腹腔镜Nissen与Toupet胃底折叠术治疗胃食管反流病的近期和远期疗效:荟萃分析和系统评价。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Surgical Innovation Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-30 DOI:10.1177/15533506231165829
Gen Li, Ning Jiang, Nuerboli Chendaer, Yingtao Hao, Weiquan Zhang, Chuanliang Peng
{"title":"腹腔镜Nissen与Toupet胃底折叠术治疗胃食管反流病的近期和远期疗效:荟萃分析和系统评价。","authors":"Gen Li, Ning Jiang, Nuerboli Chendaer, Yingtao Hao, Weiquan Zhang, Chuanliang Peng","doi":"10.1177/15533506231165829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) is the most common standard technique worldwidely for Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Another type of fundoplication, laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication (LTF), intends to reduce incidence of postoperative complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis are required on short- and long-term outcomes based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between LNF and LTF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for RCTs comparing LNF and LTF. Outcomes included postoperative reflux recurrence, postoperative heartburn, dysphagia and postoperative chest pain, inability to belch, gas bloating, satisfaction with intervention, postoperative esophagitis, postoperative DeMeester scores, operating time (min), in-hospital complications, postoperative use of proton pump inhibitors, reoperation rate, postoperative lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) pressure (mmHg). We assessed data using risk ratios and weighted mean differences in meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight eligible RCTs comparing LNF (n = 605) and LTF (n = 607) were identified. There were no significant differences between the LNF and LTF in terms of postoperative reflux recurrence, postoperative heartburn, postoperative chest pain, satisfaction with intervention, reoperation rate in short and long term, in-hospital complications, esophagitis in short term, and gas bloating, postoperative DeMeester scores, postoperative use of proton pump inhibitors, reoperation rate in long term. LTF had lower LOS pressure (mmHg), fewer postoperative dysphagia and inability to belch in short and long term and gas bloating in short term compared to LNF.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LTF were equally effective at controlling reflux symptoms and improving the quality of life, but with lower rate of complications compared to LNF. We concluded that LTF surgical treatment was superior for over 16 years old patients with typical symptoms of GERD and without upper abdominal surgical history upon high-level evidence of evidence-based medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":22095,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656788/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic Nissen Versus Toupet Fundoplication for Short- and Long-Term Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Gen Li, Ning Jiang, Nuerboli Chendaer, Yingtao Hao, Weiquan Zhang, Chuanliang Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15533506231165829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) is the most common standard technique worldwidely for Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Another type of fundoplication, laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication (LTF), intends to reduce incidence of postoperative complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis are required on short- and long-term outcomes based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between LNF and LTF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for RCTs comparing LNF and LTF. Outcomes included postoperative reflux recurrence, postoperative heartburn, dysphagia and postoperative chest pain, inability to belch, gas bloating, satisfaction with intervention, postoperative esophagitis, postoperative DeMeester scores, operating time (min), in-hospital complications, postoperative use of proton pump inhibitors, reoperation rate, postoperative lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) pressure (mmHg). We assessed data using risk ratios and weighted mean differences in meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight eligible RCTs comparing LNF (n = 605) and LTF (n = 607) were identified. There were no significant differences between the LNF and LTF in terms of postoperative reflux recurrence, postoperative heartburn, postoperative chest pain, satisfaction with intervention, reoperation rate in short and long term, in-hospital complications, esophagitis in short term, and gas bloating, postoperative DeMeester scores, postoperative use of proton pump inhibitors, reoperation rate in long term. LTF had lower LOS pressure (mmHg), fewer postoperative dysphagia and inability to belch in short and long term and gas bloating in short term compared to LNF.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LTF were equally effective at controlling reflux symptoms and improving the quality of life, but with lower rate of complications compared to LNF. We concluded that LTF surgical treatment was superior for over 16 years old patients with typical symptoms of GERD and without upper abdominal surgical history upon high-level evidence of evidence-based medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Innovation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656788/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506231165829\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506231165829","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:腹腔镜Nissen胃底折叠术(LNF)是世界上治疗胃食管反流病(GERD)最常见的标准技术。另一种类型的胃底折叠术,腹腔镜Toupet胃底折叠(LTF),旨在降低术后并发症的发生率。基于LNF和LTF之间的随机对照试验(RCT),需要对短期和长期结果进行系统综述和荟萃分析。方法:我们在PubMed、Cochrane、Embase和Web of Knowledge等数据库中搜索比较LNF和LTEF的随机对照试验。结果包括术后反流复发、术后烧心、吞咽困难和术后胸痛、不能打嗝、气胀、对干预的满意度、术后食管炎、术后DeMeester评分、手术时间(分钟)、住院并发症、术后质子泵抑制剂的使用、再次手术率,术后食管下括约肌(LOS)压力(mmHg)。我们在荟萃分析中使用风险比和加权平均差评估了数据。结果:确定了8项符合条件的随机对照试验,比较了LNF(n=605)和LTF(n=607)。LNF和LTF在术后反流复发、术后烧心、术后胸痛、干预满意度、短期和长期再手术率、住院并发症、短期食管炎和腹胀、术后DeMeester评分、质子泵抑制剂的术后使用等方面没有显著差异,远期再手术率。与LNF相比,LTF具有更低的LOS压力(mmHg)、更少的术后吞咽困难、短期和长期不能打嗝以及短期腹胀。结论:LTF在控制反流症状和改善生活质量方面同样有效,但并发症发生率较低。我们得出的结论是,根据循证医学的高水平证据,LTF手术治疗对16岁以上有GERD典型症状且无上腹手术史的患者是优越的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laparoscopic Nissen Versus Toupet Fundoplication for Short- and Long-Term Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Background: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) is the most common standard technique worldwidely for Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Another type of fundoplication, laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication (LTF), intends to reduce incidence of postoperative complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis are required on short- and long-term outcomes based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between LNF and LTF.

Methods: We searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for RCTs comparing LNF and LTF. Outcomes included postoperative reflux recurrence, postoperative heartburn, dysphagia and postoperative chest pain, inability to belch, gas bloating, satisfaction with intervention, postoperative esophagitis, postoperative DeMeester scores, operating time (min), in-hospital complications, postoperative use of proton pump inhibitors, reoperation rate, postoperative lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) pressure (mmHg). We assessed data using risk ratios and weighted mean differences in meta-analyses.

Results: Eight eligible RCTs comparing LNF (n = 605) and LTF (n = 607) were identified. There were no significant differences between the LNF and LTF in terms of postoperative reflux recurrence, postoperative heartburn, postoperative chest pain, satisfaction with intervention, reoperation rate in short and long term, in-hospital complications, esophagitis in short term, and gas bloating, postoperative DeMeester scores, postoperative use of proton pump inhibitors, reoperation rate in long term. LTF had lower LOS pressure (mmHg), fewer postoperative dysphagia and inability to belch in short and long term and gas bloating in short term compared to LNF.

Conclusion: LTF were equally effective at controlling reflux symptoms and improving the quality of life, but with lower rate of complications compared to LNF. We concluded that LTF surgical treatment was superior for over 16 years old patients with typical symptoms of GERD and without upper abdominal surgical history upon high-level evidence of evidence-based medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Innovation 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Innovation (SRI) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal focusing on minimally invasive surgical techniques, new instruments such as laparoscopes and endoscopes, and new technologies. SRI prepares surgeons to think and work in "the operating room of the future" through learning new techniques, understanding and adapting to new technologies, maintaining surgical competencies, and applying surgical outcomes data to their practices. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信