Late Complications after Antireflux Procedures Using Intraoperative Continuous Computer-Video Manometry Monitoring

Popiela, T; Kawiorski, W; Richter, Piotr; Legutko, J; Kibil, W

doi:10.1080/00015458.2005.11679716

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite reports of improved dysphagia following surgery, postoperative dysphagia remains a significant problem, with reported reoperation rates ranging from 1.8 to 10.8% [33,34,38,39,143,196,[205][206][207] (level I-III) and endoscopic dilatation rates ranging from 0 to 25% [34,121,143,145,189,195,196,[208][209][210][211][212][213] (level I-III). Although perioperative and early postoperative dysphagia have been reported as high as 76% [191] (level II), the majority of studies show early and mid dysphagia rates, up to 1 year postoperatively, of less than 20% [33,34,38,39,44,47,120,122,189,191,192,195,196,199,200,209,210,212,[214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221] (level I-III) and...…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PreambleThe guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are a series of systematically developed statements to assist physicians and patient decisions about the appropriate use of laparoscopic surgery for GERD. The statements included in this guideline are the product of a systematic review of published literature on the topic, and the recommendations are explicitly linked to the supporting evidence. The strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence are highlighted and expert opinion sought where the evidence is lacking. This is an update of previous guidelines on this topic (last revision 06/2001) as new information has accumulated. DisclaimerGuidelines for clinical practice are intended to indicate preferable approaches to medical problems as established by experts in the field. These recommendations will be based on existing data or a consensus of expert opinion when little or no data are available. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the clinical problem(s) without regard to specialty training or interests, and are intended to indicate the preferable, but not necessarily the only, acceptable approaches due to the complexity of the healthcare environment. Guidelines are intended to be flexible. Given the wide range of specifics in any health care problem, the surgeon must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision.Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and its various committees, and approved by the Board of Governors. Each clinical practice guideline has been systematically researched, reviewed, and revised by the guidelines committee, and reviewed by an appropriate multidisciplinary team. The recommendations are therefore considered valid at the time of its production based on the data available. Each guideline is scheduled for periodic review to allow incorporation of pertinent new developments in medical research knowledge, and practice. Literature review methodWe identified 448 relevant articles. The abstracts were reviewed by four committee members (D.S., W.W.H., P.R.R., G.P.K.) and divided into the following categories:(a) Randomized studies, metaanalyses, and systematic reviews (b) Prospective studies (c) Retrospective studies (d) Case reports (e) Review articles Randomized controlled trials, metaanalyses, and systematic reviews were selected for further review, along with prospective and retrospective studies that included at least 50 patients. Studies with smaller samples were considered when additional evidence was lacking. The most recent reviews were also included. All case reports, older reviews, and smaller studies were excluded. According to these exclusion criteria, 227 articles were reviewed. Whenever the available evidence from level I studies was considered to be adequate, lower evidence level studies were not considered. A review of the available evidence on endoluminal treatment of...

show abstract