Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21543968›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgery2011

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

Joris A Broeders, David J Roks, Usama Ahmed Ali, Werner A Draaisma, André J Smout, Eric J Hazebroek

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus consensus on management of the failed fundoplication.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Complete versus partial fundoplication in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2013
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joris A BroedersDepartment of Surgery, Gastrointestinal Research Unit of the University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. jorisbroeders@hotmail.com
David J Roks
Usama Ahmed Ali
Werner A Draaisma
André J Smout
Eric J Hazebroek
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo 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.

methodsFour 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).

resultsEleven 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.

conclusionsEsophageal 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.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21543968
OpenAlexW4230568399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.