Therapeutic effect of laparoscopic fundoplication for patients with GERD from the viewpoint of Lyon Consensus
Masato Hoshino,Nobuo Omura,Fumiaki Yano,Kazuto Tsuboi,Se Ryung Yamamoto,Shunsuke Akimoto,Takahiro Masuda,Yuki Sakashita,Naoko Fukushima,Hideyuki Kashiwagi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-021-00843-z
Esophagus
Abstract:Background and objectives: The Lyon Consensus was conducted in 2017, leading to a revision of the diagnostic criteria of GERD. Conclusive GERD was defined as cases in which the distal esophageal acid exposure time (AET) is greater than 6% and there exists either peptic esophagitis, constriction, or long-segment Barrett's mucosa with a Los Angeles classification of grade C or D. Borderline GERD is defined as cases in which AET is between 4 and 6% and there exists peptic esophagitis with a Los Angeles classification of either grade A or B. All other cases were defined as Inconclusive GERD. We conducted a retrospective investigation of the treatment results of laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) for GERD according to the Lyon Consensus and evaluated whether or not it is an effective treatment predictor. Materials and methods: From among the cases of primary LF conducted on patients with GERD-related illnesses at our university hospital from June 2008 to March 2020, the subjects included 215 individuals who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 24 h multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (MII-pH) testing prior to surgery. We compared the pathophysiology of the Conclusive GERD Group (Group A), Borderline GERD Group (Group B), and Inconclusive GERD Group (Group C), and then investigated the treatment results of each group. We used AFP classification for pathophysiological evaluation. For the acid reflux evaluation, we conducted MII-pH measurements using Sleuth, manufactured by Sandhill. The postoperative evaluation period was set to 3 months following surgery. The data are expressed using median values, with a statistical significance defined as p < 0.05 using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and Chi-squared tests. Results: Group A: 92 cases (43%, male 69 cases, age 57), Group B: 48 cases (22%, male 20 cases, age 52), and Group C: 75 cases (35%, male 69 cases, age 57). Regarding the patient backgrounds, while there were no significant differences in terms of gender or disease duration, those in Group A were significantly older than the other two groups, and there was a significant difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) between Group A and Group C. The results of each factor were: A factor (1 vs.1 vs. 1, p < 0.001), F factor (2 vs. 0 vs. 0, p < 0.001), and P factor (2 vs. 1 vs. 0, p < 0.001), with AET of 10.0 vs. 2.9 vs. 0.6, p < 0.001, and the disease had progressed more in Group A. There were also no differences in terms of surgical methods, hemorrhage volume, and intraoperative/postoperative complications; however, the use of mesh was higher and surgery duration was longer in Group A. There were obvious improvements in the A, F, and P factors and AET of each group following surgery (other than F and P of Group C, p < 0.001). The rate of recurrence was 15% in Group A, 8% in Group B, and 6% in Group C. It tended to be higher in Group A, but this was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The classification of GERD pathophysiology based on the Lyon Consensus is satisfactory, with no significant differences in the rate of effect of LF. The Lyon Consensus is effective for ascertaining the severity and pathophysiology of GERD; however, we were unable to forecast the treatment results of LF.