American journal of surgery · 2008
Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with anterior versus posterior hiatal repair: long-term results of a randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wijnhoven Bas P L, Watson David I, Devitt Peter G, Game Philip A, Jamieson Glyn G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Postoperative dysphagia in patients after Nissen fundoplication might be related to the technique used for the closure of the esophageal hiatus.
METHODS: A total of 102 patients with gastroesophageal reflux were randomized to undergo laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with either anterior (47 patients) or posterior (55 patients) repair of the diaphragmatic hiatus.
RESULTS: Clinical data at 5 years after surgery were available for 96% of patients enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the 2 techniques for symptoms of dysphagia at the 5-year follow-up evaluation, although more patients who underwent posterior hiatal repair underwent further surgery for dysphagia-related symptoms (8 vs 2). Better control of heartburn was achieved in patients in the anterior hiatal repair group. Patients from both groups were equally satisfied with the overall outcome after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: At the 5-year follow-up evaluation, there was no significant difference in dysphagia between anterior closure and posterior hiatal repair.
METHODS: A total of 102 patients with gastroesophageal reflux were randomized to undergo laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with either anterior (47 patients) or posterior (55 patients) repair of the diaphragmatic hiatus.
RESULTS: Clinical data at 5 years after surgery were available for 96% of patients enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the 2 techniques for symptoms of dysphagia at the 5-year follow-up evaluation, although more patients who underwent posterior hiatal repair underwent further surgery for dysphagia-related symptoms (8 vs 2). Better control of heartburn was achieved in patients in the anterior hiatal repair group. Patients from both groups were equally satisfied with the overall outcome after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: At the 5-year follow-up evaluation, there was no significant difference in dysphagia between anterior closure and posterior hiatal repair.