Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic anterior versus posterior fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

Systematic review of the perioperative classification, diagnosis, description and repair of hiatus hernias in randomized controlled trials

Hiatus hernias (HH) are a common cause of symptoms and complications, with considerable variation in anatomy, function, diagnosis and treatment. We undertook the first systematic review to appraise how HH are diagnosed and classified in the literature, using randomized controlled trials as a sample. A search was performed in July 2021of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and 2832 articles were identified and 64 were included. Median Jadad score was 2. Studies demonstrated considerable variation in diagnosis, classification and minimum surgical steps. The commonest classifications before surgery were axial length and the Type I-IV classification, variably assessed by endoscopy and contrast swallow. Intra-operatively, the commonest classification was type I-IV. A minority used more than one classification, or alternatives such as defect size and Hill classification. Most studies reported minimum steps, but these varied. Only a minority reported criteria for diagnosing recurrence. Using randomized controlled trials to appraise the highest quality evidence in the literature, we found considerable variation and inconsistency in the way HH are diagnosed and classified. This lack of a 'common language' has significant impacts for the generalizability of evidence, study synthesis and design. We propose the development of an internationally accepted classification. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

Preferential performance of Thal fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a single institution experience

PURPOSE

Nissen fundoplication (NF) is the most commonly used surgical treatment for persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We introduced to the alternative Thal fundoplication (TF) (partial anterior wrapping) in 1998. The purpose of this paper is to review and report on the effectiveness of TF in our department.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed cases of 281 patients who underwent TF for GERD at our hospital from 1998 to 2019.

RESULTS

Average age, 16.3 ± 18.1 years; average body weight, 21.0 ± 16.0 kg; average operative time, 89.1 ± 43.0 min; average volume of bleeding, 11.6 ± 29.2 g; enteral feeding commenced after an average of 3.4 ± 1.3 postoperative days (PODs), and average postoperative full enteral feeding was 6.3 ± 1.4 PODs. Five patients (1.8%) had Clavien-Dindo classification III or higher; average hospital stay duration was 10.3 ± 6.0 days, with symptom recurrence affecting 17 patients (6.1%).

CONCLUSION

TF may be an effective and simple treatment for GERD that has few recurrences and avoids complications common to NF, but further studies to compare it with other techniques are needed.

Assessing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic antireflux procedures for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive literature on laparoscopic antireflux surgery, comparative evidence across different procedures is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess and rank the most efficacious and safe laparoscopic procedures for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey databases were queried for randomized trials comparing two or more laparoscopic antireflux procedures with each other or with medical treatment for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted for each pair of interventions using a random-effects model. Network meta-analysis was employed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of laparoscopic antireflux procedures for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

RESULTS

Forty-four publications reporting 29 randomized trials which included 1892 patients were identified. The network of treatments was sparse with only a closed loop between different types of wraps; 270°, 360°, anterior 180° and anterior 90°; and star network between 360° and other treatments; and between anterior 180° and other treatments. Laparoscopic 270° (odds ratio, OR 1.19, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.64-2.22), anterior 180°, and anterior 90° were equally effective as 360° for control of heartburn, although this finding was supported by low quality of evidence according to GRADE modification for NMA. The odds for dysphagia were lower after 270° (OR 0.38, 95%, CI 0.24-0.60), anterior 90° (moderate quality evidence), and anterior 180° (low-quality evidence) compared to 360°. The odds for gas-bloat were lower after 270° (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27, 0.95) and after anterior 90° compared to 360° (low-quality evidence). Regurgitation, morbidity, and reoperation were similar across treatments, albeit these were associated with very low-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic 270° fundoplication achieves a better outcome than 360° total fundoplication, especially in terms of postoperative dysphagia, although other types of partial fundoplication might be equally effective.

REGISTRATION NO

CRD42017074783.

Randomized clinical trial of 270° posterior versus 180° anterior partial laparoscopic fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Partial fundoplications provide similar reflux control with fewer post-fundoplication symptoms compared with Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The best choice of procedure for partial fundoplication remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of two different types of partial fundoplication for GORD.

METHODS

A double-blind RCT was conducted between 2012 and 2015 in two hospitals specializing in antireflux surgery. Patients were randomized to undergo either a laparoscopic 270° posterior fundoplication (Toupet) or a laparoscopic 180° anterior fundoplication. The primary outcome was postoperative dysphagia at 12 months, measured by the Dakkak score. Subjective outcome was analysed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Objective reflux control was assessed before and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were randomized to laparoscopic Toupet or laparoscopic 180° anterior fundoplication (47 in each group). At 12 months, 85 patients (90 per cent) were available for follow-up. Objective scores were available for 76 (81 per cent). Postoperative Dakkak dysphagia score at 12 months was similar in the two groups (mean 5·9 for Toupet versus 6·4 for anterior fundoplication; P = 0·773). Subjective outcome at 12 months demonstrated no significant differences in control of reflux or post-fundoplication symptoms. Overall satisfaction and willingness to undergo surgery did not differ between the groups. Postoperative endoscopy and 24-h pH monitoring showed no significant differences in mean oesophageal acid exposure time or recurrent pathological oesophageal acid exposure.

CONCLUSION

Both types of partial fundoplication provided similar control of GORD at 12 months, with no difference in post-fundoplication symptoms. Registration number: NTR5702 (www.trialregister.nl).

