ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2017
Tri-comparison of Laparoscopic Nissen, Hill, and Nissen-Hill Hybrid Repairs for Uncomplicated Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of hiatal closure with surgical gastropexy alone for large paraesophageal hernia without significant reflux.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Hill repair: 25-year follow-up.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) and Hill (LHR) repairs are equivalent in treating uncomplicated GERD. We combined both repairs to create a laparoscopic Nissen-Hill Hybrid repair (HYB). The purpose of this study is to compare clinical and objective outcomes of a matched group of HYB to the two cohorts of the RCT.
methodsA retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the RCT and a prospectively collected data base was performed. Data were collected preoperatively, postoperatively short-term (ST) at 6 weeks and mid-term (MT) at 6-12 months. Evaluation was standardized according to the RCT and included three quality of life metrics (QOLRAD, GERD-HRQL, Dysphagia), endoscopy, manometry, pH testing, and barium swallow.
resultsThere were 51 HYB, 46 LNF, and 56 LHR patients. Age, BMI, follow-up, and gender were comparable. QOLRAD, HRQL, PPI use, DeMeester scores, and pH% time <4 significantly improved in all groups and were equivalent. Anatomic recurrence was seen in five LNF, four LHR, and two HYB patients. Reoperations were performed in three LHR, two LNF, and zero HYB patients.
conclusionTri-comparison shows that HYB is a promising alternative to LHR and LNF. Side effects were not increased and there were fewer reoperations for failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27813017What 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.