Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery

Matthew James Peters, Athar Mukhtar, Rossita Mohamad Yunus, Shahjahan Khan, Juanita Pappalardo, Breda Memon, Muhammed Ashraf Memon

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

100 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) and open anti-reflux surgery (OARS) for proven gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS:A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared LARS and OARS and that were published in the English language between 1990 and 2007. A meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement. The six outcome variables analyzed were operating time, hospital stay, return to normal activity, perioperative complications, treatment failure, and requirement for further surgery. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).RESULTS:Twelve trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 503 patients underwent OARS and 533 had LARS. For three of the six outcomes, the summary point estimates favored LARS over OARS. There was a significant reduction of 2.68 days in the duration of hospital stay for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 2.68, 95 confidence interval (CI): 3.54 to 1.81; P<0.0001), a significant reduction of 7.75 days in return to normal activity for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 7.75, 95 CI: 14.37 to 1.14; P0.0216), and finally, there was a statistically significant reduction of 65 in the relative odds of complication rates for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (OR: 0.35, 95 CI: 0.16-0.75; P0.0072). The duration of operating time was significantly longer (39.02min) in the LARS group (WMD: 39.02, 95 CI: 17.99-60.05; P0.0003). Treatment failure rates were comparable between the two groups (OR: 1.39, 95 CI: 0.71-2.72; P0.3423). Despite this, the requirement for further surgery was significantly higher in the LARS group (OR: 1.79, 95 CI: 1.00-3.22; P0.05).CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of this meta-analysis, the authors conclude that LARS is an effective and safe alternative to OARS for the treatment of proven GERD. LARS enables a faster convalescence and return to productive activity, with a reduced risk of complications and a similar treatment outcome, than an open approach. However, there is a significantly higher rate of re-operation (79) in the LARS group.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1548-1561
Number of pages14
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume104
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2009

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals
Odds Ratio
Esophageal Diseases
Gastroesophageal Reflux
Treatment Failure
Length of Stay
PubMed

Cite this

Peters, M. J., Mukhtar, A., Yunus, R. M., Khan, S., Pappalardo, J., Memon, B., & Memon, M. A. (2009). Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 104(6), 1548-1561. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.176
Peters, Matthew James ; Mukhtar, Athar ; Yunus, Rossita Mohamad ; Khan, Shahjahan ; Pappalardo, Juanita ; Memon, Breda ; Memon, Muhammed Ashraf. / Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2009 ; Vol. 104, No. 6. pp. 1548-1561.
@article{8bad147c6ee34d5eb82ee533b92a7eba,
title = "Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) and open anti-reflux surgery (OARS) for proven gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS:A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared LARS and OARS and that were published in the English language between 1990 and 2007. A meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement. The six outcome variables analyzed were operating time, hospital stay, return to normal activity, perioperative complications, treatment failure, and requirement for further surgery. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).RESULTS:Twelve trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 503 patients underwent OARS and 533 had LARS. For three of the six outcomes, the summary point estimates favored LARS over OARS. There was a significant reduction of 2.68 days in the duration of hospital stay for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 2.68, 95 confidence interval (CI): 3.54 to 1.81; P<0.0001), a significant reduction of 7.75 days in return to normal activity for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 7.75, 95 CI: 14.37 to 1.14; P0.0216), and finally, there was a statistically significant reduction of 65 in the relative odds of complication rates for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (OR: 0.35, 95 CI: 0.16-0.75; P0.0072). The duration of operating time was significantly longer (39.02min) in the LARS group (WMD: 39.02, 95 CI: 17.99-60.05; P0.0003). Treatment failure rates were comparable between the two groups (OR: 1.39, 95 CI: 0.71-2.72; P0.3423). Despite this, the requirement for further surgery was significantly higher in the LARS group (OR: 1.79, 95 CI: 1.00-3.22; P0.05).CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of this meta-analysis, the authors conclude that LARS is an effective and safe alternative to OARS for the treatment of proven GERD. LARS enables a faster convalescence and return to productive activity, with a reduced risk of complications and a similar treatment outcome, than an open approach. However, there is a significantly higher rate of re-operation (79) in the LARS group.",
author = "Peters, {Matthew James} and Athar Mukhtar and Yunus, {Rossita Mohamad} and Shahjahan Khan and Juanita Pappalardo and Breda Memon and Memon, {Muhammed Ashraf}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1038/ajg.2009.176",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "1548--1561",
journal = "The Review of gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

