Heller myotomy versus endoscopic balloon dilatation for achalasia: A single center experience

Felix Nickel, Philip C. Müller, Javier R. de la Garza, Christian Tapking, Laura Benner, Lars Fischer, Daniel C. Steinemann, Christian Rupp, Georg R. Linke, Beat P. Müller-Stich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This study aimed to compare clinical results, symptom relief, quality of life and patient satisfaction after the 2 most common procedures for achalasia treatment: laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD).Patients treated at University Hospital of Heidelberg with LHM or EBD were included. A retrospective chart review of perioperative data and a prospective follow-up of therapeutic efficiency, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and patient satisfaction was conducted.Follow-up data (mean follow-up: 75.1 ± 53.9 months for LHM group and 78.9 ± 45.6 months for EBD) were obtained from 36 patients (19 LHM; 17 EBD). Eckardt score (median (q1,q3): 2 (1,4) in both groups, P = .91, GIQLI (LHM: 117 (91.5, 126) vs EBD: 120 (116, 128), P = .495) and patient satisfaction (3 (2,3) vs 3 (2,4), P = .883) did not differ between groups. Fifteen patients (78.9%) in LHM group and 11 (64.7%) in EBD group (P = .562) stated they would undergo the intervention again. All patients with EBD had at least 2 dilatations (100%), whilst only 2 patients (10.5%) had dilatation after LHM (P < .001). There were no complications after EBD, but 2 after LHM (10.5%, P = .517).Both LHM and EBD are able to control symptoms and provide similar quality of life and patient satisfaction. However, reintervention rate was higher following EBD, hence LHM provided a more sustained treatment than EBD.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e17714
Issue number44
StatePublished - Nov 1 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Heller myotomy versus endoscopic balloon dilatation for achalasia: A single center experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this