Evidence-Based Practice Guideline for Surgical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease 2018

Ho Seok Seo; Miyoung Choi; Sang-Yong Son; Min Gyu Kim; Dong-Seok Han; Han Hong Lee

doi:10.5230/jgc.2018.18.e41

Journal List > J Gastric Cancer > v.18(4) > 1109885

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Seo, Choi, Son, Kim, Han, and Lee: Evidence-Based Practice Guideline for Surgical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease 2018

Special Article

Journal of Gastric Cancer 2018; 18(4): 313-327.

Published online: 27 December 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5230/jgc.2018.18.e41

Evidence-Based Practice Guideline for Surgical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease 2018

Ho Seok Seo^1,²

, Miyoung Choi³

, Sang-Yong Son^1,⁴

, Min Gyu Kim^1,⁵

, Dong-Seok Han^1,⁶

, Han Hong Lee^1,²

¹Guideline Committee of Korean Anti-Reflux Surgery (KARS) Study Group.

²Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

³Division of Health Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.

⁴Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.

⁵Department of Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Hanyang University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

⁶Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Boramae Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence to Han Hong Lee. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea. painkiller9@catholic.ac.kr

Received 17 December 2018 Revised 21 December 2018 Accepted 21 December 2018

Korean Gastric Cancer Association

(open-access, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is increasing in Korea, and physicians, including surgeons, have been focusing on its treatment. Indeed, in Korea, medical treatment using a proton pump inhibitor is the mainstream treatment for GERD, while awareness of surgical treatment is limited. Accordingly, to promote the understanding of surgical treatment for GERD, the Korean Anti-Reflux Surgery Study Group published the Evidence-Based Practice Guideline for the Surgical Treatment of GERD. The guideline consists of 2 sections: fundamental information such as the definition, symptoms, and diagnostic tools of GERD and a recommendation statement about its surgical treatment. The recommendations presented 5 debates regarding fundoplication: 1) comparison of the effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments, 2) effectiveness of surgical treatment in cases of refractory GERD, 3) effectiveness of surgical treatment of extraesophageal symptoms, 4) comparison of effectiveness between total and partial fundoplication, and 5) effectiveness of fundoplication in cases of hiatal hernia. The present guideline is the first to demonstrate the efficacy of the surgical treatment GERD in Korea.

Keywords: Fundoplication, Gastroesophageal reflux, Guideline, Systematic review, Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common benign diseases of the upper gastrointestinal tract [1 2 3]. The prevalence of GERD reached 7.3% in 2008, with a mean annual increase of 15.3% in Korea [4]. In Western countries, GERD is typically treated with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and fundoplication [5 6 7 8 9 10 11]. Despite numerous studies reporting the effectiveness of surgical treatment, medication-oriented treatment remains the mainstay because of a lack of awareness of surgical treatment in Korea. Although there are several guidelines for GERD worldwide, the surgical treatment of GERD in Korea has never been reported [5 6 12]. The only 2 guidelines for treating GERD in Korea did not focus on surgical treatment [13 14]. Therefore, the first Korean guideline for GERD was established to provide clear criteria for surgical treatment.

Scope

The present clinical practice guideline is based on the published literature and expert opinions when evidence is lacking. This guideline is specific and comprehensive for the surgical treatment of GERD; however, it does not address issues related to prevention, medical treatment, and postoperative follow-up.

This guideline is intended to help physicians and surgeons as well as endoscopists and radiologists making the diagnosis. It was also designed to allow patients and populations to provide medical information.

METHODS

Constitution of the project groups and review panels

The present guideline was initiated by the Korean Anti-Reflux Surgery (KARS) Study Group. Experts participated in the guideline development methodology (National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency). To develop this guideline, the KARS Study Group organized the guideline committee, which established the project working groups and review panels.

Literature review method

A systematic literature search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published on or before February 2, 2018. Hand-searching was also performed to complement the results. Relevant studies were searched by pairs of clinical experts. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were predefined and tailored to key questions. Articles were screened by title and abstract and the full text was retrieved for review. Two reviewers performed each step and consensus was reached.

We critically appraised the quality of the selected studies using risk of bias tools. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [15], risk of bias for nonrandomized studies for non-RCTs [16], quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 for diagnostic studies [17], and a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews for systematic reviews/meta-analyses [18]. The panels independently assessed the studies and consensus was reached. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and a third reviewer.

We extracted the data using a pre-defined format and synthesized it qualitatively. Evidence tables were created according to key questions.

Levels of evidence

Levels of evidence and grading of recommendations were modified based on Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [19] and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods [20]. Level of evidence was classified as 4 levels; the main factors were study design and quality (Table 1). We also considered outcome consistency.

Table 1

Level of evidence

Class	Explanation
High	At least 1 RCT or SR/meta-analysis with no concerns of study quality
Moderate	At least 1 RCT or SR/meta-analysis with minor concerns of study quality or at least 1 cohort/case-control/diagnostic test design study with no concerns of study quality
Low	At least 1 cohort/case-control/diagnostic test study with minor concerns of study quality or at least 1 single arm before-after study, cross-sectional study with no concerns of study quality
Very low	At least 1 cohort/case-control/diagnostic test design study with serious concerns of study quality or at least 1 single arm before-after study, cross-sectional study with minor/severe concerns of study quality

RCT = randomized controlled trial; SR = systematic review.

