ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Endoscopic assessment of failed fundoplications differs between endoscopists.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. 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.
- Symmetrical anterior-posterior partial fundoplication: technique and outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite excellent long-term outcomes, a small proportion of patients who undergo fundoplication with hiatal hernia repair (laparoscopic antireflux surgery [ARS]) for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may require reoperation. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) assessment in patients presenting with symptom recurrence plays a critical role in surgical planning of redo-ARS by confirming failure of the fundoplication and revealing the pattern of failure. We aimed to compare the findings documented by external endoscopists (i.e., outside physicians) to those documented by internal endoscopists (i.e., operating foregut or thoracic surgeons) before redo-ARS.
methodsAfter IRB approval, we conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent redo-ARS at a tertiary surgical center between November 2016 and March 2023. Patients with both external and internal EGD reports were included, and findings from the two reports were compared.
resultsOf 197 patients who underwent redo-ARS, both preoperative EGD reports were available for 181 (136 [75.1%] women; median age, 61 years [IQR 53-69]; median BMI, 27.9 kg/m2 [IQR 24.9-31.3]). The median time between primary and redo-ARS was 89 months (IQR 38-153), and the median time between external and internal endoscopic evaluation was 5 months (IQR 2-12). Only 38.9% of external reports mentioned a prior fundoplication. Compared to the operating surgeons, external physicians reported a significantly lower proportion of Barrett's esophagus (52.4%, p < .001), slipped fundoplications (28.8%, p < .001), paraesophageal hernias (20.5%, p < .001), disrupted fundoplications (20%, p < .001), intrathoracic fundoplications (0%, p < .001), and twisted fundoplications (0%, p < .001).
conclusionsExternal endoscopists' reports of failed fundoplications are often incomplete and lack relevant details. Discrepancies between nonsurgical endoscopists and experienced surgeons are likely explained by a lack of training and experience to discern and document fundoplication changes accurately. To reduce this gap, we strongly recommend the adoption of standard definitions describing post-fundoplication endoscopic changes and the inclusion of relevant training within educational programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39168858What 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.