IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0112417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partial versus Complete Fundoplication for the Correction of Pediatric GERD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Glen
  • Michaël Chassé
  • Mary-Anne Doyle
  • Ahmed Nasr
  • Dean A Fergusson

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus as to what extent of “wrap” is required in a fundoplication for correction of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Objective: To evaluate if a complete (360 degree) or partial fundoplication gives better control of GERD. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus identified interventional and observational studies of fundoplication in children. Screening identified those comparing techniques. The primary outcome was recurrence of GERD following surgery. Dysphagia and complications were secondary outcomes of interest. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results: 2289 abstracts were screened, yielding 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 retrospective cohort studies. The RCTs were pooled. There was no difference in surgical success between partial and complete fundoplication, OR 1.33 [0.67,2.66]. In the 12 cohort studies, 3 (25%) used an objective assessment of the surgery, one of which showed improved outcomes with complete fundoplication. Twenty-five different complications were reported; common were dysphagia and gas-bloat syndrome. Overall study quality was poor. Conclusions: The comparison of partial fundoplication with complete fundoplication warrants further study. The evidence does not demonstrate superiority of one technique. The lack of high quality RCTs and the methodological heterogeneity of observational studies limits a powerful meta-analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Glen & Michaël Chassé & Mary-Anne Doyle & Ahmed Nasr & Dean A Fergusson, 2014. "Partial versus Complete Fundoplication for the Correction of Pediatric GERD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112417
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112417
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112417&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0112417?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.