Recommendation grades were classified into 5 levels using modified GRADE methodology: strong for, weak for, weak against, strong against, and no recommendation (Table 2). We considered evidence level, clinical applicability, benefit, and harm as recommendation factors. A committee reviewed the draft of the working group then discussed the grades until consensus was reached.

Table 2

Grading of recommendations

Grade classification	Explanation
Strong for	The benefit of intervention is greater than the harm with a high or moderate level of evidence that can be strongly recommended in most clinical practices.
Weak for	The benefit and harm of the intervention may vary depending on the clinical situation or patient/social value. It is recommended conditionally according to the clinical situation.
Weak against	The benefit and harm of intervention may vary depending on the clinical situation or patient/social value. The intervention may not be recommended in clinical practice.
Strong against	The harm of intervention is greater than the benefit with a high or moderate level of evidence. The intervention should not be recommended in clinical practice.
No recommendation	It is impossible to determine the recommended direction owing to a lack of evidence or discrepancy in results. Thus, further evidence is needed.

RESULTS

Definition

GERD is defined as the stomach contents refluxing into the esophagus and causing uncomfortable symptoms and complications with or without an esophageal mucosal break [21 22 23 24]. According to the Montreal Consensus, “GERD is a condition which develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications” [25]. Complications include esophagitis, asthma due to reflux, aspiration pneumonia, and laryngitis [26 27 28]. From the surgical point of view, GERD is mainly caused by the failure of anti-reflux barriers such as a defective lower esophagus sphincter (LES), a gastric emptying disorder, or failed esophageal peristalsis [29].

Symptoms

Symptoms of GERD vary widely; esophageal symptoms such as heartburn and regurgitation are the most characteristic features, while gastrointestinal symptoms such as dyspepsia, epigastric pain, and somatoform disorder may also occur [30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43]. Extraesophageal symptoms include cough, hoarseness, globus, and shortness of breath, and they may be associated with reflux cough syndrome, reflux laryngitis syndrome, reflux asthma syndrome, and reflux dental erosion syndrome [28 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52].

Diagnosis and preoperative evaluation

An objective diagnosis of GERD before surgery is essential [53 54 55]. The purpose of the preoperative examination is to select patients who will benefit from surgical treatment. Controversy persists about the type and order of preoperative examinations [56 57 58].

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)

EGD is the most important diagnostic tool for confirming the diagnosis of GERD. The identification of Barrett's esophagus, mucosal breaks such as esophagitis, hiatal hernia, and biopsies to rule out of malignancy are allowed by EGD [59 60 61 62 63 64 65].

24-hour pH monitoring

Another important diagnostic tool is 24-hour pH monitoring [66 67 68]. Due to the lack of evidence of GERD in EGD, 24-hour pH monitoring is required to distinguish between acid reflux and non-acid reflux [55 69 70]. It is also an important predictive factor of prognosis after surgical treatment [71 72]. This examination should be performed by interrupting the PPI or antisecretory agent [73]. Impedance pH monitoring, which has multiple channels for detecting acid reflux in the esophagus, was recently introduced [74]. However, the benefits of impedance pH monitoring compared with conventional 24-hour pH monitoring is controversial [73 75].

Esophageal manometry

Esophageal manometry is not as important as EGD or pH monitoring, but it can provide important information for the diagnosis of LES [76 77 78]. Although there is little evidence of the preoperative necessity for esophageal manometry, it is important to identify otorhinolaryngologic problems and esophageal motility disorders including achalasia [79 80].

Barium swallow test

The barium swallow test is less important than other tests but has the advantage of revealing the anatomical structure. Its use may be helpful in cases of a shortened esophagus due to a large hiatal hernia [5].

Further diagnostic tools

Further diagnostic tools such as high-resolution manometry, planimetry, and scintigraphy have been introduced recently, but substantive evidence to support them is lacking [81 82 83 84 85 86].

Operation indication and efficacy

Medical versus surgical treatment: Is anti-reflux surgery more effective than PPI for treating GERD? (KQ1)

Statement 1. Anti-reflux surgery is recommended to patients with GERD for its symptomatic relief, ability to increase quality of life, superior long-term outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. (level of evidence: high, strength of recommendation: strong for)

Anti-reflux surgery is considered an effective treatment option for GERD and is widely performed in Western countries. Many clinical trials comparing anti-reflux surgery and PPI for GERD were conducted, and these trials found anti-reflux surgery as effective as or more effective than PPI at controlling GERD symptoms over a follow-up period of 5 years [87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96]. In addition, several studies among them demonstrated that anti-reflux surgery was likely to be cost-effective compared to medical treatment [90 92 94]. From mid 2000s, clinical trials of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery versus PPI have reported similar outcomes to those of the open approach [90 91 93 94 95 97 98].

A prospective randomized open parallel-group multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery with that of esomeprazole 20 or 40 mg/d over 5 years in patients with chronic GERD recently demonstrated that esophageal acid exposure was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery group (n=116) compared with the PPI group (n=151) (baseline, 8.6% vs. 8.8%; after 6 months, 0.7% vs. 2.1%; P<0.001; after 5 years, 0.7% vs. 1.9%; P<0.001) [95]. In terms of cost efficacy of anti-reflux surgery, 1 study recently compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery (n=155) and medical management (n=104) using the data of a randomized multicenter trial (REFLUX). The results indicated that laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is cost-effective provided that its clinical benefits are sustained in the medium to long-term [92]. Thus, anti-reflux surgery is an excellent treatment option with a better long-term effect and cost-effectiveness compared to PPI. In GERD patients, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is strongly recommended.

