Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Heller myotomy versus Heller myotomy with fundoplication in patients with achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: G, Santoro; N, Sheriff; J, Noronha; Q M, Nunes; A, Tandon;

Heller myotomy versus Heller myotomy with fundoplication in patients with achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Introduction Heller myotomy (HM) remains the gold standard procedure for achalasia. The addition of different types of fundoplication to HM has been debated in several studies. Given the contradictory reports, this meta-analysis was undertaken to compare different outcomes after HM and HM with fundoplication (HMF). Methods An electronic search was performed among five major databases (PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar) from inception to October 2019, identifying all randomised and non-randomised studies comparing HM with HMF. Two authors searched electronic databases using the keywords ‘achalasia’ AND ‘dysphagia’ AND ‘gastroesophageal reflux’ and all data were pooled for random-effects meta-analysis. The primary and secondary outcomes were gastroesophageal reflux and dysphagia, respectively. Results A total of six studies were included and involved 576 patients comparing HM and HMF. There was no statistically significant difference between gastroesophageal reflux in the HM vs HMF group (21.3% vs 22.9%, RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.60–2.88, p = 0.49). There was a slightly higher incidence of dysphagia observed in HM vs HMF (14.8% vs 10.8%, RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.98–2.41, p = 0.06). Conclusions There was no statistically significant difference in long-term outcomes between a group of patients undergoing HM and a group who underwent HM with fundoplication.

Keywords

Male, Fundoplication, Heller Myotomy, Middle Aged, Esophageal Achalasia, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Humans, Female, Deglutition Disorders, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    4
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
4
Top 10%
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!