Antireflux surgery for Barrett’s esophagus: comparative results of the Nissen and Collis-Nissen operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a Collis-Nissen repair instead of a standard Nissen fundoplication to treat the reflux disease of Barrett's esophagus is controversial. This paper compares the Nissen and Collis-Nissen operations when treating Barrett's esophagus. Thirty-three patients with documented Barrett's esophagus (male : female, 26 : 7, median age, 48.8 years) had a Nissen fundoplication during 1976-1989. Fifty-one patients (male : female = 41 : 10, median age = 53.2 years) underwent a Collis-Nissen operation between 1990 and 1999. Clinical assessments, esophagogram, radionuclide emptying, manometry, 24-h pH study, and endoscopy were obtained pre- and postoperatively. There was no operative death in either group. Median follow-up was 8.0 years for the Nissen group and 6.5 years for the Collis group. Postoperative reflux symptoms were more frequent in the Nissen group (52%) when compared to the Collis group (7%, P < 0.001). These symptoms correlated with the 24-h pH recordings revealing an increased acid exposure in the Nissen group (3.4%) as opposed to 1% in the Collis group (P = 0.003). Endoscopy revealed mucosal erosions and ulcers in 39% of patients receiving a standard Nissen repair while these damages were seen in 7% of patients who were offered an elongation gastroplasty with a total fundoplication (P = 0.007). The cumulative success rate was 83% for the Nissen group and 100% for the Collis group at 5 years, and 63% versus 90% at 10 years (Log-rank test, P = 0.004). The Collis-Nissen fundoplication provides better reflux protection for Barrett's patients than a standard Nissen repair. It lowers the risk of fundoplication failure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".