B S Håkanson1, K B A Thor, A Thorell, O Ljungqvist. 1. Center for Gastrointestinal Disease, Ersta Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. bengt.hakanson@erstadiakoni.se
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares outcomes following open and laparoscopic partial posterior fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease concerning perioperative course, postoperative complications, symptomatic relief, recurrent disease, and the need for reinterventional surgery. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was performed. Pre- and postoperative testing included endoscopy, esophageal function testing, patient questionnaire, and clinical assessment. Patients were followed for three years. MATERIALS: Ninety-three patients were randomized to open and 99 to laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS:Complication rates were higher, and length of stay (LOS) [5 (3-36) vs 3 (1-12) days] and time off work [42 (12-76) vs 28 (0-108) days] was longer in the open group (p < 0.01). Early side effects and recurrences were more common (p < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the open group and 8 patients in the laparoscopic group required surgery for recurrent disease and 7 patients required surgery for incisional hernias after open surgery. Overall, at one and three years, there were no differences in patient-assessed satisfactory outcome (93.5/93.5 vs 88.8/90.8%) or reflux control (p = 0.53) between the open and laparoscopic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The finding of fewer general complications, shorter length of stay and recovery, similar need for reoperations, and comparable 3-year outcomes, makes the laparoscopic approach the primary choice when considering surgical options for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study compares outcomes following open and laparoscopic partial posterior fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease concerning perioperative course, postoperative complications, symptomatic relief, recurrent disease, and the need for reinterventional surgery. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was performed. Pre- and postoperative testing included endoscopy, esophageal function testing, patient questionnaire, and clinical assessment. Patients were followed for three years. MATERIALS: Ninety-three patients were randomized to open and 99 to laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Complication rates were higher, and length of stay (LOS) [5 (3-36) vs 3 (1-12) days] and time off work [42 (12-76) vs 28 (0-108) days] was longer in the open group (p < 0.01). Early side effects and recurrences were more common (p < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the open group and 8 patients in the laparoscopic group required surgery for recurrent disease and 7 patients required surgery for incisional hernias after open surgery. Overall, at one and three years, there were no differences in patient-assessed satisfactory outcome (93.5/93.5 vs 88.8/90.8%) or reflux control (p = 0.53) between the open and laparoscopic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The finding of fewer general complications, shorter length of stay and recovery, similar need for reoperations, and comparable 3-year outcomes, makes the laparoscopic approach the primary choice when considering surgical options for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
Authors: C Sietses; M J Wiezer; Q A Eijsbouts; R H Beelen; P A van Leeuwen; B M von Blomberg; S Meijer; M A Cuesta Journal: Surgery Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: T J Heikkinen; K Haukipuro; P Koivukangas; A Sorasto; R Autio; H Södervik; H Mäkelä; A Hulkko Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Geoffrey P Kohn; Patrick R Reardon; William S Richardson; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joshua J Weis; Adnan A Alseidi; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Michael A Schweitzer; Yumi Hori; Vanessa Cheung; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Julia B Kössler-Ebs; Kathrin Grummich; Katrin Jensen; Felix J Hüttner; Beat Müller-Stich; Christoph M Seiler; Phillip Knebel; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.352