4.5 Article

Endoscopic Evaluation of Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication: 89 % Success Rate 10 Years After Surgery

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 882-889

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2349-2

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  2. Seinajoki Central Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The surgical outcome of fundoplication can be evaluated by means of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDS). The literature reveals only one prior long-term follow-up series with endoscopic evaluation of the fundoplication wraps after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF). The results achieved at a university clinic showed LNF to be more durable than open fundoplication (ONF). Previously, in our community-based hospital, the results of ONF were somewhat poorer than those achieved at a university clinic. The objective of the present study was to describe the long-term results of LNF in our hospital as regards surgical and symptomatic outcomes. In 1997-1999, 107 LNFs were performed in our hospital. A questionnaire with symptom evaluation was mailed to all patients. The patients who agreed to participate were interviewed and underwent EGDS. Of the 107 patients, 64 (59.8 %) participated in the study (40 men, mean age 61.9 years, range 28-85 years). The mean follow-up time was 9.8 years. Seven endoscopic examinations (10.9 %) showed a defective fundic wrap; three of the patients had undergone reoperation. Fifty-eight (90.6 %) patients had no or minimal heartburn and 61 (95.3 %) had no or minimal regurgitation. Twenty-three (35.9 %) patients had moderate or severe dysphagia, and 43 (67.2 %) patients had moderate or severe flatulence. Fifty-seven (89.1 %) patients would have opted for surgery again. This study contributes to the previous notion that LNF is associated with fewer surgical failures than ONF. Our results indicate that LNF can well be performed in a community-based hospital with acceptable long-term results.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available