Top

Published in:

01-01-2013 | 2012 SSAT Plenary Presentation

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Antireflux Surgery—What Is the Proper Preoperative Work-up?

Authors: Brian Bello, Marco Zoccali, Roberto Gullo, Marco E. Allaix, Fernando A. Herbella, Arunas Gasparaitis, Marco G. Patti

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 1/2013

Abstract

Background

Many surgeons feel comfortable performing antireflux surgery (ARS) on the basis of symptomatic evaluation, endoscopy, and barium esophagography. While esophageal manometry is often obtained to assess esophageal peristalsis, pH monitoring is rarely considered necessary to confirm the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the sensitivity and specificity of symptoms, endoscopy, barium esophagography, and manometry as compared to pH monitoring in the preoperative evaluation of patients for ARS.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and thirty-eight patients were referred for ARS with a diagnosis of GERD based on symptoms, endoscopy, and/or barium esophagography. Barium esophagography, esophageal manometry, and ambulatory 24-h pH monitoring were performed preoperatively in every patient.

Results

Four patients were found to have achalasia and were excluded from the analysis. Based on the presence or absence of gastroesophageal reflux on pH monitoring, the remaining 134 patients were divided into two groups: GERD+ (n = 78, 58 %) and GERD− (n = 56, 42 %). The groups were compared with respect to the incidence of symptoms, presence of reflux and hiatal hernia on esophagogram, endoscopic findings, and esophageal motility. There was no difference in the incidence of symptoms between the two groups. Within the GERD+ group, 37 patients (47 %) had reflux at the esophagogram and 41 (53 %) had no reflux. Among the GERD− patients, 17 (30 %) had reflux and 39 (70 %) had no reflux. A hiatal hernia was present in 40 and 32 % of patients, respectively. Esophagitis was found at endoscopy in 16 % of GERD+ patients and in 20 % of GERD− patients. Esophageal manometry showed no difference in the pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter or quality of peristalsis between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study showed that (a) symptoms were unreliable in diagnosing GERD, (b) the presence of reflux or hiatal hernia on esophagogram did not correlate with reflux on pH monitoring, (c) esophagitis on endoscopy had low sensitivity and specificity, and (d) manometry was mostly useful for positioning the pH probe and rule out achalasia. Ambulatory 24-h pH monitoring should be routinely performed in the preoperative work-up of patients suspected of having GERD in order to avoid unnecessary ARS.

Dent J, El Serag HB, Wallander MA, Johansson S. Epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 2005;54:710–717.PubMedCrossRef

Campos GM, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Oberg S, Crookes PF, Tan S, DeMeester SR, Hagen J, Bremner CG. Multivariate analysis of factors predicting outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg 1999;3:292–300.PubMedCrossRef

Waring JP, Hunter JG, Oddsdottir M, Wo J, Katz E. The preoperative evaluation of patients considered for laparoscopic surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:35–38.PubMed

Khajanchee YS, Hong D, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL. Outcomes of antireflux surgery in patients with normal preoperative 24-hour pH test results. Am J Surg 2004;187:599–603.PubMedCrossRef

Armstrong D, Monnier P, Nicolet M, Blum Al, Savary M. The “MUSE” system. In: R. Giuli, GNJ Tyagt, TR DeMeester, JP Galmiche (eds) The Esophageal mucosa. New York, Elsevier, 1994.

Jamieson JR, Stein HJ, DeMeester TR, Bonavina L, Schwizer W, Hinder RA, Albertucci M. Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: normal values, optimal thresholds, specificity, sensitivity and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:1102–1111.PubMed

Patti MG, Arcerito M, Tong J, de Pinto M, de Bellis M, Wang A, Feo CV, Mulvhill SJ, Way LW. Importance of preoperative and postoperative pH monitoring in patients with esophageal achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg 1997;1:505–510.PubMedCrossRef

Patti MG, Diener U, Tamburini A, Molena D, Way LW. Role of esophageal function tests in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis Sci 2001;46:597–602.PubMedCrossRef

Csendes A, Rencoret G, Beltran M, Smok G, Henriquez A. Relationship between gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and 24 h esophageal pH measurements in patients with normal or minimally abnormal upper endoscopies. Rev Med Chil 2004;132:19–25.PubMed

10.

