scholarly journals P-BN52 Patient-reported outcome measures following fundoplication – lind and nissens - single centre, single surgeon results

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anitha Muthusami ◽  
Sindoora Jayaprakash ◽  
Akash Jangan ◽  
Chaminda Sellahewa ◽  
Akinfemi Akingboye

Abstract Background Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) affects approximately 10%-20% of adults in Western Countries. Surgery is indicated following failed medical therapy. This is recommended when GORD symptoms have a significant impact on the quality of life (QOL). A long term follow up is critical to authenticate outcomes following anti-reflux/hiatal hernia repair surgery. Objective information must be linked to the patient’s perception of the disease and the impact on the QOL. Our survey aims assess the long term patient’s satisfaction and the impact on QOL following standard Nissen’s and Lind’s fundoplication for GORD. Methods A single surgeon’s prospective database of laparoscopic and or open hiatus hernia repair and fundoplication with patient’s demographics since 2014 in a district general hospital was analyzed. These patients were contacted virtually between June and July 2021. Verbal consent was obtained,  the patients were asked to answer questions from the GERD HRQL (AUGIS modified for use in National Hiatal Surgery Registry) for Hiatus Hernia (HH) or Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) or both to assess postoperative symptoms relief, complications, and overall quality of life. The scoring scale was divided into two categories; no symptoms or mild–moderate symptom improvement and those with significant symptoms. Results Of the 93 patients, 85 (91.4%) underwent primary laparoscopic repair with 91 cases performed as elective procedure. 68 patients (73%) underwent a Lind wrap, 24 (26%) had a floppy Nissen’s and one was a dor procedure. Three patients with unrelated death were excluded from the analysis. We had 67 responders (74.4%), 56 answered the GORD questionnaire and 66 responded to the HH questionnaire.  84% patients with GORD and 85% of patients with HH had significant symptom improvement. 61 % and 55% suffered from significant gas bloat symptoms in each group. As for dysphagia; 77% had no - mild dysphagia and 23% had significant dysphagia and this was 79% and 21% in HH group.  Conclusions Overall patients satisfaction and improvement in quality of life was 90% . Half of our patient experienced gas bloat syndrome, which had little effect on their quality of life. 20% had long term dysphagia and one third of the patients seem to continue to use PPI despite expressing a satisfactory clinical improvement. It appears that patient’s long term improvement on  the   quality of life was satisfactory from both Nissen’s and Lind procedure.

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dacheng Li ◽  
Li Zhu ◽  
Daming Liu

IntroductionRefractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (rGORD) is a common disease, affecting patients’ quality of life. Since conventional medicines have limitations, like low effective rates and adverse events, acupuncture may be a promising therapy for rGORD. While no related systematic review has been published, the present study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for rGORD.Methods and analysisPubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Chinese electronic databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang database, VIP, SinoMed and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, will be searched from establishment of the database to 31 August 2019. There will be no limitations on language, and all articles will be screened and collected by two reviewers independently. RevMan V.5.3.5 software will be used for meta-analysis, and the conduction of study will refer to the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines. The efficacy and safety of acupuncture for rGORD will be evaluated based on outcomes, including global symptom improvement, oesophageal sphincter function test measured by high-resolution manometry, quality of life, recurrence rate and adverse events.Ethics and disseminationThere is no necessity for this study to acquire an ethical approval, and this review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation.Trial registration numberCRD42018111912.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 316-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiajie Zhu ◽  
Yu Guo ◽  
Shan Liu ◽  
Xiaolan Su ◽  
Yijie Li ◽  
...  

Background Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is one of the most common diseases presenting to gastroenterology clinics. Acupuncture is widely used as a complementary and alternative treatment for patients with GORD. Objective To explore the effectiveness of acupuncture for the treatment of GORD. Methods Four English and four Chinese databases were searched through June 2016. Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture (MA/EA) for GORD versus or as an adjunct to Western medicine (WM) were selected. Data extraction and quality evaluation were performed by two authors independently and RevMan 5.2.0 was used to analyse data. Results A total of 12 trials involving 1235 patients were included. Meta-analyses demonstrated that patients receiving MA/EA combined with WM had a superior global symptom improvement compared with those receiving WM alone (relative risk (RR) 1.17, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.26; p=0.03; six studies) with no significant heterogeneity (I2=0%, p=0.41). Recurrence rates of those receiving MA/EA alone were lower than those receiving WM (RR 0.42,95% CI 0.29 to 0.61; p<0.001; three studies) with low heterogeneity (I2=7%, p=0.34), while global symptom improvement (six studies) and symptom scores (three studies) were similar (both p>0.05). Descriptive analyses suggested that acupuncture also improves quality of life in patients with GORD. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that acupuncture is an effective and safe treatment for GORD. However, due to the small sample size and poor methodological quality of the included trials, further studies are required to validate our conclusions. Trial registration number PROSPERO Systematic review registration no. CRD42016041916.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document