Surgical treatment for refractory GERD: Is anti-reflux surgery more effective than PPI for treating refractory GERD? (KQ2)

Statement 2. Anti-reflux surgery could be considered for a substantial proportion of patients showing an inadequate response to PPI therapy. Thorough examinations for the differential diagnosis and careful patient selection should be performed in those patients prior to the anti-reflux surgery. (level of evidence: moderate, strength of recommendation: weak for)

Surgery for GERD has been proven effective over long-term follow-up [87], but a concern remains about its indications for surgery to include patients who respond poorly to medical therapy. However, a few studies showed that patients with a poor response to PPI treatment can have good surgical outcomes [99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109].

Anvari and Allen [99] first showed that poor responders showed significant improvement in postoperative symptom scores and quality-of-life scores associated with significant reductions in lower esophageal acid exposure when anti-reflux surgery was performed in a specialized center on appropriately selected patients. Wilkerson et al. [100] also demonstrated a significant decrease in postoperative symptom scores in both good and poor responders; however, the poor responders tended to show a lower percentage of excellent or good surgical outcomes (Visick I or II: 94% vs. 87%, respectively; P=0.08). In a recent prospective study, PPI responders and non-responders showed comparable anatomical and functional improvements, but PPI responders reported significant relief of both typical and atypical symptoms than PPI non-responders (heartburn: 93% vs. 73%, P=0.01; regurgitation: 96% vs. 84%, P=0.04; atypical symptoms (asthma/chest pain/cough): 96.6% vs. 83.9%, P=0.002) [108].

Surgical treatment for extraesophageal symptoms: Is anti-reflux surgery more effective than PPI for controlling extraesophageal symptoms? (KQ3)

Statement 3. Anti-reflux surgery is recommended for gastroesophageal reflux patients with extraesophageal manifestations. (level of evidence: moderate, strength of recommendation: strong for)

GERD typically manifests as heartburn and regurgitation, but it can also present as extraesophageal manifestations such as asthma, chronic cough, laryngitis, hoarseness, and chronic sore throat. Despite a lack of well-designed RCTs in this area, some studies have shown that extraesophageal manifestations can be effectively managed by anti-reflux surgery. In incomplete clinical responses to medication, anti-reflux surgery augments the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in terms of the reflux symptom index (RSI) score, reflux finding score, and reflux-based specific quality of life scale [110]. Three years of follow-up after anti-reflux surgery showed that it effectively relieved the symptoms of LPR in selected populations. Benefits are seen within 1 month of surgery and persist for at least 3 years [111]. Long-term follow-up data (median follow-up, 91 months) have shown that 61% of patients reported no or mild reflux laryngitis symptoms postoperatively and that 69% of the patients evaluated their voice quality as improved after surgery. The majority of reflux laryngitis patients achieve long-term symptomatic benefit and satisfaction after surgery [112].

Comparing the 25 patients in the anti-reflux surgery group and 28 patients in the PPI group with extraesophageal manifestations, improvements in RSI score (P<0.005) and symptom scores of cough (P=0.032), mucus (P=0.011), and throat clearing (P=0.022) were significantly superior in the surgery group to those in the PPI group [9]. A systemic review and meta-analysis pooled data from 21 reports and reported GERD-related chronic laryngitis patients. The objective response rates were 80% for anti-reflux surgery (95% confidence interval [CI], 67%–93%; 3 studies, 123 patients) versus 64% for anti-reflux medicine (95% CI, 50%–77%; 18 studies, 2,741 patients). There was an increase in the effect among patients treated with surgery [113].

Surgical technique

Total versus partial fundoplication: Is partial fundoplication more effective than total fundoplication for treating GERD? (KQ4)

Statement 4. Partial fundoplication and total fundoplication are comparably effective at treating GERD. (level of evidence: high, strength of recommendation: weak for)

The surgical treatment of choice for GERD is total or partial fundoplication [114]. Many studies that compared total and partial fundoplication for GERD proved the effects and side effects of both procedures [114 115 116 117 118 119 120]

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs compared partial (n=227) and total (n=231) fundoplication and reported that esophageal acid exposure (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.19; P=0.15), esophagitis (19% vs. 13%, P=0.34), heartburn score (SMD, 1.27, P=0.13), dilatation rate (1.4% vs. 2.8%, P=0.39), reoperation rate (5.7% vs. 2.8%, P=0.13), perioperative outcome, regurgitation, PPI use, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and patient satisfaction with partial fundoplication were similar to that of total fundoplication at 1 year after surgery. In addition, the Dakkak dysphagia score (2.8 vs. 4.8, weighted mean difference: −2.25, P<0.001), gas and bloating (11% vs. 18%, P=0.04), flatulence (14% vs. 25%, P=0.02), inability to belch (19% vs. 31%, P=0.05), and relief of bloating (34% vs. 44%, P=0.04) were lower after partial fundoplication. At 5 years post-surgery, the Dakkak dysphagia score, flatulence, inability to belch, and inability to relieve bloating were still lower after partial fundoplication, while heartburn score, dilatation rate, reoperation rate, PPI use, and patient satisfaction rates were similar [116].

