Published in:
01-09-2011 | Review
Ambulatory laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 9/2011
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Ambulatory laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been developed in order to increase patients’ satisfaction and to save bed costs. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of ambulatory surgery in patients undergoing elective fundoplication for GERD.
Methods
Two reviewers independently searched and identified 15 prospective or retrospective nonrandomized studies dealing with ambulatory laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD in the Medline, Cancerlit, and Embase databases between January 1990 and July 2010. Outcomes were postoperative mortality, morbidity, conversion and reoperation rates, mean operative time, hospital admission or readmission, unexpected consultation, and patient satisfaction. Because only one comparative study was identified, data compilation and relative risk evaluation through meta-analysis were not possible.
Results
A total of 1459 adult patients underwent an ambulatory laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD, 876 in a day-case setting and 583 in an outpatient setting. The procedure appears feasible for selected patients and expert surgeons, and it has a very low mortality rate and conversion, reoperation, and overall morbidity rates of 3.6, 0.6, and 11.1%, respectively. Hospital admission, nonprogrammed consultation, and hospital readmission rates were as high as 20, 11, and 12%, respectively. No study looked at comparative long-term functional results between ambulatory and inpatient procedures. Patient satisfaction rates based on self-evaluation were high.
Conclusion
The data available to date in the literature, mostly of level 4 evidence, suggest that laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD appears to be safe and feasible in a day-surgery setting, subject to careful patient selection and surgeon expertise. Randomized control trials are urgently needed to better evaluate this promising care management.