Chan K, Liu G, Miller L, Ma C, Xu W, Schlachia CM, Darling G. Lack of correlation between a self-administered subjective GERD questionnaire and pathologic GERD diagnosed by esophageal pH monitoring. J Gastrointest Surg 2010;14:427–436.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Fisichella PM, Raz D, Palazzo F, Niponmick I, Patti MG. Clinical, radiological, and manometric profile in 145 patients with untreated achalasia. World J Surg 2008;32:1974–1979.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Streets CG, DeMeester TR. Ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring: why, when, and what to do. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003;37:14–22.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Ott DJ. Gastroesophageal reflux. What is the role of barium studies? Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:627–629.

14.

Chen MY, Ott DJ, Sinclair JW, Wu WC, Gelfand DW. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: correlation of esophageal pH testing and radiographic findings. Radiology 1992;185:483–486.PubMed

15.

Johnson F, Joelsson B, Gudmundsson K, Greiff L. Symptoms and endoscopic findings in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scan J Gastroenterol 1987;22:714–718.CrossRef

16.

Richter JE. Typical and atypical presentation s of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The role of esophageal testing in diagnosis and management. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1996;25:75–102.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Amano Y, Ishimura N, Furuta K, Okita K, Masaharu M, Azumi T, Ose T, Kshino K, Ishihara S, Adachi K, Kinoshita Y. Interobserver agreement on classifying endoscopic diagnoses of nonerosive esophagitis. Endoscopy2006;38:1032–1035.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Bytzer P, Havelund T, Moller Hansen J. Interobserver variation in the endoscopic diagnosis of reflux esophagitis. Scan J Gastroenterol 1993;28:119–125.CrossRef

19.

Patti MG, Arcerito M, Feo CV, De Pinto M, Tong J, Gantert W, Tyrrell D, Way LW. An analysis of operations for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Identifying the important technical elements. Arch Surg 1998;133:600–607.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Horvath KD, Jobe BA, Herron Dm, Swanstrom LL. Laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication is an inadequate procedure for patients with severe reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 1999;3:583–591.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Patti MG, Robinson T, Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Fisichella PM, Way LW. Total fundoplication is superior to partial fundoplication even when esophageal peristalsis is weak. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:863–870.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Khajanchee YS, Hong D, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL. Outcomes of antireflux surgery in patients with normal preoperative 24-hour pH test results. Am J Surg 2004;187:599–603.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Patti MG, Arcerito M, Tamburini A, Diener U, Feo CV, Safadi B, Fisichella P, Way LW. Effect of laparoscopic fundoplication on gastroesophageal reflux disease-induced respiratory symptoms. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:143–149.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Patti MG, Molena D, Fisichella PM, Perretta S, Way LW. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and chest pain. Results of laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:563–566.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Roman S, Pandolfino JE, Woodland P, Sifrim D. Testing for gastroesophageal reflux in the 21st century. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2011;1232:358–364.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Mainie I, Tutuian R, Agrawal A, Adams D, Castell DO. Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring to select patients with persistent gastro-oesophageal reflux for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 2006;93:1483–1487.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Hirano I, Richter JE, and the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. ACG practice guidelines: esophageal reflux testing. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:668–685.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Antireflux Surgery—What Is the Proper Preoperative Work-up?
Authors: Brian Bello
Marco Zoccali
Roberto Gullo
Marco E. Allaix
Fernando A. Herbella
Arunas Gasparaitis
Marco G. Patti
Publication date: 01-01-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-2057-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Antireflux Surgery—What Is the Proper Preoperative Work-up?

Abstract

Background

Aims

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Aims

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Relationships Matter

A Dual-Institution Randomized Controlled Trial of Remnant Closure after Distal Pancreatectomy: Does the Addition of a Falciform Patch and Fibrin Glue Improve Outcomes?

Greater Complexity of Liver Surgery is Not Associated with an Increased Incidence of Liver-Related Complications Except for Bile Leak: An Experience with 2,628 Consecutive Resections

Effect of the Artificial Sweetener, Acesulfame Potassium, a Sweet Taste Receptor Agonist, on Glucose Uptake in Small Intestinal Cell Lines

Addition of Algenpantucel-L Immunotherapy to Standard Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: a Phase 2 Study

Nationwide Inpatient Sample: Have Antireflux Procedures Undergone Regionalization?