A meta-analysis of 7 RCTs that compared anterior (n=345) and posterior (n=338) fundoplication reported that esophageal acid exposure (3.3% vs. 0.8%, P<0.001), heartburn (21% vs. 8%, P<0.001), and reoperation rate (8% vs. 4%, P=0.06) were higher after anterior fundoplication in the short term. On the other hand, the Dakkak dysphagia score (2.5 vs. 5.7, P<0.001) was lower after anterior fundoplication. Esophagitis, regurgitation, and perioperative outcomes were similar. In the long-term, heartburn (31% vs. 14%, P<0.001), PPI use (25% vs. 10%, P=0.002), and reoperation (10% vs. 5%, P=0.03) rates were higher after anterior fundoplication, while the Dakkak dysphagia score and the inability to belch, gas and bloating, and patient satisfaction rates were similar [118].

Hiatal hernia

Fundoplication in hiatal hernia: Is fundoplication necessary for paraesophageal hernia (PEH)? (KQ5)

Statement 5. Fundoplication in addition to PEH repair is recommended to decrease the risk of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux and esophagitis. (level of evidence: high, strength of recommendation: strong for)

PEH is defined as a defect in the diaphragmatic hiatus that can cause significant sequelae. For many years, the need for fundoplication at the time of laparoscopic repair of PEH has been controversial.

Some authors argue that postoperative gastroesophageal reflux is uncommon in patients without fundoplication. The risk of postoperative dysphagia can be reduced by not performing fundoplication [121 122]. In practice, however, most surgeons tend to perform fundoplication at the time of PEH repair [123 124]. Fundoplication can minimize the possibility of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux caused by disruption of the hiatus. In particular, some data support that fundoplication may anchor the cardia below the diaphragm, thereby decreasing the recurrence rate [124 125].

A recent pilot RCT showed that the routine addition of fundoplication to PEH repair is reasonable for decreasing postoperative reflux and concomitant esophagitis and that fundoplication-related side effects are not clinically significant [126].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Review Panel (Steering Committee of Korean Anti-Reflux Surgery [KARS] study group): Dongbaek Kang (Department of Surgery, Wonkwang University Hospital), Hyoung-Il Kim (Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine), Jeong Goo Kim (Department of Surgery, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea), Jin-Jo Kim (Department of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea), Jong-Han Kim (Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine), Joong-Min Park (Department of Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine), Junhyun Lee (Department of Surgery, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea), Kyo Young Song (Department of Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea), Kyung Won Seo (Division of Gastrointestinal surgery, Department of Surgery, Kosin University Gospel Hospital), Oh Kyoung Kwon (Gastric Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital), Sang-Il Lee (Department of Surgery, Chungnam National University Hospital), Sang-Uk Han (Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Ajou University), Sungsoo Kim (Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University), Sungsoo Park (Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine).

Notes

^Funding This study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (grant no. 2018R1D1A1B07045486) and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant No. HC17C0050).

^{Conflict of Interest} No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. Jung HK. Epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Asia: a systematic review. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011; 17:14–27.

2. Savarino E, de Bortoli N, De Cassan C, Della Coletta M, Bartolo O, Furnari M, et al. The natural history of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a comprehensive review. Dis Esophagus. 2017; 30:1–9.

3. Ronkainen J, Agréus L. Epidemiology of reflux symptoms and GORD. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2013; 27:325–337.

4. Kim KM, Cho YK, Bae SJ, Kim DS, Shim KN, Kim JH, et al. Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Korea and associated health-care utilization: a national population-based study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 27:741–745.

5. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Kohn GP, Reardon PR, Richardson WS, Fanelli RD, et al. Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc. 2010; 24:2647–2669.

6. Fuchs KH, Babic B, Breithaupt W, Dallemagne B, Fingerhut A, Furnee E, et al. EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc. 2014; 28:1753–1773.

7. Richter JE, Kumar A, Lipka S, Miladinovic B, Velanovich V. Efficacy of laparoscopic nissen fundoplication vs transoral incisionless fundoplication or proton pump inhibitors in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2018; 154:1298–1308.e7.

8. Semb S, Helgstrand F, Hjørne F, Bytzer P. Persistent severe hypomagnesemia caused by proton pump inhibitor resolved after laparoscopic fundoplication. World J Gastroenterol. 2017; 23:6907–6910.

9. Zhang C, Hu ZW, Yan C, Wu Q, Wu JM, Du X, et al. Nissen fundoplication vs proton pump inhibitors for laryngopharyngeal reflux based on pH-monitoring and symptom-scale. World J Gastroenterol. 2017; 23:3546–3555.

10. Nwokediuko SC. Current trends in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a review. ISRN Gastroenterol. 2012; 2012:391631.

11. Armijo PR, Hennings D, Leon M, Pratap A, Wheeler A, Oleynikov D. Surgical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with severe esophageal dysmotility. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018.

12. Iwakiri K, Kinoshita Y, Habu Y, Oshima T, Manabe N, Fujiwara Y, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease 2015. J Gastroenterol. 2016; 51:751–767.

13. Lee JH, Cho YK, Jeon SW, Kim JH, Kim NY, Lee JS, et al. Guidelines for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2011; 57:57–66.

14. Jung HK, Hong SJ, Jo YJ, Jeon SW, Cho YK, Lee KJ, et al. Updated guidelines 2012 for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2012; 60:195–218.

15. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928.

16. Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66:408–414.

17. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155:529–536.

18. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62:1013–1020.

19. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). SIGN 50: a guideline developer's handbook. Edinburgh: SIGN;2014.

20. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. Handbook for Grading the Quality of Evidence and the Strength of Recommendations Using the GRADE Approach. place unknown: GRADE Working Group;2013.

21. Dent J, Brun J, Fendrick AM, Fennerty MB, Janssens J, Kahrilas PJ, et al. An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management--the Genval Workshop Report. Gut. 1999; 44:Suppl 2. S1–S16.

22. Chandrasoma P. How the pathologist can aid in the assessment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2018; 34:233–242.

23. Kim A, Shin N, Lee HJ, Jo HJ, Kim JY, Kim YK, et al. Histopathological features of the gastroesophageal junction: an Eastern view. Histol Histopathol. 2015; 30:689–695.

24. Chandrasoma PT. Histologic definition of gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2013; 29:460–467.

25. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R. Global Consensus Group. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101:1900–1920.

26. Dimenäs E. Methodological aspects of evaluation of Quality of Life in upper gastrointestinal diseases. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1993; 199:18–21.

27. Bernard F, Dupont C, Viala P. Gastroesophageal reflux and upper airway diseases. Clin Rev Allergy. 1990; 8:403–425.

28. Lv HJ, Qiu ZM. Refractory chronic cough due to gastroesophageal reflux: definition, mechanism and management. World J Methodol. 2015; 5:149–156.

29. Rengarajan A, Bolkhir A, Gor P, Wang D, Munigala S, Gyawali CP. Esophagogastric junction and esophageal body contraction metrics on high-resolution manometry predict esophageal acid burden. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018; 30:e13267.

30. Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA, Johansson S. Epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut. 2005; 54:710–717.

31. Kahrilas PJ, Jonsson A, Denison H, Wernersson B, Hughes N, Howden CW. Concomitant symptoms itemized in the reflux disease questionnaire are associated with attenuated heartburn response to acid suppression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107:1354–1360.

32. Tack J, Caenepeel P, Arts J, Lee KJ, Sifrim D, Janssens J. Prevalence of acid reflux in functional dyspepsia and its association with symptom profile. Gut. 2005; 54:1370–1376.

33. Savarino V, Savarino E, Parodi A, Dulbecco P. Functional heartburn and non-erosive reflux disease. Dig Dis. 2007; 25:172–174.

34. de Bortoli N, Tolone S, Frazzoni M, Martinucci I, Sgherri G, Albano E, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease, functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome: common overlapping gastrointestinal disorders. Ann Gastroenterol. 2018; 31:639–648.

35. Choung RS, Richard Locke G 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Talley NJ. Multiple functional gastrointestinal disorders linked to gastroesophageal reflux and somatization: a population-based study. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017; 29.

36. Fuchs KH, Musial F, Ulbricht F, Breithaupt W, Reinisch A, Babic B, et al. Foregut symptoms, somatoform tendencies, and the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. Dis Esophagus. 2017; 30:1–10.

37. Jarbøl DE, Rasmussen S, Balasubramaniam K, Elnegaard S, Haastrup PF. Self-rated health and functional capacity in individuals reporting overlapping symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome - a population based study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017; 17:65.

38. Lee SW, Lee TY, Lien HC, Peng YC, Yeh HJ, Chang CS. Correlation between symptom severity and health-related life quality of a population with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Res. 2017; 10:78–83.

39. Yamasaki T, Fass R. Noncardiac chest pain: diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2017; 33:293–300.

40. Al Saadi T, Idris A, Turk T, Alkhatib M. Epidemiology and risk factors of uninvestigated dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease among students of Damascus University, Syria. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2016; 6:285–293.

41. Hsu CS, Liu TT, Wen SH, Wang CC, Yi CH, Chen JH, et al. Clinical, metabolic, and psychological characteristics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease overlap with irritable bowel syndrome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015; 27:516–522.

42. Rasmussen S, Jensen TH, Henriksen SL, Haastrup PF, Larsen PV, Søndergaard J, et al. Overlap of symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome in the general population. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015; 50:162–169.

43. Lee SW, Lien HC, Lee TY, Yang SS, Yeh HJ, Chang CS. Heartburn and regurgitation have different impacts on life quality of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:12277–12282.

44. Hom C, Vaezi MF. Extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013; 42:71–91.

45. Patel DA, Sharda R, Choksi YA, Slaughter JC, Higginbotham T, Garrett CG, et al. Model to select on-therapy vs off-therapy tests for patients with refractory esophageal or extra-esophageal symptoms. Gastroenterology. 2018; 155:1729–1740.e1.

46. Vaezi MF, Katzka D, Zerbib F. Extraesophageal symptoms and diseases attributed to GERD: where is the pendulum swinging now? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 16:1018–1029.

47. Herregods TVK, Pauwels A, Tack J, Smout AJPM, Bredenoord AJ. Reflux-cough syndrome: assessment of temporal association between reflux episodes and cough bursts. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017; 29.

48. Jung HK, Choi MG, Baek MK, Wu JC. Development and psychometric assessment of a self-evaluation questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018; 24:584–592.

49. Hungin APS, Molloy-Bland M, Scarpignato C. Revisiting montreal: new insights into symptoms and their causes, and implications for the future of GERD. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018.

50. Li Y, Yu F, Niu L, Long Y, Tay FR, Chen J. Association between bruxism and symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease: a case-control study. J Dent. 2018; 77:51–58.

51. Gelardi M, Ciprandi G. Focus on gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR): new pragmatic insights in clinical practice. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018; 32:Suppl. 2. 41–47.

