Memon Muhammed Ashraf, Subramanya Manjunath S, Hossain Md Belal, Yunus Rossita Mohamad, Khan Shahjahan, Memon Breda
Sunnybank Obesity Centre, Suite 9, McCullough Centre, 259 McCullough Street, Sunnybank, QLD, 4109, Australia,
World J Surg. 2015 Apr;39(4):981-96. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2889-0.
Although laparoscopic posterior fundoplication (LPF) i.e., Nissen or Toupet have the proven efficacy for controlling gastro-esophageal reflux surgically, there remain problems with postoperative dysphagia and gas bloat syndrome. To decrease some of these postoperative complications, laparoscopic anterior fundoplication (LAF) was introduced. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the merits and drawbacks of LPF versus LAF for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).
DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND REVIEW METHODS: A search of Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database identified all RCTs comparing different types of LPF and LAF published in the English Language between 1990 and 2013. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data was extracted and analyzed on ten variables which include dysphagia score, heartburn rate, redo operative rate, operative time, overall complications, rate of conversion to open, Visick grading of satisfaction, overall satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 24-h pH scores.
Nine trials totaling 840 patients (anterior = 425, posterior = 415) were analyzed. There was a significant reduction in the odds ratio for dysphagia in the LAF group compared to the LPF group. Conversely, significant reduction in the odds ratio for heartburn was observed for LPF compared to LAF. Comparable effects were noted for both groups for other variables which include redo surgery, operating time, overall complications, conversion rate, Visick's grading, patients' satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 24-h pH scores.
Based on this meta-analysis, LPF compared to LAF is associated with significant reduction in heartburn at the expense of higher dysphagia rate on a short- and medium-term basis. We therefore conclude that LPF is a better alternative to LAF for controlling GERD symptoms.
尽管腹腔镜后位胃底折叠术(LPF),即nissen术式或Toupet术式,已被证实可通过手术有效控制胃食管反流,但术后吞咽困难和气胀综合征等问题依然存在。为减少部分术后并发症,引入了腹腔镜前位胃底折叠术(LAF)。本研究旨在对随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析和系统评价,以探究LPF与LAF治疗胃食管反流病(GERD)的优缺点。
数据来源、研究选择及评价方法:检索Medline、Embase、科学引文索引、现刊目次、PubMed、ISI科学网和Cochrane数据库,以确定1990年至2013年间发表的所有比较不同类型LPF和LAF的英文RCT。荟萃分析按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明进行。提取并分析了十个变量的数据,包括吞咽困难评分、烧心发生率、再次手术率、手术时间、总体并发症、转为开腹手术率、Visick满意度分级、总体满意度、住院时间以及术后24小时pH值评分。
分析了9项试验,共840例患者(前位组 = 425例,后位组 = 415例)。与LPF组相比,LAF组吞咽困难的优势比显著降低。相反,与LAF相比,LPF组烧心的优势比显著降低。两组在其他变量上的效果相当,这些变量包括再次手术、手术时间、总体并发症、转化率、Visick分级、患者满意度、住院时间以及术后24小时pH值评分。
基于这项荟萃分析,与LAF相比,LPF在短期和中期可显著降低烧心发生率,但代价是吞咽困难发生率更高。因此,我们得出结论,对于控制GERD症状,LPF是比LAF更好的选择。