Re-operation for failed gastro-esophageal fundoplication. What results to expect?

ABSTRACT

UNLABELLED The aim of this study is to evaluate short and medium term results of re-operation for failed fundoplication in a retrospective monocentric cohort of 47 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 2011, 595 patients underwent a laparoscopic primary fundoplication (PFP) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). During the same period, 47 patients required a re-operative fundoplication (RFP). In 11 patients, the original wrap had herniated into the thorax. All these revisions consisted of a complete takedown of the original wrap before constructing a tension-free wrap using a standardized technique. Patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years were matched to patients who had been operated only once to assess satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: Short term All patients were operated by laparoscopy with no conversion. There was no mortality. Two postoperative complications necessitating re-operation were observed (morbidity 4.3%) one complete aphagia and one gastric perforation. Long term 29 re-operated patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years (mean 4,5 years) (Group RFP) were compared to a matched group of 29 patients operated only once (Group PFP). These groups were comparable in age, sex ratio, BMI and follow-up. In both groups, all patients were operated by laparoscopy without conversion. Morbidity was 3.5% in the RFP group, none in the PFP group. There was no mortality in either group. The length of stay and operative time were significantly higher in the RFP group (4.6 vs. 2.6 days, p<0.05). Two RFP patients (5%) required re-operation at three and seven months vs. none in the PFP group. The long-term satisfaction was comparable in the two groups (78% vs. 85%, p=NS). Quality of life assessed by the GIQLI was significantly better in the PFP group (104 vs. 84, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Re-do fundoplication is a safe procedure and is feasible by laparoscopy. In the long-term, patient satisfaction is comparable to primary intervention with, however, a slightly poorer quality of life.