015 47 1 25 34 10.1007/s10353-015-0296-x 32. 32. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 Sterne JA Hernán MA Reeves BC Savović J Berkman ND Viswanathan M ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016 355 i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 33. 33. Tassi V, Lugaresi M, Mattioli B, Daddi N, Pilotti V, Ferruzzi L, et al. Quality of life after operation for end-stage achalasia: pull-down Heller-Dor versus esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;113(1):271-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.12.048 Tassi V Lugaresi M Mattioli B Daddi N Pilotti V Ferruzzi L Quality of life after operation for end-stage achalasia: pull-down Heller-Dor versus esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 113 1 271 8 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.12.048 34. 34. Torres-Landa S, Crafts TD, Jones AE, Dewey EN, Wood SG. Surgical outcomes after esophagectomy in patients with achalasia: a NSQIP matched analysis with non-achalasia esophagectomy patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(10):2455-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05056-4 Torres-Landa S Crafts TD Jones AE Dewey EN Wood SG Surgical outcomes after esophagectomy in patients with achalasia: a NSQIP matched analysis with non-achalasia esophagectomy patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 25 10 2455 62 10.1007/s11605-021-05056-4 35. 35. Tuason J, Inoue H. Current status of achalasia management: a review on diagnosis and treatment. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(4):401-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-017-1314-5 Tuason J Inoue H Current status of achalasia management: a review on diagnosis and treatment. J Gastroenterol. 2017 52 4 401 6 10.1007/s00535-017-1314-5 36. 36. Tustumi F, Bernardo WM, da Rocha JRM, Szachnowicz S, Seguro FC, Bianchi ET, et al. Esophagealachalasia: a risk factor for carcinoma. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(10):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/dox072 Tustumi F Bernardo WM da Rocha JRM Szachnowicz S Seguro FC Bianchi ET Esophagealachalasia: a risk factor for carcinoma. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2017 30 10 1 8 10.1093/dote/dox072 37. 37. Tustumi F, Szachnowicz S, Andreollo NA, Seguro FCBC, Bianchi ET, Duarte AF, et al. Management of symptoms recurrence after myotomy for achalasia. A practical approach. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2023;36e1780. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020230062e1780 Tustumi F Szachnowicz S Andreollo NA Seguro FCBC Bianchi ET Duarte AF Management of symptoms recurrence after myotomy for achalasia. A practical approach. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2023 36 e1780 10.1590/0102-672020230062e1780 38. 38. Watson TJ. Esophagectomy for end-stage achalasia. World J Surg. 2015;39(7):1634-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3012-x Watson TJ Esophagectomy for end-stage achalasia. World J Surg. 2015 39 7 1634 41 10.1007/s00268-015-3012-x Financial Source: None Central Message In the world literature there is still no consensus on the best surgical option for definitive treatment of advanced megaesophagus. Subtotal esophagectomy is still suggested as the main treatment option for advanced megaesophagus in elective cases; however, the procedure presents significant morbidity and mortality rates. With the purpose of offering a less morbid treatment for these patients, who are likely to be already weakened by this disease, some authors propose performing Heller cardiomyotomy which is generally considered satisfactory. Perspectives Our systematic review with meta-analysis allows us to conclude that patients with advanced megaesophagus can be safely treated with laparoscopic Heller cardiomyotomy with fundoplication. This surgical modality, which encompasses a less complex abdominal surgery procedure, yields high symptom resolution rates, low complication rates, low mortality rates and satisfactory results. However, caveats should be made regarding the late long-term outcome.