Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of pneumatic dilation with stenting for the treatment of achalasia.
Methods: Achalasia patients treated with pneumatic dilation or stenting were included in this analysis. Clinical symptoms were assessed by the Eckardt score. An esophagram and esophageal manometry were performed at the pretreatment and posttreatment follow-up visits. Data such as patient demographics and complications were collected. A drop in the Eckardt score to ≤3 was defined as treatment success.
Results: There were 151 patients treated with pneumatic dilation (n = 76) or stenting (n = 75). The 1-, 12- and 24-month therapeutic success rates were 100, 92 and 79%, respectively, in the dilation group and 100, 93 and 87%, respectively, in the stenting group. The decrease of Eckardt score in the stenting group was significantly notable (p < 0.05) compared to that of the dilation group at the long-term follow-up visits. The maximum esophageal diameter was comparable at baseline and became statistically significant [25 mm (22-30) vs. 22 mm (19-27), p = 0.004] at posttreatment month 24. The recurrence rate was 21% in the dilation group and 13% in the stenting group. The complications of either treatment were usually mild, transient and statistically insignificant.
Conclusion: Esophageal stenting had a comparable short-term but better long-term efficacy in comparison with pneumatic dilation.