Laparoscopic anterior versus posterior fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Although laparoscopic posterior fundoplication (LPF) i.e., Nissen or Toupet have the proven efficacy for controlling gastro-esophageal reflux surgically, there remain problems with postoperative dysphagia and gas bloat syndrome. To decrease some of these postoperative complications, laparoscopic anterior fundoplication (LAF) was introduced. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the merits and drawbacks of LPF versus LAF for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND REVIEW METHODS

A search of Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database identified all RCTs comparing different types of LPF and LAF published in the English Language between 1990 and 2013. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data was extracted and analyzed on ten variables which include dysphagia score, heartburn rate, redo operative rate, operative time, overall complications, rate of conversion to open, Visick grading of satisfaction, overall satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 24-h pH scores.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nine trials totaling 840 patients (anterior = 425, posterior = 415) were analyzed. There was a significant reduction in the odds ratio for dysphagia in the LAF group compared to the LPF group. Conversely, significant reduction in the odds ratio for heartburn was observed for LPF compared to LAF. Comparable effects were noted for both groups for other variables which include redo surgery, operating time, overall complications, conversion rate, Visick's grading, patients' satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 24-h pH scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis, LPF compared to LAF is associated with significant reduction in heartburn at the expense of higher dysphagia rate on a short- and medium-term basis. We therefore conclude that LPF is a better alternative to LAF for controlling GERD symptoms.

Laparoscopic anterior 180-degree versus nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare short- and long-term outcome after 180-degree laparoscopic anterior fundoplication (180-degree LAF) with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LNF is currently the most frequently performed surgical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Alternatively, 180-degree LAF has been alleged to reduce troublesome dysphagia and gas-related symptoms, with similar reflux control.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and web of Knowledge CPCI-S were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing primary 180-degree LAF with LNF. The methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk. Primary outcomes were esophageal acid exposure, esophagitis, heartburn score, dilatation for dysphagia, modified Dakkak dysphagia score (0-45), and reoperation rate. Meta-analysis was conducted at 1 and 5 years.

RESULTS

Five distinct randomized clinical trials comparing 180-degree LAF (n = 227) with LNF (n = 231) were identified. At 1 year, the Dakkak dysphagia score [2.8 vs 4.8; weighted mean difference: -2.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.66 to -1.83; P < 0.001], gas bloating [11% vs 18%; relative risk (RR) 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.97; P = 0.04], flatulence (14% vs 25%; RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.35-0.91; P = 0.02), inability to belch (19% vs 31%; RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; P = 0.05), and inability to relieve bloating (34% vs 44%; RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.99; P = 0.04) were lower after 180-degree LAF. Esophageal acid exposure (standardized mean difference: 0.19; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.46; P = 0.15), esophagitis (19% vs 13%; RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.69-2.91; P = 0.34), heartburn score (standardized mean difference: 1.27; 95% CI:-0.36 to 2.90; P = 0.13), dilatation rate (1.4% vs 2.8%; RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.19-1.91; P = 0.39), reoperation rate (5.7% vs 2.8%; RR: 2.08; 95% CI: 0.80-5.41; P = 0.13), perioperative outcome, regurgitation, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and patient satisfaction were similar after 180-degree LAF and LNF. At 5 years, the Dakkak dysphagia score, flatulence, inability to belch, and inability to relieve bloating remained lower after 180-degree LAF. The 5-year heartburn score, dilatation rate, reoperation rate, PPI use, and patient satisfaction were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 and 5 years, dysphagia and gas-related symptoms are lower after 180-degree LAF than after LNF, and esophageal acid exposure and esophagitis are similar, with no differences in heartburn scores, patient satisfaction, dilatations, and reoperation rate. These results lend level 1a support for the use of 180-degree LAF for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Laparoscopic anterior versus posterior fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare short- and long-term outcome after laparoscopic anterior fundoplication (LAF) versus posterior fundoplication (LPF) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LPF is currently considered the surgical therapy of choice for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Alternatively, LAF has been alleged to reduce troublesome dysphagia and gas-related symptoms.

METHODS

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI web of Knowledge CPCI-S) were searched for RCTs comparing primary LAF versus LPF for GERD. The methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk. Primary outcomes were esophageal acid exposure time, heartburn, Dakkak dysphagia score (0-45) and reoperation rate. Short- and long-term results were pooled separately in meta-analyses as risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).

RESULTS

Eleven reports on 7 eligible RCTs (anterior vs. posterior total [n = 5]; anterior vs. posterior partial [n = 2]) comparing LAF (n = 345) versus LPF (n = 338) were identified. Short-term (6-12 months) esophageal acid exposure time (3.3% vs. 0.8%: WMD 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.84-3.24]; P < 0.001), heartburn (21% vs. 8%; RR 2.71; 95%CI [1.72-4.26]; P < 0.001) and reoperation rate (8% vs. 4%; RR 1.94; 95%CI [0.97-3.87]; P = 0.06) were higher after LAF. In contrast, the Dakkak dysphagia score was lower after LAF (2.5 vs. 5.7; WMD -2.87; 95%CI [-3.88 to -1.87]; P < 0.001). There were no short-term differences in prevalence of esophagitis, regurgitation and perioperative outcomes. The higher rate of heartburn after LAF persisted during long-term (2-10 years) follow-up (31% vs. 14%; RR 2.15; 95% CI [1.49-3.09]; P < 0.001) with more PPI use (25% vs. 10%; RR 2.53; 95% CI [1.40-4.45]; P = 0.002). The long-term reoperation rate was twice as high after LAF (10% vs. 5%; RR 2.12; 95% CI [1.07-4.21]; P = 0.03). Long-term Dakkak dysphagia scores, inability to belch, gas bloating and satisfaction were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal acid exposure time and the prevalence of heartburn are higher after LAF compared with LPF. In the short-term this is counterbalanced by less severe dysphagia. However, dysphagia scores become similar in the long-term, with a persistent substantial increase in prevalence of heartburn and PPI use after LAF. The reoperation rate is twice as high after LAF as well, mainly due to reinterventions for recurrent GERD. The prevalence of gas-related symptoms is similar. These results lend level 1a support for the use of LPF as the surgical treatment of choice for GERD.