These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Total vs partial fundoplication in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis.
    Author: Varin O, Velstra B, De Sutter S, Ceelen W.
    Journal: Arch Surg; 2009 Mar; 144(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 19289668.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing partial fundoplication (PF) with total (Nissen) fundoplication (TF) for gastroesophageal reflux disease in terms of morbidity, efficacy, and long-term symptomatology. DATA SOURCES: A structured Medline search for published studies. STUDY SELECTION: The available literature from 1975 until June 2007 was searched using the Medical Subject Headings of the National Library of Medicine term fundoplication and the free-text terms fundoplication, surgery, and reflux. Data were analyzed using Review Manager software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, England). DATA EXTRACTION: Eleven trials were identified comparing TF with PF in 991 patients. DATA SYNTHESIS: Total fundoplication resulted in a significantly higher incidence of postoperative dysphagia (odds ratio [OR], 1.82-3.93; P < .001), bloating (OR, 1.07-2.56; P = .02), and flatulence (OR, 1.66-3.96; P < .001). No significant differences were noted in the incidence of esophagitis (OR, 0.72-2.7; P = .33), heartburn (OR, 0.48-1.52; P = .58), or persisting acid reflux (OR, 0.77-1.79; P = .45). The reoperation rate was significantly higher after TF compared with PF (OR, 1.13-3.95; P = .02). No significant differences were present in the proportion of patients experiencing a good or excellent long-term outcome (OR, 0.54-1.38; P = .53) or in the proportion of patients with a Visick I or II score (OR, 0.62-1.59; P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Partial fundoplication is a safe and effective alternative to TF, resulting in significantly fewer reoperations and a better functional outcome. The poor quality of the included trials warrants caution in the interpretation of the results of this meta-analysis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]