The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A prospective randomized trial
Open accessAbstract
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 patientassessed 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).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Nishimura, R. A., Otto, C. M., Bonow, R. O., Carabello, B. A., Erwin, J. P., Guyton, R. A., O’Gara, P. T., Ruiz, C. E., Skubas, N. J., Sorajja, P., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000029 · Cited by 2,566
van Gijn, W., Marijnen, C. A., Nagtegaal, I. D., Kranenbarg, E. M.-K., Putter, H., Wiggers, T., Rutten, H. J., Påhlman, L., Glimelius, B., & van de Velde, C. J. (2011) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70097-3 · Cited by 1,888
Martin, P. J., Rizzo, J. D., Wingard, J. R., Ballen, K., Curtin, P. T., Cutler, C., Litzow, M. R., Nieto, Y., Savani, B. N., Schriber, J. R., et al. (2012) · Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.04.005 · Cited by 641
Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection
Kuhry, E., Schwenk, W., Gaupset, R., Romild, U., & Bonjer, H. J. (2008) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003432.pub2 · Cited by 522
Kristjansson, S. R., Nesbakken, A., Jordhøy, M. S., Skovlund, E., Audisio, R. A., Johannessen, H.-O., Bakka, A., & Wyller, T. B. (2010) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.11.002 · Cited by 455
Metadata
- Venue
- Nihon Gekakei Rengo Gakkaishi (Journal of Japanese College of Surgeons)
- Publisher
- Japanese College of Surgeons
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 191-195
- ISSN
- 0385-7883 (ISSN-L)
- 1882-9112
- OpenAlex
- W2508832878
- Cited by
- 1,619
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A prospective randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4030/jjcs1979.20.2_191
- The paper
- A prospective randomized trial. (1995). Nihon Gekakei Rengo Gakkaishi (Journal of Japanese College of Surgeons). https://doi.org/10.4030/jjcs1979.20.2_191
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.