ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
The outcome of fundoplication in patients with GERD based on abnormal impedance testing.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- pH Impedance Parameters Associated with Improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Following Anti-reflux Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe role of impedance testing in selecting patients for antireflux surgery is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients that underwent antireflux surgery for GERD based on an abnormal pH/abnormal impedance test versus a normal pH/abnormal impedance test.
methodsRecords of patients who had an abnormal off-medication impedance test (≥ 48 total reflux events) who underwent antireflux surgery were reviewed and divided into two groups: normal [pH-] or abnormal [pH+] esophageal acid exposure (DeMeester score > 14.7). Symptom resolution was compared: scale 1 (no resolution) to 5 (complete resolution).
resultsEighty-two patients met criteria: 44 [pH+] and 38 [pH-]. There were no differences in the demographics or indications for surgery. The frequencies of heartburn and regurgitation symptoms were significantly reduced by fundoplication in both groups. Complete resolution of heartburn was more common in the [pH+] group (90%) compared to the [pH-] group (67%) [p = 0.02]. Resolution of regurgitation was similar in both groups (90% in the [pH+] group vs 79% in the [pH-] group, p = 0.20). The mean dysphagia frequency score decreased for the [pH+] group, but increased in the [pH-] group. New-onset dysphagia was more common in [pH-] patients (23%) compared to [pH+] patients (5%), (p = 0.02). Continued use of PPI medications was significantly more likely in [pH-] group (42%) compared to the [pH+] group (21%). There was no difference in surgical satisfaction rates between groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with abnormal impedance and increased esophageal acid exposure had significantly better symptom resolution, less dysphagia, and less frequent PPI use with antireflux surgery versus those with normal pH. These findings urge caution in the use of abnormal impedance values with normal esophageal acid exposure for the selection of patients for an antireflux operation.
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.