Peters, MJ, Mukhtar, A, Yunus, RM, Khan, S, Pappalardo, J, Memon, B & Memon, MA 2009, 'Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery' American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 1548-1561. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.176

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. / Peters, Matthew James; Mukhtar, Athar; Yunus, Rossita Mohamad; Khan, Shahjahan; Pappalardo, Juanita; Memon, Breda; Memon, Muhammed Ashraf.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 104, No. 6, 06.2009, p. 1548-1561.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery

AU - Peters, Matthew James

AU - Mukhtar, Athar

AU - Yunus, Rossita Mohamad

AU - Khan, Shahjahan

AU - Pappalardo, Juanita

AU - Memon, Breda

AU - Memon, Muhammed Ashraf

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) and open anti-reflux surgery (OARS) for proven gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS:A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared LARS and OARS and that were published in the English language between 1990 and 2007. A meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement. The six outcome variables analyzed were operating time, hospital stay, return to normal activity, perioperative complications, treatment failure, and requirement for further surgery. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).RESULTS:Twelve trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 503 patients underwent OARS and 533 had LARS. For three of the six outcomes, the summary point estimates favored LARS over OARS. There was a significant reduction of 2.68 days in the duration of hospital stay for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 2.68, 95 confidence interval (CI): 3.54 to 1.81; P<0.0001), a significant reduction of 7.75 days in return to normal activity for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 7.75, 95 CI: 14.37 to 1.14; P0.0216), and finally, there was a statistically significant reduction of 65 in the relative odds of complication rates for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (OR: 0.35, 95 CI: 0.16-0.75; P0.0072). The duration of operating time was significantly longer (39.02min) in the LARS group (WMD: 39.02, 95 CI: 17.99-60.05; P0.0003). Treatment failure rates were comparable between the two groups (OR: 1.39, 95 CI: 0.71-2.72; P0.3423). Despite this, the requirement for further surgery was significantly higher in the LARS group (OR: 1.79, 95 CI: 1.00-3.22; P0.05).CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of this meta-analysis, the authors conclude that LARS is an effective and safe alternative to OARS for the treatment of proven GERD. LARS enables a faster convalescence and return to productive activity, with a reduced risk of complications and a similar treatment outcome, than an open approach. However, there is a significantly higher rate of re-operation (79) in the LARS group.

AB - OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) and open anti-reflux surgery (OARS) for proven gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS:A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared LARS and OARS and that were published in the English language between 1990 and 2007. A meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement. The six outcome variables analyzed were operating time, hospital stay, return to normal activity, perioperative complications, treatment failure, and requirement for further surgery. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).RESULTS:Twelve trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 503 patients underwent OARS and 533 had LARS. For three of the six outcomes, the summary point estimates favored LARS over OARS. There was a significant reduction of 2.68 days in the duration of hospital stay for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 2.68, 95 confidence interval (CI): 3.54 to 1.81; P<0.0001), a significant reduction of 7.75 days in return to normal activity for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: 7.75, 95 CI: 14.37 to 1.14; P0.0216), and finally, there was a statistically significant reduction of 65 in the relative odds of complication rates for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (OR: 0.35, 95 CI: 0.16-0.75; P0.0072). The duration of operating time was significantly longer (39.02min) in the LARS group (WMD: 39.02, 95 CI: 17.99-60.05; P0.0003). Treatment failure rates were comparable between the two groups (OR: 1.39, 95 CI: 0.71-2.72; P0.3423). Despite this, the requirement for further surgery was significantly higher in the LARS group (OR: 1.79, 95 CI: 1.00-3.22; P0.05).CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of this meta-analysis, the authors conclude that LARS is an effective and safe alternative to OARS for the treatment of proven GERD. LARS enables a faster convalescence and return to productive activity, with a reduced risk of complications and a similar treatment outcome, than an open approach. However, there is a significantly higher rate of re-operation (79) in the LARS group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=66949132137&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2009.176

DO - 10.1038/ajg.2009.176

M3 - Review article

VL - 104

SP - 1548

EP - 1561

JO - The Review of gastroenterology

JF - The Review of gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 6

ER -