RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Dysphagia after anti-reflux surgery (ARS) is one of the most common indications for re-operative anti-reflux surgery and a leading cause of patient dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, the factors affecting its development are poorly understood. We investigated the correlation between pre-operative manometric and the intra-operative impedance planimetry (EndoFLIP™) measurements and development of post-operative dysphagia. METHODS: A review of patients who underwent index robotic ARS in our institution. Patients who underwent pre-operative manometry and intra-operative EndoFLIP™ were included in our study. Dysphagia was assessed pre-operatively and at 3-month after surgery. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (26.9%) reported post-operative dysphagia, and 34 (16.6%) reported new or worsening dysphagia. On pre-operative manometry, patients with post-operative dysphagia had a lower distal contractile integral [868.7 (IQR 402.2-1447) mmHg s cm vs 1207 (IQR 612.1-2111) mmHg s cm, p = 0.006) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure [14.7 IQR (8.9-23.6) mmHg vs 20.7 IQR (10.2-32.6) mmHg, p = 0.01] compared to those without post-operative dysphagia. They were also found to have higher pre-operative cross-sectional surface area (CSA) [83 IQR (44.5-112) mm2 vs 66 IQR (42-93) mm2, p = 0.02], and distensibility index (DI) [4.2 IQR (2.2-5.5) mm2/mmHg vs 2.9 IQR (1.6-4.6) mm2/mmHg, p = 0.003] compared to patients without post-operative dysphagia. Additionally, the decrease in CSA [- 34 (- 18.5, - 74.5) mm2 vs - 26.5 (- 10.5, - 53.7) mm2, p = 0.03] and DI [- 2.3 (- 1.2, - 3.7) mm2/mmHg vs - 1.6 (- 0.7, - 3.3) mm2/mmHg, p = 0.03] measurements were greater in patients with post-operative dysphagia. CONCLUSION: Patients who developed dysphagia post-operatively had poorer pre-operative motility and a greater change in LES characteristics intra-operatively. This finding suggests the utility of pre-operative manometry and intra-operative EndoFLIP in identifying patients at risk of developing dysphagia post-operatively.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: As our population ages, older adults are being considered for anti-reflux surgery (ARS). Geriatric patients typically have heightened surgical risk, and literature has shown mixed results regarding postoperative outcomes. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic ARS in the geriatric population. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution review of ARS procedures performed between 2009 and 2023. Patients ≥ 65 were assigned to the geriatric cohort. We compared operative details, lengths of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and complications between the two cohorts. The gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) survey and review of clinic notes were used to evaluate ARS efficacy. RESULTS: 628 patients were included, with 190 in the geriatric cohort. This cohort had a higher frequency of diabetes (16.3% vs 5.9% p < 0.0001), hypertension (50.0% vs 21.5% p < 0.0001), and heart disease (17.9% vs 2.3% p < 0.0001). Geriatric patients were more likely to exhibit hiatal hernias on imaging (51.6% vs 34.2% p < 0.0001) and were more likely to have large hernias (30.0% vs 7.1% p < 0.0001). Older adults were more likely to undergo Toupet fundoplications (58.4% vs 41.3%, p < 0.0001), Collis gastroplasties (9.5% vs 2.7% p < 0.0001), and relaxing incisions (11.6% vs 1.4% p < 0.0001). Operative time was longer for geriatric patients (132.0 min vs 104.5 min p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in LOS, readmissions, or reoperations between cohorts. Geriatric patients exhibited lower rates of complications (7.4% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.011), but similar complication grades. Both groups had significant reduction in symptom scores from preoperative values. There were no significant differences in the reported symptoms between cohorts at any follow-up timepoint. CONCLUSION: Geriatric robotic ARS patients tend to do as well as younger adults regarding postoperative and symptomatic outcomes, despite presenting with larger hiatal hernias and shorter esophagi. Clinicians should be aware of possible need for lengthening procedures or relaxing incisions in this population.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe (EndoFLIP) provides a real-time assessment of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) compliance during fundoplication. Given the limited data on EndoFLIP measurements during the Hill procedure, we investigated the impact of the Hill procedure on GEJ compliance compared to Toupet fundoplication. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic Hill or Toupet fundoplication with intraoperative EndoFLIP between 2017 and 2022 were included. EndoFLIP measurements of the GEJ included cross sectional surface area (CSA), intra-balloon pressure, high pressure zone length (HPZ), distensibility index (DI), and compliance. Subjective reflux symptoms, gastroesophageal reflux disease-health related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) score, and dysphagia score were assessed pre-operatively as well as at short- and longer-term follow-up. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty-four patients (71.9%) had a Toupet fundoplication while sixty (28%) patients underwent the Hill procedure. The CSA [27.7 ± 10.9 mm2 vs 42.2 ± 17.8 mm2, p < 0.0001], pressure [29.5 ± 6.2 mmHg vs 33.9 ± 8.5 mmHg, p = 0.0009], DI [0.9 ± 0.4 mm2/mmHg vs 1.3 ± 0.6 mm2/mmHg, p = 0.001], and compliance [25.9 ± 12.8 mm3/mmHg vs 35.4 ± 13.4 mm3/mmHg, p = 0.01] were lower after the Hill procedure compared to Toupet. However, there was no difference in post-fundoplication HPZ between procedures [Hill: 2.9 ± 0.4 cm, Toupet: 3.1 ± 0.6 cm, p = 0.15]. Follow-up showed no significant differences in GERD-HRQL scores, overall dysphagia scores or atypical symptoms between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The Hill procedure is as effective to the Toupet fundoplication in surgically treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) despite the lower CSA, DI, and compliance after the Hill procedure. Both procedures led to DI < 2 mm2/mmHg with no significant differences in dysphagia reporting (12-24) months after the procedure. Further studies to elucidate a cutoff value for DI for postoperative dysphagia development are still warranted.