Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a salvage procedure in complicated patients with failed fundoplication(s).
Adult
Esophagitis
/ etiology
Esophagoplasty
Female
Fundoplication
Gastric Bypass
Gastroesophageal Reflux
/ complications
Gastroparesis
/ complications
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Obesity
/ complications
Operative Time
Patient Readmission
/ statistics & numerical data
Quality of Life
Reoperation
/ statistics & numerical data
Salvage Therapy
Treatment Failure
Failed fundoplication
Recurrent GERD
Reoperative fundoplication
Revisional antireflux surgery
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
08
04
2018
accepted:
06
07
2018
pubmed:
14
7
2018
medline:
24
3
2020
entrez:
14
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In symptomatic patients after failed fundoplication, reoperation is considered. In complex or obese patients, Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be the best operation. We sought to characterize the outcomes of patients with failed fundoplication to undergo salvage RYGB, and to compare these outcomes to patients undergoing reoperative fundoplication. A prospectively maintained database was queried for procedures performed at a single institution from 2011 to 2017. GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) surveys were administered at defined intervals. Thirty-six patients underwent salvage RYGB and 84 patients underwent reoperative fundoplication. The RYGB cohort had a higher BMI (35.5 ± 6.8 vs. 28.7 ± 5.3, p < 0.01), more gastroparesis (52.8% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.01), more esophagitis (42.9% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.01), and more prior fundoplications (1.9 vs. 1.2, p < 0.01). The incidence of gastroparesis and esophagitis was directly related to the number of failed fundoplications (p < 0.05). Operative times were longer with RYGB (332.7 ± 131.5 vs. 200.0 ± 67.6 min, p < 0.01) as was length of stay (4.3 ± 3.4 vs. 2.8 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.02), incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ Grade 3 (19.4% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.01), 30-day reoperation (11.1% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.01), and 30-day readmission (32.4% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.01). In five patients with three or more prior fundoplication attempts, an esophagojejunostomy was necessary. If these patients are excluded, there was no difference for RYGB with gastrojejunostomy compared to reoperative fundoplication for complications, reoperations, or readmissions. GERD-HRQL scores were similar prior to surgery in both cohorts and improved significantly and to a similar degree on long-term follow-up. In a complex cohort of patients with high rates of obesity and numerous failed previous fundoplication attempts, conversion to RYGB results in good symptomatic outcomes. Patients with three or more previous fundoplication attempts are more likely to require esophagojejunostomy. Complication rates in this subset of patients appear to be quite high.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In symptomatic patients after failed fundoplication, reoperation is considered. In complex or obese patients, Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be the best operation. We sought to characterize the outcomes of patients with failed fundoplication to undergo salvage RYGB, and to compare these outcomes to patients undergoing reoperative fundoplication.
METHODS
A prospectively maintained database was queried for procedures performed at a single institution from 2011 to 2017. GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) surveys were administered at defined intervals.
RESULTS
Thirty-six patients underwent salvage RYGB and 84 patients underwent reoperative fundoplication. The RYGB cohort had a higher BMI (35.5 ± 6.8 vs. 28.7 ± 5.3, p < 0.01), more gastroparesis (52.8% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.01), more esophagitis (42.9% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.01), and more prior fundoplications (1.9 vs. 1.2, p < 0.01). The incidence of gastroparesis and esophagitis was directly related to the number of failed fundoplications (p < 0.05). Operative times were longer with RYGB (332.7 ± 131.5 vs. 200.0 ± 67.6 min, p < 0.01) as was length of stay (4.3 ± 3.4 vs. 2.8 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.02), incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ Grade 3 (19.4% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.01), 30-day reoperation (11.1% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.01), and 30-day readmission (32.4% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.01). In five patients with three or more prior fundoplication attempts, an esophagojejunostomy was necessary. If these patients are excluded, there was no difference for RYGB with gastrojejunostomy compared to reoperative fundoplication for complications, reoperations, or readmissions. GERD-HRQL scores were similar prior to surgery in both cohorts and improved significantly and to a similar degree on long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
In a complex cohort of patients with high rates of obesity and numerous failed previous fundoplication attempts, conversion to RYGB results in good symptomatic outcomes. Patients with three or more previous fundoplication attempts are more likely to require esophagojejunostomy. Complication rates in this subset of patients appear to be quite high.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30003347
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6337-3
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6337-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
738-744Références
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep;36(3):619-47, ix
pubmed: 17950441
Dig Dis Sci. 2002 Jul;47(7):1590-3
pubmed: 12141821
Surg Endosc. 2017 Nov;31(11):4649-4655
pubmed: 28389792
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jan;32(1):345-350
pubmed: 28707016
Surg Clin North Am. 2015 Jun;95(3):629-40
pubmed: 25965135
Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Dec;46(6):527-31
pubmed: 9434220
Surg Endosc. 2012 Mar;26(3):838-42
pubmed: 22052421
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Sep;92(3):1083-9; discussion 1089-90
pubmed: 21802068
Surg Endosc. 2018 Aug;32(8):3517-3524
pubmed: 29362910
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
World J Surg. 2011 Sep;35(9):2045-50
pubmed: 21713576
J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Feb;22(2):177-186
pubmed: 28681211
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Aug;13(8):1539-49
pubmed: 19347410
Ann Surg. 2005 Jun;241(6):861-9; discussion 869-71
pubmed: 15912035
Arch Surg. 2007 Aug;142(8):785-901; discussion 791-2
pubmed: 17709733
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Apr;101(4):1290-6
pubmed: 26706754
Dis Esophagus. 2007;20(2):130-4
pubmed: 17439596
Surg Endosc. 2011 Mar;25(3):706-12
pubmed: 20661749
Surg Endosc. 2008 Dec;22(12):2737-40
pubmed: 18363066
Surg Endosc. 2014 Jan;28(1):42-8
pubmed: 24196537
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Oct;27(10):997-1001
pubmed: 28696816
Surg Endosc. 2013 Mar;27(3):927-35
pubmed: 23052516
Obes Surg. 2017 Sep;27(9):2398-2403
pubmed: 28332075