52. Emilsson OI, Benediktsdóttir B, Ólafsson Í, Cook E, Júlíusson S, Berg S, et al. Definition of nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux for studies on respiratory diseases. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016; 51:524–530.

53. Bashashati M, Hejazi RA, Andrews CN, Storr MA. Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms not responding to proton pump inhibitor: GERD, NERD, NARD, esophageal hypersensitivity or dyspepsia? Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 28:335–341.

54. Nasi A, Queiroz NS, Michelsohn NH. Prolonged gastroesophageal reflux monitoring by impedance-phmetry: a review of the subject pondered with our experience with 1,200 cases. Arq Gastroenterol. 2018; 55:Suppl 1. 76–84.

55. Gharib A, Forootan M, Sharifzadeh M, Abdi S, Darvishi M, Eghbali A. Diagnostic efficacy of 24-hr esophageal pH monitoring in patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6:1235–1238.

56. Fisichella PM, Schlottmann F, Patti MG. Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Updates Surg. 2018; 70:309–313.

57. Chae S, Richter JE. Wireless 24, 48, and 96 hour or impedance or oropharyngeal prolonged pH monitoring: which test, when, and why for GERD? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2018; 20:52.

58. Świdnicka-Siergiejko AK, Wróblewski E, Hady HR, Łuba M, Dadan J, Dąbrowski A. Esophageal pH and impedance reflux parameters in relation to body mass index, obesity-related hormones, and bariatric procedures. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2018; 128:594–603.

59. Mochizuki N, Fujita T, Kobayashi M, Yamazaki Y, Terao S, Sanuki T, et al. Factors associated with the presentation of erosive esophagitis symptoms in health checkup subjects: a prospective, multicenter cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13:e0196848.

60. Ribolsi M, Cicala M, Zentilin P, Neri M, Mauro A, Efthymakis K, et al. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of refractoriness to optimal proton pump inhibitor therapy in non-erosive reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018; 48:1074–1081.

61. Dewan KR, Patowary BS, Bhattarai S, Shrestha G. Barrett's esophagus in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2018; 16:144–148.

62. Schlottmann F, Andolfi C, Herbella FA, Rebecchi F, Allaix ME, Patti MG. GERD: presence and size of hiatal hernia influence clinical presentation, esophageal function, reflux profile, and degree of mucosal injury. Am Surg. 2018; 84:978–982.

63. Kahrilas P, Yadlapati R, Roman S. Emerging dilemmas in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. F1000 Res. 2017; 6:1748.

64. Muñoz-Largacha JA, Fernando HC, Litle VR. Optimizing the diagnosis and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. J Thorac Dis. 2017; 9:S146–S153.

65. Omstead AN, Kosovec JE, Matsui D, Martin SA, Smith MA, Aaron Guel D, et al. Serial endoscopic evaluation of esophageal disease in a cancer model: a paradigm shift for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) drug discovery and development. Cancer Invest. 2018; 36:363–370.

66. Liu S, Xu M, Yang J, Qi H, He F, Zhao X, et al. Research on gastroesophageal reflux disease based on dynamic features of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. Comput Math Methods Med. 2017; 2017:9239074.

67. Fass R, Fennerty MB, Johnson C, Camargo L, Sampliner RE. Correlation of ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring results with symptom improvement in patients with noncardiac chest pain due to gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1999; 28:36–39.

68. Chen CL, Orr WC. Analysis of 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: the effect of state of consciousness. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2008; 10:258–262.

69. Vardar R, Keskin M. Indications of 24-h esophageal pH monitoring, capsule pH monitoring, combined pH monitoring with multichannel impedance, esophageal manometry, radiology and scintigraphy in gastroesophageal reflux disease? Turk J Gastroenterol. 2017; 28:S16–S21.

70. Frazzoni L, Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Tolone S, Martinucci I, Fuccio L, et al. Critical appraisal of Rome IV criteria: hypersensitive esophagus does belong to gastroesophageal reflux disease spectrum. Ann Gastroenterol. 2018; 31:1–7.

71. Campos GM, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Oberg S, Crookes PF, Tan S, et al. Multivariate analysis of factors predicting outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg. 1999; 3:292–300.

72. Patel A, Wang D, Sainani N, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance on pH-impedance monitoring predicts reflux burden and symptomatic outcome in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 44:890–898.

73. Hoshino M, Omura N, Yano F, Tsuboi K, Yamamoto SR, Akimoto S, et al. Comparison of the multichannel intraluminal impedance pH and conventional pH for measuring esophageal acid exposure: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:5241–5247.

74. Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, Tolone S, Savarino V, Savarino E. Impedance-pH monitoring for diagnosis of reflux disease: new perspectives. Dig Dis Sci. 2017; 62:1881–1889.

75. Shin MS, Shim JO, Moon JS, Kim HS, Ko JS, Choi JH, et al. Impedance-pH monitoring and conventional pH monitoring are complementary methods to detect association between gastroesophageal reflux and apnea-related symptoms in preterm infants and neonates. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25:2406–2410.

76. Vela MF. Diagnostic work-up of GERD. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014; 24:655–666.

77. Lord RV, DeMeester SR, Peters JH, Hagen JA, Elyssnia D, Sheth CT, et al. Hiatal hernia, lower esophageal sphincter incompetence, and effectiveness of Nissen fundoplication in the spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009; 13:602–610.

