Background: This study compared clinical outcomes after laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who would be eligible for endoluminal therapies (ET) with those in patients who would be excluded from ET. Methods: From 1995 to the present, 459 patients who underwent LARS were analyzed prospectively. Of these, 117 patients (25%) without preoperative dysphagia, stricture, esophagitis worse than grade 2 or hiatal hernia larger than 2 cm were considered potential candidates for ET (group 1). By these criteria, 342 patients (75%) were not eligible for ET (group 2). Medication use and GERD symptoms were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results: Perioperative outcomes including duration of operation, morbidity, length of hospital stay and return to work were similar in the two groups. Although LARS significantly reduced medication use and GERD symptoms in both groups during a mean follow-up period longer than 2 years, there were no outcome differences between groups 1 and 2. The reported improvement in esophageal symptoms and overall satisfaction was 90% or more in both groups. Conclusions: The findings show that LARS is an effective treatment option in patients with GERD whether they are candidates for ET or not. In patients with uncomplicated GERD who currently meet inclusion criteria for ET, LARS provides excellent symptom relief and marked reduction in medication use during a mean follow-up period longer than 2 years.
|Number of pages||5|
|Journal||Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques|
|State||Published - Dec 1 2002|