Endoscopic plication compared to laparoscopic fundoplication in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic plication offers an alternative to surgical fundoplication for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate outcomes following endoscopic plication compared to laparoscopic fundoplication. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted in September 2022. Study followed PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing endoscopic plication to laparoscopic fundoplication with n > 5 were included. Primary outcome was PPI cessation, with secondary outcomes including complications, procedure duration, length of stay, change in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) tone, and DeMeester score. RESULTS: We reviewed 1544 studies, with five included comparing 105 (46.1%) patients receiving endoscopic plication (ENDO) to 123 (53.9%) undergoing laparoscopic fundoplication (LAP). Average patient age was 47.6 years, with those undergoing plication being younger (46.4 ENDO vs 48.5 LAP). BMI (26.6 kg/m2 ENDO vs 26.2 kg/m2 LAP), and proportion of females (42.9% ENDO vs 37.4% LAP) were similar. Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures had worse baseline LES pressure (12.8 mmHg ENDO vs 9.0 mmHg LAP) and lower preoperative DeMeester scores (34.6 ENDO vs. 34.1 LAP). The primary outcome demonstrated that 89.2% of patients undergoing laparoscopic fundoplication discontinued PPI compared to 69.4% for those receiving plication. Meta-analysis revealed that plication had significantly reduced odds of PPI discontinuation (OR 0.27, studies = 3, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64, P = 0.003, I2 = 0%). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that odds of complications (OR 1.46, studies = 4, 95% CI 0.34 to 6.32, P = 0.62, I2 = 0%), length of stay (MD - 1.37, studies = 3, 95% CI - 3.48 to 0.73, P = 0.20, I2 = 94%), and procedure durations were similar (MD 0.78, studies = 3, 95% CI - 39.70 to 41.26, P = 0.97, I2 = 98%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis comparing endoscopic plication to laparoscopic fundoplication. Results demonstrate greater likelihood of PPI discontinuation with laparoscopic fundoplication with similar post-procedural risk.

Scientific Impact and Clinical Influence: Identifying Landmark Studies in Burns.

Although many reviews describe significant advances in burn care, no studies have yet examined why these papers had such profound impact. Our objective was to identify the most highly cited, as well as the most clinically influential studies in burns, and describe their characteristics, to inform future research in the field. Web of Science was searched using keywords related to burns to identify the 100 most-cited burns papers. Study design, year and journal of publication, and subject of the paper were recorded. A mixed-methods approach was used to identify papers in burn research leading to change in clinical practice. Characteristics of these papers were compared with identify any factors predictive of future citations or clinical influence. The 100 highly cited papers were cited between 159 and 907 times. There was no correlation between total citations and journal impact factor, year of publication, or subject area. Level of evidence did not predict future citations or influence, but may be influenced by evolving research standards. Of 23 clinically influential studies, 6 were not among 100 most-cited. Using papers only from the 100 most-cited list was not sufficient to identify leading researchers in burns. Citation analysis is a beneficial, however not alone sufficient to identify landmark papers, particularly for multidisciplinary fields such as burns.