78. Zevin B, Jones EL, Martin Del Campo SE, Perry KA. Omission of preoperative esophageal manometry does not alter operative approach or postoperative dysphagia following laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Dis Esophagus. 2017; 30:1–6.

79. Herbella FA, Andolfi C, Vigneswaran Y, Patti MG, Pinna BR. Importance of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring for the evaluation of otorhinolaryngologic (ENT) manifestations of GERD. A multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016; 20:1673–1678.

80. Gyawali CP, Roman S, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Keller J, Pandolfino JE, et al. Classification of esophageal motor findings in gastro-esophageal reflux disease: conclusions from an international consensus group. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017; 29.

81. Savarino EV, Tolone S, Bartolo O, de Cassan C, Caccaro R, Galeazzi F, et al. The GerdQ questionnaire and high resolution manometry support the hypothesis that proton pump inhibitor-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia is a GERD-related phenomenon. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016; 44:522–530.

82. Sharma BG, Khanna K, Kumar N, Nishad DK, Basu M, Bhatnagar A. Development and gamma scintigraphy evaluation of gastro retentive calcium ion-based oral formulation: an innovative approach for the management of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2017; 43:1759–1769.

83. Ahuja NK, Clarke JO. The role of impedance planimetry in the evaluation of esophageal disorders. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2017; 19:7.

84. Rey JW, Deris N, Marquardt JU, Thomaidis T, Moehler M, Kittner JM, et al. High-definition endoscopy with iScan and Lugol's solution for the detection of inflammation in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: histologic evaluation in comparison with a control group. Dis Esophagus. 2016; 29:185–191.

85. Assirati FS, Hashimoto CL, Dib RA, Fontes LH, Navarro-Rodriguez T. High definition endoscopy and “narrow band imaging” in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2014; 27:59–65.

86. Rey E, Barceló M, Zapardiel J, Sobreviela E, Muñoz M, Díaz-Rubio M. Is the reflux disease questionnaire useful for identifying GERD according to the Montreal definition? BMC Gastroenterol. 2014; 14:17.

87. Lundell L, Miettinen P, Myrvold HE, Pedersen SA, Liedman B, Hatlebakk JG, et al. Continued (5-year) followup of a randomized clinical study comparing antireflux surgery and omeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2001; 192:172–179.

88. Lundell L, Miettinen P, Myrvold HE, Hatlebakk JG, Wallin L, Malm A, et al. Seven-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial comparing proton-pump inhibition with surgical therapy for reflux oesophagitis. Br J Surg. 2007; 94:198–203.

89. Myrvold HE, Lundell L, Miettinen P, Pedersen SA, Liedman B, Hatlebakk J, et al. The cost of long term therapy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomised trial comparing omeprazole and open antireflux surgery. Gut. 2001; 49:488–494.

90. Cookson R, Flood C, Koo B, Mahon D, Rhodes M. Short-term cost effectiveness and long-term cost analysis comparing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with proton-pump inhibitor maintenance for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg. 2005; 92:700–706.

91. Mehta S, Bennett J, Mahon D, Rhodes M. Prospective trial of laparoscopic nissen fundoplication versus proton pump inhibitor therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: seven-year follow-up. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006; 10:1312–1316.

92. Epstein D, Bojke L, Sculpher MJ. REFLUX trial group. Laparoscopic fundoplication compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: cost effectiveness study. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2576.

93. Anvari M, Allen C, Marshall J, Armstrong D, Goeree R, Ungar W, et al. A randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication versus proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): 3-year outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:2547–2554.

94. Grant AM, Boachie C, Cotton SC, Faria R, Bojke L, Epstein DM, et al. Clinical and economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: 5-year follow-up of multicentre randomised trial (the REFLUX trial). Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17:1–167.

95. Hatlebakk JG, Zerbib F, Bruley des Varannes S, Attwood SE, Ell C, Fiocca R, et al. Gastroesophageal acid reflux control 5 years after antireflux surgery, compared with long-term esomeprazole therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14:678–85.e3.

96. Emken BG, Lundell LR, Wallin L, Myrvold HE, Engström C, Montgomery M, et al. Effects of omeprazole or anti-reflux surgery on lower oesophageal sphincter characteristics and oesophageal acid exposure over 10 years. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017; 52:11–17.

97. Mahon D, Rhodes M, Decadt B, Hindmarsh A, Lowndes R, Beckingham I, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication compared with proton-pump inhibitors for treatment of chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux. Br J Surg. 2005; 92:695–699.

98. Grant AM, Wileman SM, Ramsay CR, Mowat NA, Krukowski ZH, Heading RC, et al. Minimal access surgery compared with medical management for chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: UK collaborative randomised trial. BMJ. 2008; 337:dec15 2. a2664.

99. Anvari M, Allen C. Surgical outcome in gastro-esophageal reflux disease patients with inadequate response to proton pump inhibitors. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17:1029–1035.

100. Wilkerson PM, Stratford J, Jones L, Sohanpal J, Booth MI, Dehn TC. A poor response to proton pump inhibition is not a contraindication for laparoscopic antireflux surgery for gastro esophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19:1272–1277.

101. Kamolz T, Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, Pointner R. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in patients with nonerosive reflux disease. Long-term quality-of-life assessment and surgical outcome. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19:494–500.

102. Kelly JJ, Watson DI, Chin KF, Devitt PG, Game PA, Jamieson GG. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: clinical outcomes at 10 years. J Am Coll Surg. 2007; 205:570–575.

