Observational studyMedicine2017
Laparoscopic revision surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Observational study in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Long-term efficacy of total versus posterior partial fundoplication in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Pooled it
- The failure pattern for the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: a single-institution case series with literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Robotic revision surgery after failed Nissen anti-reflux surgery: a single center experience and a literature review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- Additional fundophrenicopexia, after Nissen fundoplication, reduces postoperative dysphagia and re-operation rate in the long-term follow up.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Endoscopic Evaluation of Post-Fundoplication Anatomy.Current gastroenterology reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic antireflux surgery is a frequently performed procedure for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux in surgical clinics. Reflux can recur in between 3% and 30% of patients on whom antireflux surgery has been performed, and so revision surgery can be required due to recurrent symptoms or dysphagia in approximately 3% to 6% of the patients. The objective of this study is to evaluate the mechanism of recurrences after antireflux surgery and to share our results after revision surgery in recurrent cases.From 2001 to 2014, revision surgery was performed on 43 patients (31 men, 12 women) between the ages of 24 and 70 years. The technical details of the first operation, recurrence symptoms, endoscopy, and manometry findings were evaluated. The findings of revision surgery, surgical techniques, morbidity rates, length of hospitalization, and follow-up period were also recorded and evaluated.The first operation was Nissen fundoplication in 34 patients and Toupet fundoplication in 9 patients. Mesh hiatoplasty was performed for enforcement in 18 (41.9%) of these patients. The period between the first operation and the revision surgery ranged from 4 days to 60 months. The most common finding was slipped fundoplication and presence of hiatal hernia during revision surgery. Revision fundoplication and hernia repair with mesh reinforcement were used in 33 patients. The other techniques were Collis gastroplasty, revision fundoplication, and hernia repair without mesh. The range of follow-up period was from 2 to 134 months. Recurrence occurred in 3 patients after revision surgery (6.9%). Although revision surgery is difficult and it has higher morbidity, it can be performed effectively and safely in experienced centers.
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.