Perioperative outcomes of inpatient laparoscopic Heller myotomy and per-oral endoscopic myotomy in the United States.

Background Per-oral endoscopic myotomy is an alternative to pneumatic dilation and laparoscopic Heller myotomy to treat lower esophageal sphincter diseases. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy and per-oral endoscopic myotomy perioperative outcomes data come from relatively small retrospective series and 1 randomized trial. We aimed to estimate the number of inpatient procedures performed in the United States and compare perioperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic Heller myotomy and per-oral endoscopic myotomy using a nationally representative database. Methods Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of hospital admissions for laparoscopic Heller myotomy or per-oral endoscopic myotomy from October 2015 through December 2018 in the National Inpatient Sample. Patient and hospital characteristics, concurrent antireflux procedures, perioperative adverse events (any adverse event and those associated with extended length of stay ≥3 days), mortality, length of stay, and costs were compared. Logistic regression evaluated factors independently associated with adverse events. Results An estimated 11,270 patients had laparoscopic Heller myotomy (n = 9,555) or per-oral endoscopic myotomy (n = 1,715) without significant differences in demographics and comorbidities. A concurrent anti-reflux procedure was more frequent with laparoscopic Heller myotomy (72.8% vs 15.5%, P Conclusion In this national database review, laparoscopic Heller myotomy had a lower rate of perioperative adverse events at similar length of stay and costs than per-oral endoscopic myotomy. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy remains a safer procedure than per-oral endoscopic myotomy for a myotomy of the distal esophagus and lower esophageal sphincter in the United States.