ArticleInnovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Hiatal hernia repair with or without esophageal lengthening: is there a difference?
Article in Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe need for esophageal lengthening (EL) as part of hiatal hernia (HH) repair is perceived to elevate perioperative risk and provide functionally inferior outcomes. Our objectives were to determine the risk factors of undergoing EL and to compare outcomes between operations with and without EL. We hypothesized that operative and functional outcomes for HH repair were similar in patients whether they required EL or not.
methodsWe reviewed institutional experience with EL as part of HH repair. The patients underwent symptom evaluation before and after surgery using a validated tool.
resultsBetween 1999 and 2009, a total of 375 patients underwent HH repair. The operative approach was thoracotomy, 153 (41%); laparotomy, 18 (5%); laparoscopy, 167 (44%); or combined, 37 (10%). Of these, 168 (45%) required EL. There was a higher need for thoracotomy in the patients undergoing EL (79/168 vs 74/207, χ = 4.88, P = 0.034). The incidence of perioperative complications (leak, pneumonia, ileus, respiratory failure, and bleeding) was similar between the groups. Sixty-five selected patients undergoing EL were compared with 63 patients with comparable demographics not requiring EL. In a well-validated questionnaire that assessed symptoms before and after surgery, the patients undergoing EL showed significant improvement in their heartburn (76.8%), dysphagia (67.6%), regurgitation (71.7%), chest pain (91.9%), and nausea (86.5%) (P < 0.05). The patients not undergoing EL also showed significant improvement in their heartburn (81.1%), dysphagia (71.1%), regurgitation (64.4%), chest pain (64.1%), and nausea (61.0%) (P < 0.05). Improvement in symptoms, the continued use of antacid medications, and overall surgery satisfaction score were statistically similar between the two groups.
conclusionsOperative and functional outcomes for HH repair with or without EL are acceptable and comparable. Thoracic surgeons should use EL without reservations for appropriate indications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.