4.1 Article

Clinical Outcome at 10 Years After Laparoscopic Versus Open Nissen Fundoplication

Journal

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2009.0230

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Laparoscopic surgery has become the elective approach for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the last decade. Outcome data beyond 10 years are available for open fundoplication, but few studies report long-term follow-up after laparoscopic fundoplication and comparison between laparoscopic and open approaches. Material and Methods: In this study, we performed a retrospective study of all the patients undergoing Nissen fundopliction (open and laparoscopic) for antireflux surgery between 1996 and 1998 at our institution. Results: In total, 166 patients were included: 88 underwent open Nissen fundoplication and 78 the laparoscopic approach. Complication rate was 5% for both groups. Conversion rate for the laparoscopic approach was was 4%. Median postoperative hospital stay was 9.5 days for open surgery and 3 days for laparoscopic 1 (P<0.001). During the follow-up, 3 patients required reoperation, 1 after laparoscopic Nissen and 2 after open surgery, all of them due to dysphagia, though complementary tests showed normal features. After 10 years, 24% of the patients of the open surgery group (OS) remain symptomatic, and in the laparoscopic group (LS) 11% (P<0.05). Overall, 16% of OS take dialy proton-pump inhibitors and 7% of LS (P<0.05). Three patients have undergone an open Nissen fundoplication and 2 a laparoscopic referring mild dysphagia (NS). The satisfaction rate of the patients was 96% for OS and 97% for LS (NS). Conclusion: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication appears to be at least as safe and long term in effectiveness for GERD as the open approach, with the associated postoperative advantages of a minimally invasive access.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available