Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29943063›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

A retrospective multicenter analysis on redo-laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery: conservative or conversion fundoplication?

Al-Warith Al Hashmi, Guillaume Pineton de Chambrun, Regis Souche, Martin Bertrand, Vito De Blasi, Eric Jacques, Santiago Azagra, Jean Michel Fabre, Frédéric Borie, Michel Prudhomme and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Al-Warith Al HashmiDivision of HBP Surgery and Transplantation (A), Department of Surgery, Hôpital Saint Eloi, CHU-Montpellier, 80 Av. Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Guillaume Pineton de ChambrunDivision of Gastroenterology-Endoscopy (B), Department of Gastroenterology, Hôpital Saint Eloi, CHU-Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Regis SoucheDivision of Upper GI and Mini-Invasive Surgery (A), Department of Surgery, Hôpital Saint Eloi, CHU-Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Martin BertrandDivision of Upper GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, CHU-Nimes, Nîmes, France.
Vito De BlasiDivision of General and Mini-Invasive Surgery, CHL-Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
Eric JacquesDivision of Digestive and Mini-Invasive Surgery, Clinique Beau Soleil, Montpellier, France.
Santiago AzagraDivision of General and Mini-Invasive Surgery, CHL-Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
Jean Michel FabreDivision of Upper GI and Mini-Invasive Surgery (A), Department of Surgery, Hôpital Saint Eloi, CHU-Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Frédéric BorieDivision of Upper GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, CHU-Nimes, Nîmes, France.
Michel PrudhommeDivision of Upper GI Surgery, Department of Surgery, CHU-Nimes, Nîmes, France.
Nicolas NagotDepartment of Statistical Analysis Unit, CHU-Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Francis NavarroDivision of HBP Surgery and Transplantation (A), Department of Surgery, Hôpital Saint Eloi, CHU-Montpellier, 80 Av. Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France.
Fabrizio PanaroDivision of HBP Surgery and Transplantation (A), Department of Surgery, Hôpital Saint Eloi, CHU-Montpellier, 80 Av. Augustin Fliche, 34295, Montpellier, France. f-panaro@chu-montpellier.fr.
Hôpital Saint Eloi · FRCentre Hospitalier de Luxembourg · LUCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier · FRUniversité de Nîmes · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes · FRClinique du Millénaire · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNearly 20% of patients who undergo hiatal hernia (HH) repair and anti-reflux surgery (ARS) report recurrent HH at long-term follow-up and may be candidates for redo surgery. Current literature on redo-ARS has limitations due to small sample sizes or single center experiences. This type of redo surgery is challenging due to rare but severe complications. Furthermore, the optimal technique for redo-ARS remains debatable. The purpose of the current multicenter study was to review the outcomes of redo-fundoplication and to identify the best ARS repair technique for recurrent HH and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

methodsData on 975 consecutive patients undergoing hiatal hernia and GERD repair were retrospectively collected in five European high-volume centers. Patient data included demographics, BMI, techniques of the first and redo surgeries (mesh/type of ARS), perioperative morbidity, perioperative complications, duration of hospitalization, time to recurrence, and follow-up. We analyzed the independent risk factors associated with recurrent symptoms and complications during the last ARS. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism

resultsSeventy-three (7.49%) patients underwent redo-ARS during the last decade; 71 (98%) of the surgeries were performed using a minimally invasive approach. Forty-two (57.5%) had conversion from Nissen to Toupet. In 17 (23.3%) patients, the initial Nissen fundoplication was conserved. The initial Toupet fundoplication was conserved in 9 (12.3%) patients, and 5 (6.9%) had conversion of Toupet to Nissen. Out of the 73 patients, 10 (13%) underwent more than one redo-ARS. At 8.5 (1-107) months of follow-up, patients who underwent reoperation with Toupet ARS were less symptomatic during the postoperative period compared to those who underwent Nissen fundoplication (p = 0.005, OR 0.038). Patients undergoing mesh repair during the redo-fundoplication (21%) were less symptomatic during the postoperative period (p = 0.020, OR 0.010). The overall rate of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) after redo surgery was 11%. Multivariate analysis showed that the open approach (p = 0.036, OR 1.721), drain placement (p = 0.0388, OR 9.308), recurrence of dysphagia (p = 0.049, OR 8.411), and patient age (p = 0.0619, OR 1.111) were independent risk factors for complications during the last ARS.

conclusionsFailure of ARS rarely occurs in the hands of experienced surgeons. Redo-ARS is feasible using a minimally invasive approach. According to our study, in terms of recurrence of symptoms, Toupet fundoplication is a superior ARS technique compared to Nissen for redo-fundoplication. Therefore, Toupet fundoplication should be considered in redo interventions for patients who initially underwent ARS with Nissen fundoplication. Furthermore, mesh repair in reoperations has a positive impact on reducing the recurrence of symptoms postoperatively.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PeriodRecurrenceReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeFundoplicationGastroesophageal reflux diseaseHiatal herniaRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID29943063
OpenAlexW2810753467

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.