Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery: A Comparative Study of Nissen Fundoplication and Hiatoplasty With and Without Absorbable Biological Mesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with hiatoplasty has been shown to be an effective antireflux operation. The use of biological mesh in hiatoplasty has been controversial. Method: This retrospective comparative study included all patients with severe symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease who underwent antireflux surgery with and without biological mesh repair in one surgeons practice, 202 patients who underwent Nissen fundoplication with hiatus hernia repair between 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into 4 groups: large paraoesophageal hernia with Surgisis mesh (n = 24) and without (n = 61); and patients without hiatal hernia with Surgisis mesh (n = 26) and without (n = 91). The Incidence of recurrence of hiatal hernia and post-operative side-effects were the outcome measures. Results: In the group with paraoesophageal hernia at approximately 6 months postoperatively, the side-effects reported by patients without Surgisis mesh were reflux (15%), flatulence (28%), dysphagia (46%), and hiatal hernia recurrence (13%). Comparatively, patients receiving Surgisis mesh repair reported side effects of reflux (8%), flatulence (17%), dysphagia (75%), and hiatal hernia recurrence (4%). In the group without large hernia, the side-effects reported by patients without Surgisis mesh were reflux (12%), flatulence (20%), dysphagia (41%), and incidence of hiatal hernia (1%) and in patients with Surgisis mesh repair the rates of side-effects were: reflux (11%), flatulence (19%), dysphagia (69%), and incidence of hiatal hernia (3.8%). Conclusion: This retrospective analysis shows that antireflux surgery with an absorbable biological mesh hiatoplasty is safe, and may lead to a reduction in the incidence of recurrent hiatal hernia. It also produces good control of reflux, with low risk of side-effects and complications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcs185w
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".