Does laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication prevent the progression of Barrett′s oesophagus? Is the length of Barrett′s a factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have suggested that both laparoscopic and open anti-reflux surgery may produce regression of Barrett's mucosa. MATERIAL AND METHODS;: We reviewed 21 patients (13M: 8F, mean age 46.7±3.18 years) with documented Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) and Non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (15 patients ?3 cm segment, 6 patients < 3 cm segment) on long term proton pump inhibitor therapy who underwent laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) between 1993 and 2000. All patients had undergone pre and yearly postoperative upper GI endoscopy with 4 quadrant biopsies every 2 cm. All patients also underwent pre- and 6 months postoperative 24-hr pH study, esophageal manometry, SF36, and GERD symptom score. The mean duration of GERD symptoms was 8.4±1.54 years pre-operative. The mean follow-up after surgery was 39±6.32 months. RESULTS: Postoperatively, there was significant improvement in reflux symptom score (37.5 ± 3.98 points versus 8.7 ± 2.46 points, P = 0.0001), % acid reflux in 24 hr (26.5 ± 3.91% versus 2.1 ± 0.84%, P< 0.0001) and an increase in lower esophageal sphincter pressure (3.71 ± 1.08 mmHg versus 12.29 ± 1.34 mmHg, P = 0.0053). Complete or partial regression of Barrett's mucosa occurred in 9 patients. All patients with complete regression had <4 cm segment of Barrett's. Progression or cancer transformation was not observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: LNF in patients with Barrett's oesophagus results in significant control of GERD symptoms. LNF can prevent progression of Barrett's oesophagus and in patients with Barrett's <4 cm may lead to complete regression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".