Quality of life and surgical outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease in a regional hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent condition leading to poor quality of life (QOL) in patients with refractory symptoms. Laparoscopic antireflux (LAR) surgery has been shown to improve QOL, and I sought to examine the surgical and QOL outcomes associated with LAR surgery over a 3-year period at a regional hospital. METHODS: Patients were given GERD-health related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) and SF-36 questionnaires preoperatively, at 6 months and at 12 or more months after surgery. I collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 342 patients referred for GERD or dysphagia, 26 received LAR surgery during the study period. All 26 patients had symptoms refractory to medications; 19 had atypical symptoms and 8 had some form of chronic pain syndrome (CPS). The mean duration of surgery was 125 minutes. There were no conversions, complications, 30-day readmissions or deaths. Three patients stayed 2 days in hospital and 23 stayed overnight. One patient required esophageal dilation for persistent dysphagia. Two patients resumed medication for recurrent symptoms and 24 remained medication free. There were significant improvements in GERD-HRQL scores in all patients. Patients with CPS had no improvements in SF-36 scores, whereas patients without CPS showed significant improvement. CONCLUSION: Excellent surgical outcomes in LAR surgery can be obtained with careful patient selection at a nonacademic regional hospital. Although GERD-HRQL improved in all patients, patients with CPS showed no improvement in general health QOL scores after LAR surgery. Careful patient counselling should be employed when offering LAR surgery to patients with CPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".