Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Laparoscopic Fundoplication Failures: Patterns of Failure and Response to Fundoplication Revision

Open access
Hunter, John G., Smith, C. Daniel, Branum, Gene D., Waring, J. Patrick, Trus, Thadeus L., Cornwell, Michael, Galloway, Kathy·1999·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates and mechanisms of failure in 857 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease or paraesophageal hernia (1991-1998), and compare this population with 100 consecutive patients undergoing fundoplication revision (laparoscopic and open) at the authors' institution during the same period. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Gastroesophageal fundoplication performed through a laparotomy or thoracotomy has a failure rate of 9% to 30% and requires revision in most of the patients who have recurrent or new foregut symptoms. The frequency and patterns of failure of laparoscopic fundoplication have not been well studied. METHODS: All patients undergoing fundoplication revision were included in this study. Symptom severity was scored before and after surgery by patients on a 4-point scale. Evaluation of patients included esophagogastroscopy, barium swallow, esophageal motility, 24-hour ambulatory pH, and gastric emptying studies. Statistical analysis was performed with multiple chi-square analyses, Fisher exact test, and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Laparoscopic fundoplication was performed in 758 patients for gastroesophageal reflux disease and in 99 for paraesophageal hernia. Median follow-up was 2.5 years. Thirty-one patients (3.5%) have undergone revision for fundoplication failure. The mechanism of failure was transdiaphragmatic herniation of the fundoplication in 26 patients (84%). In 40 patients referred from other institutions, after laparoscopic fundoplication, only 10 (25%) had transdiaphragmatic migration (p < 0.01); a slipped or misplaced fundoplication occurred in 13 patients (32%), and a twisted fundoplication in 12 patients (30%). The failure mechanisms of open fundoplication (29 patients) followed patterns previously described. Fundoplication revision procedures were initiated laparoscopically in 65 patients, with six conversions (8%). The morbidity rate was 4% in laparoscopic procedures and 9% in open ones. There was one death, from aspiration and adult respiratory distress syndrome after open fundoplication. A year or more after revision operation, heartburn, chest pain, and dysphagia were rare or absent in 88%, 78%, and 91%, respectively, after laparoscopic revision, and were rare or absent in 91%, 83%, and 70%, respectively, after open revision, but 11 patients ultimately required additional operations for continued or recurrent symptoms, 3 after open revision (17%), and 8 after laparoscopic fundoplication (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic fundoplication failure is infrequent in experienced hands; the rate may be further reduced by extensive esophageal mobilization, secure diaphragmatic closure, esophageal lengthening (applied selectively), and avoidance of events leading to increased intraabdominal pressure. When revision is required, laparoscopic access may be used successfully by the laparoscopically experienced esophageal surgeon.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000658-199910000-00015

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hunter, J. G., Smith, C. D., Branum, G. D., Waring, J. P., Trus, T. L., Cornwell, M., & Galloway, K.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
1999-10
Volume
230
Issue
4
Pages
595
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006303084
Cited by
372
References
0
FWCI
9.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.