We read with great interest the study by Familiari et al entitled ‘Long versus short peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia: results of a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial’.1 Short myotomy was non-inferior to long myotomy with regard to clinical success at 2 years with the added advantage of reduced procedure time. Gastro-oesophageal reflux was similar in both the groups. Although the study essentially confirms the conclusions drawn from two randomised trials published previously, the sample size is larger and follow-up longer.2 3 The authors must be congratulated for conducting a well-designed study with noteworthy implications on clinical practice. We would like to highlight several points relevant to the study. First, the term ‘short oesophageal myotomy’ appears to be more appropriate because the length of gastric myotomy is not intended to be modified. More importantly, ‘short’ and …

中文翻译：

---

短内镜肌切开术与长内镜肌切开术：多短算太短，多长算太长？

我们饶有兴趣地阅读了 Familiari 等人的研究，题为“长与短经口内窥镜肌切开术 (POEM) 治疗贲门失弛缓症：一项非劣效性随机对照试验的结果”。1 短肌切开术不劣于长肌切开术， 2 年的临床成功率以及减少手术时间的额外优势。两组的胃食管反流情况相似。尽管该研究基本上证实了先前发表的两项随机试验得出的结论，但样本量更大且随访时间更长。2 3 必须祝贺作者进行了一项精心设计的研究，对临床实践具有显着的影响。我们想强调与该研究相关的几点。首先，术语“短食管肌切开术”似乎更合适，因为胃肌切开术的长度不打算改变。更重要的是，“短”和……