Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19347410›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2009

Surgical reintervention after failed antireflux surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

Edgar J B Furnée, Werner A Draaisma, Ivo A M J Broeders, Hein G Gooszen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Anatomical Alterations and Endoscopic Strategies After Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Edgar J B FurnéeDepartment of Surgery, H.P. G04.228, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Werner A Draaisma
Ivo A M J Broeders
Hein G Gooszen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOutcome and morbidity of redo antireflux surgery are suggested to be less satisfactory than those of primary surgery. Studies reporting on redo surgery, however, are usually much smaller than those of primary surgery. The aim of this study was to summarize the currently available literature on redo antireflux surgery. MATERIAL AND

methodsA structured literature search was performed in the electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

resultsA total of 81 studies met the inclusion criteria. The study design was prospective in 29, retrospective in 15, and not reported in 37 studies. In these studies, 4,584 reoperations in 4,509 patients are reported. Recurrent reflux and dysphagia were the most frequent indications; intraoperative complications occurred in 21.4% and postoperative complications in 15.6%, with an overall mortality rate of 0.9%. The conversion rate in laparoscopic surgery was 8.7%. Mean(+/-SEM) duration of surgery was 177.4 +/- 10.3 min and mean hospital stay was 5.5 +/- 0.5 days. Symptomatic outcome was successful in 81.1% and was equal in the laparoscopic and conventional approach. Objective outcome was obtained in 24 studies (29.6%) and success was reported in 78.3%, with a slightly higher success rate in case of laparoscopy than with open surgery (85.8% vs. 78.0%).

conclusionThis systematic review on redo antireflux surgery has confirmed that morbidity and mortality after redo surgery is higher than after primary surgery and symptomatic and objective outcome are less satisfactory. Data on objective results were scarce and consistency with regard to reporting outcome is necessary.

Indexed as

ReoperationFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyPatient SatisfactionTreatment FailureTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID19347410
PMCPMC2710493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.