4.5 Article

Can Different Subsets of Ineffective Esophageal Motility Influence the Outcome of Nissen Fundoplication?

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages 1723-1729

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2607-0

Keywords

Ineffective esophageal motility; Nissen fundoplication; Gastroesophageal reflux disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease includes three different subsets that may affect symptom profiles. Our aim was to assess symptoms and functional outcome in patients with erosive esophagitis according to different subsets of IEM, before and after Nissen fundoplication (NF). A retrospective study with prospective follow-up of 72 patients with reflux esophagitis and IEM in whom open NF was performed. Based on principal manometric esophageal body motility disorder, patients were divided in three groups: predominantly low-amplitude (LAC, N = 38), non-propulsive (NPC, N = 18), and simultaneous low-amplitude esophageal contractions (SC, N = 16). Patients underwent symptomatic questionnaire and stationary esophageal manometry before and 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years after surgery. Preoperatively, patients in NPC and SC groups had higher mean scores of dysphagia, without statistical significance as opposed to the LAC group (p = 0.239). Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 36 patients, without statistical significance between groups regarding dysphagia grades (p = 0.390). A longer duration of postoperative dysphagia was noted in the SC group (p < 0.05). Improvement of nadir values of contraction amplitudes in distal esophagus occurred postoperatively in all groups, significantly higher in LAC (p < 0.001). Three years after NF, successful symptomatic and functional outcome was achieved in analyzed groups of patients with erosive esophagitis regardless of IEM subtype.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available