Muriel Coupaye1, Caroline Gorbatchef2, Daniela Calabrese3, Ouidad Sami4, Simon Msika3, Benoit Coffin2, Séverine Ledoux4. 1. Service des Explorations Fonctionnelles and Centre Intégré Nord Francilien de prise en charge de l'Obésité (CINFO), Hôpital Louis Mourier (AP-HP) and Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France. muriel.coupaye@lmr.aphp.fr. 2. Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital Louis Mourier (AP-HP) and Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France. 3. Service de Chirurgie and Centre Intégré Nord Francilien de prise en charge de l'Obésité (CINFO), Hôpital Louis Mourier (AP-HP) and Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France. 4. Service des Explorations Fonctionnelles and Centre Intégré Nord Francilien de prise en charge de l'Obésité (CINFO), Hôpital Louis Mourier (AP-HP) and Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evolution of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is controversial. Some authors report worsening or improvement of preoperative GERD, others the occurrence of de novo GERD between 5 and 69%. AIMS: The aims of this study are to evaluate the evolution of GERD after SG by ambulatory 24-h pH monitoring (APM) and to determine pre- and postoperative clinical and manometric factors associated with its evolution. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2015, 47 patients operated in our center performed APM before and 1 year (14.8 ± 4.9 months) after SG. GERD was defined as a percentage of time with esophageal pH < 4 (TpH < 4) > 4.2. Among them, 30 had pre- and postoperative high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (66%) had no preoperative GERD (group 1), and 16 had preoperative GERD (group 2). One year after SG, mean TpH < 4 increased significantly in group 1 (5.8 ± 4.6 vs. 1.8 ± 1.1%, p < 0.01) whereas it was not modified in group 2 (7.4 ± 6.6 vs. 6.6 ± 2.6%). In group 1, 16 patients (52%) had de novo GERD whereas in group 2, 7 had no more GERD, 3 improved, and 6 worsened. Maximal intragastric pressure after swallows increased significantly at postoperative HRM only in patients with de novo GERD (49.2 ± 22.0 vs. 25.4 ± 9.4 mmHg, p = 0.03). No preoperative clinical or manometric parameters were predictive of postoperative GERD. CONCLUSIONS: One year after SG, esophageal acid exposure globally worsened, mostly because of de novo GERD, whereas 63% patients with preoperative GERD improved, without preoperative predictive clinical or manometric factor.
BACKGROUND: Evolution of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is controversial. Some authors report worsening or improvement of preoperative GERD, others the occurrence of de novo GERD between 5 and 69%. AIMS: The aims of this study are to evaluate the evolution of GERD after SG by ambulatory 24-h pH monitoring (APM) and to determine pre- and postoperative clinical and manometric factors associated with its evolution. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2015, 47 patients operated in our center performed APM before and 1 year (14.8 ± 4.9 months) after SG. GERD was defined as a percentage of time with esophageal pH < 4 (TpH < 4) > 4.2. Among them, 30 had pre- and postoperative high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (66%) had no preoperative GERD (group 1), and 16 had preoperative GERD (group 2). One year after SG, mean TpH < 4 increased significantly in group 1 (5.8 ± 4.6 vs. 1.8 ± 1.1%, p < 0.01) whereas it was not modified in group 2 (7.4 ± 6.6 vs. 6.6 ± 2.6%). In group 1, 16 patients (52%) had de novo GERD whereas in group 2, 7 had no more GERD, 3 improved, and 6 worsened. Maximal intragastric pressure after swallows increased significantly at postoperative HRM only in patients with de novo GERD (49.2 ± 22.0 vs. 25.4 ± 9.4 mmHg, p = 0.03). No preoperative clinical or manometric parameters were predictive of postoperative GERD. CONCLUSIONS: One year after SG, esophageal acid exposure globally worsened, mostly because of de novo GERD, whereas 63% patients with preoperative GERD improved, without preoperative predictive clinical or manometric factor.
Authors: Wiebke V Petersen; Tobias Meile; Markus A Küper; Marty Zdichavsky; Alfred Königsrainer; Joachim H Schneider Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Fabrizio Rebecchi; Marco E Allaix; Marco G Patti; Francisco Schlottmann; Mario Morino Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Abdel-Naser Elzouki; Muhammad-Aamir Waheed; Salah Suwileh; Islam Elzouki; Hisham Swehli; Maryam Alhitmi; Mona Saad; Elmukhtar Habas; Suhail A Doi; Mohammed I Danjuma Journal: Surg Open Sci Date: 2021-11-19
Authors: Eyup Gemici; Osman Kones; Hakan Seyit; Ahmet Surek; Murat Cikot; Mehmet Abdussamet Bozkurt; Halil Alis Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Veeravich Jaruvongvanich; Reem Matar; Karthik Ravi; M Hassan Murad; Kornpong Vantanasiri; Nicha Wongjarupong; Patompong Ungprasert; Eric J Vargas; Daniel B Maselli; Larry J Prokop; Barham K Abu Dayyeh Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.396