103. Broeders JA, Rijnhart-de Jong HG, Draaisma WA, Bredenoord AJ, Smout AJ, Gooszen HG. Ten-year outcome of laparoscopic and conventional nissen fundoplication: randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2009; 250:698–706.

104. Broeders JA, Draaisma WA, Bredenoord AJ, Smout AJ, Broeders IA, Gooszen HG. Long-term outcome of Nissen fundoplication in non-erosive and erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg. 2010; 97:845–852.

105. Lal P, Leekha N, Chander J, Dewan R, Ramteke VK. A prospective nonrandomized comparison of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication in Indian population using detailed objective and subjective criteria. J Minim Access Surg. 2012; 8:39–44.

106. Cao Z, Cai W, Qin M, Zhao H, Yue P, Li Y. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic anterior 180° partial versus 360° Nissen fundoplication: 5-year results. Dis Esophagus. 2012; 25:114–120.

107. Kellokumpu I, Voutilainen M, Haglund C, Färkkilä M, Roberts PJ, Kautiainen H. Quality of life following laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: assessing short-term and long-term outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19:3810–3818.

108. Hamdy E, El Nakeeb A, Hamed H, El Hemaly M, ElHak NG. Outcome of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease in non-responders to proton pump inhibitors. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014; 18:1557–1562.

109. Frazzoni M, Piccoli M, Conigliaro R, Manta R, Frazzoni L, Melotti G. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease as diagnosed by impedance-pH monitoring can be cured by laparoscopic fundoplication. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27:2940–2946.

110. Westcott CJ, Hopkins MB, Bach K, Postma GN, Belafsky PC, Koufman JA. Fundoplication for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. J Am Coll Surg. 2004; 199:23–30.

111. Catania RA, Kavic SM, Roth JS, Lee TH, Meyer T, Fantry GT, et al. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication effectively relieves symptoms in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007; 11:1579–1587.

112. Salminen P, Karvonen J, Ovaska J. Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for reflux laryngitis. Dig Surg. 2010; 27:509–514.

113. Yang Y, Wu H, Zhou J. Efficacy of acid suppression therapy in gastroesophageal reflux disease-related chronic laryngitis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95:e4868.

114. Catarci M, Gentileschi P, Papi C, Carrara A, Marrese R, Gaspari AL, et al. Evidence-based appraisal of antireflux fundoplication. Ann Surg. 2004; 239:325–337.

115. Roks DJ, Broeders JA, Baigrie RJ. Long-term symptom control of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease 12 years after laparoscopic Nissen or 180° anterior partial fundoplication in a randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2017; 104:852–856.

116. Broeders JA, Roks DJ, Ahmed Ali U, Watson DI, Baigrie RJ, Cao Z, et al. Laparoscopic anterior 180-degree versus nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ann Surg. 2013; 257:850–859.

117. Broeders JA, Roks DJ, Jamieson GG, Devitt PG, Baigrie RJ, Watson DI. Five-year outcome after laparoscopic anterior partial versus Nissen fundoplication: four randomized trials. Ann Surg. 2012; 255:637–642.

118. Broeders JA, Roks DJ, Ahmed Ali U, Draaisma WA, Smout AJ, Hazebroek EJ. Laparoscopic anterior versus posterior fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ann Surg. 2011; 254:39–47.

119. Broeders JA, Mauritz FA, Ahmed Ali U, Draaisma WA, Ruurda JP, Gooszen HG, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic Nissen (posterior total) versus Toupet (posterior partial) fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg. 2010; 97:1318–1330.

120. Hagedorn C, Lönroth H, Rydberg L, Ruth M, Lundell L. Long-term efficacy of total (Nissen-Rossetti) and posterior partial (Toupet) fundoplication: results of a randomized clinical trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002; 6:540–545.

121. Williamson WA, Ellis FH Jr, Streitz JM Jr, Shahian DM. Paraesophageal hiatal hernia: is an antireflux procedure necessary? Ann Thorac Surg. 1993; 56:447–451.

122. Morris-Stiff G, Hassn A. Laparoscopic paraoesophageal hernia repair: fundoplication is not usually indicated. Hernia. 2008; 12:299–302.

123. Draaisma WA, Gooszen HG, Tournoij E, Broeders IA. Controversies in paraesophageal hernia repair: a review of literature. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19:1300–1308.

124. Casabella F, Sinanan M, Horgan S, Pellegrini CA. Systematic use of gastric fundoplication in laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernias. Am J Surg. 1996; 171:485–489.

125. Oelschlager BK, Petersen RP, Brunt LM, Soper NJ, Sheppard BC, Mitsumori L, et al. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: defining long-term clinical and anatomic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012; 16:453–459.

126. Müller-Stich BP, Achtstätter V, Diener MK, Gondan M, Warschkow R, Marra F, et al. Repair of paraesophageal hiatal hernias—is a fundoplication needed? A randomized controlled pilot trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2015; 221:602–610.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary Table 1

Quality assessment

Supplementary Table 2

Evidence profile

Supplementary Fig. 1

Flowcharts of the literature search and study selection process.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs

Ho Seok Seo
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3606-6074

Miyoung Choi
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2424-9965

Sang-Yong Son
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8903-0913

Min Gyu Kim
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9943-0083

Dong-Seok Han
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9003-7987

Han Hong Lee
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7541-8490

Similar articles