Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30165834›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2018

Evaluation of resection of the gastroesophageal junction and jejunal interposition (Merendino procedure) as a rescue procedure in patients with a failed redo antireflux procedure. A single-center experience.

Apostolos Analatos, Mats Lindblad, Ioannis Rouvelas, Peter Elbe, Lars Lundell, Magnus Nilsson, Andrianos Tsekrekos, Jon A Tsai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Apostolos AnalatosCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden. apanalat@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9181-3327
Mats LindbladCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Ioannis RouvelasCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Peter ElbeCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Lars LundellCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Magnus NilssonCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Andrianos TsekrekosCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Jon A TsaiCentre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockhom, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary antireflux surgery has high success rates but 5 to 20% of patients undergoing antireflux operations can experience recurrent reflux and dysphagia, requiring reoperation. Different surgical approaches after failed fundoplication have been described in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate resection of the gastroesophageal junction with jejunal interposition (Merendino procedure) as a rescue procedure after failed fundoplication.

methodsAll patients who underwent a Merendino procedure at the Karolinska University Hospital between 2004 and 2012 after a failed antireflux fundoplication were identified. Data regarding previous surgical history, preoperative workup, postoperative complications, subsequent investigations and re-interventions were collected retrospectively. The follow-up also included questionnaires regarding quality of life, gastrointestinal function and the dumping syndrome.

resultsTwelve patients had a Merendino reconstruction. Ten patients had undergone at least two previous fundoplications, of which one patient had four such procedures. The main indication for surgery was epigastric and radiating back pain, with or without dysphagia. Postoperative complications occurred in 8/12 patients (67%). During a median follow-up of 35 months (range 20-61), four (25%) patients had an additional redo procedure with conversion to a Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy within 12 months, mainly due to obstructive symptoms that could not be managed conservatively or with endoscopic techniques. Questionnaires scores were generally poor in all dimensions.

conclusionsIn our experience, the Merendino procedure seems to be an unsuitable surgical option for patients who require an alternative surgical reconstruction due to a failed fundoplication. However, the small number of patients included in this study as well as the small number of participants who completed the postoperative workout limits this study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnastomosis, Roux-en-YAnastomosis, SurgicalDeglutition DisordersEsophagogastric JunctionEsophagostomyFemaleFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHumansJejunostomyJejunumMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsGastroesophageal refluxJejunal interpositionMerendino procedureQuality of lifeReoperation

Identifiers

PMID30165834
PMCPMC6117955
OpenAlexW2889350489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.