Transoral incisionless fundoplication for recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a failed laparoscopic fundoplication carries higher risk of complication and lower chance of success compared to the original surgery. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an endoscopic alternative for select GERD patients without need of a moderate/large hiatal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TIF 2.0 after failed laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplication (TIFFF). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TIFFF between September 2017 and December 2020 using TIF 2.0 technique (EsophyX Z/Z+) performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. Patients were included if they had (1) recurrent GERD symptoms, (2) pathologic reflux based upon pH testing or Grade C/D esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, and (3) hiatal hernia ≤ 2 cm. The primary outcome was improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) post-TIFFF. The TIFFF cohort was also compared to a similar surgical re-operative cohort using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent TIFFF (median 4.1 years after prior fundoplication) and mean GERD-HRQL score improved from 24.3 ± 22.9 to 14.75 ± 21.6 (p = 0.014); mean Reflux Severity Index (RSI) score improved from 14.1 ± 14.6 to 9.1 ± 8.0 (p = 0.046) with 8/10 (80%) of patients with normal RSI (< 13) post-TIF. Esophagitis healed in 78% of patients. PPI use decreased from 85 to 55% with 8/20 (45%) patients off of PPI. Importantly, mean acid exposure time decreased from 12% ± 17.8 to 0.8% ± 1.1 (p = 0.028) with 9/9 (100%) of patients with normalized pH post-TIF. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy outcomes between TIFFF and surgical revision, but TIFFF had significantly fewer late adverse events. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic rescue with TIF is a safe and efficacious alternative to redo laparoscopic surgery in symptomatic patients with appropriate anatomy and objective evidence of persistent or recurrent reflux.

Comparative analysis of traditional and coiled fiducials implanted during EUS for pancreatic cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fiducial placement facilitates image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 types of commercially available fiducials for technical success, complications, visibility, and migration. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, comparative study. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center. INTERVENTIONS: Traditional fiducials (TFs) (5-mm length, 0.8-mm diameter) and Visicoil fiducials (VFs) (10-mm length, 0.35-mm diameter) were compared. Fiducials were placed using linear 19-gauge (for TFs) or 22-gauge (for VFs) needles. A subjective visualization scoring system (0-2; 0 = not visible, 1 = barely visible, 2 = clearly visible) was used to assess visibility on CT. Fiducial migration was calculated as a change in interfiducial distance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success, complications, visibility, and migration of 2 types of fiducials. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-guided placement of 103 fiducials (77 TFs, 26 VFs). The mean number of fiducials placed per patient was 2.66 (standard deviation 0.67) for the 19-gauge needle and 2.60 (standard deviation 0.70) for the 22-gauge needle (P = .83). No intra- or postprocedural complications were encountered. The median visibility score for TFs was significantly better than that for VFs, both when scores of 0 were and were not included (2.00, interquartile range [IQR] 2.00-2.00 vs 1.75, IQR 1.50-2.00, P = .009 and 2.00, IQR 2.00-2.00 vs 2.00, IQR 1.50-2.00, P < .0001, respectively). The mean migration was not significantly different between the 2 types of fiducials (0.8 mm [IQR 0.4-1.6 mm] for TFs vs 1.3 mm [IQR 0.6-1.5 mm] for VFs; P = .72). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, nonrandomized design. CONCLUSIONS: Visibility was significantly better for TFs compared with VFs. The degree of fiducial migration was not significantly different for TFs and VFs. There was no significant difference in the mean number of fiducials placed, indicating a similar degree of technical difficulty for TF and VF deployment.