Search

Background: Per-oral plication of the (neo)esophagus (POPE) is an endoscopic procedure used to improve emptying of the defunctionalized esophagus or gastric conduit, with the hope of improving symptoms and quality of life. As this procedure has only been performed in the United States for the past 4 years, safety and efficacy have not been well established. Methods: This is a retrospective case series for patients who underwent POPE from a single institution between 2019 and 2023. Data collected included demographics, preoperative diagnoses and treatments, imaging, endoscopic data, operative intervention, 90-day complications, and response to treatment. Quality of life and patient satisfaction data were collected by phone survey. Results: Seventeen cases were identified, encompassing 13 primary procedures and 4 repeat POPEs (re-POPE). Eight patients had end-stage achalasia and 5 had impaired gastric emptying after esophagectomy with gastric conduits. Median age was 65 years and median ASA was 3, with 38.5% female patients. POPE was performed with 2–6 plication sutures in an average of 75 min. The majority of patients discharged home the same day. For the 17 procedures, there were 4 complications. Two patients required antibiotics for pneumonia, while 4 required procedural intervention. There were no deaths. Preoperative symptoms improved or resolved at initial follow up in 82.3% of patients. Four patients experienced symptom recurrence and required re-POPE, 1 with achalasia and 3 with gastric conduits. Although all achalasia patients had an “end-stage esophagus,” none have required esophagectomy since the introduction of POPE. Conclusions: POPE is an endoscopic procedure that is efficacious in relieving emptying difficulties for the end-stage esophagus and gastric conduit. It may obviate the need for esophagectomy or conduit replacement. Also, it can be repeated in select patients. While the risk profile of complications is favorable compared to alternative operations, patients with gastric conduits are at higher risk.

Introduction: Numerous studies comment on quality of life outcomes comparing complete and partial fundoplication with or without a bougie. Society guidelines are moving toward recommending partial fundoplication over complete fundoplication due to improved side effect profile with similar outcomes. Retrospective studies and randomized trials have elucidated that use of a bougie during Nissen fundoplication does impact long-term dysphagia. To date there are no retrospective or prospective data that guide practice for partial fundoplications. Objective: The purpose of this project is to investigate the clinical implications of using a bougie for Toupet fundoplication with regard to short-term and long-term dysphagia and need for further therapeutic interventions. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained gastroesophageal database was performed. Demographic, pre-operative quality of life outcomes data, perioperative, and post-operative quality of life outcomes data of 373 patients from 2011 to 2022 undergoing Toupet fundoplication without bougie or with a traditional Savary 56Fr or 58Fr bougie were reviewed. The two groups were compared using student’s t-test to identify statically significant differences between the groups. Results: Between 2011 and 2022, 373 patients underwent Toupet fundoplication (276 with traditional bougie, 97 without). Median follow-up in the bougie group was 19 months, versus 9 months in the non bougie group. There was no difference between early (3 weeks) and late dysphagia scores (6 months). In the bougie group there were two mucosal perforations due to the bougie. There were no statistically significant differences in GERD-HRQL, gas bloat, and dysphagia scores between groups at one year. Conclusion: There is no difference observed in early or late dysphagia scores, GERD-HRQL, gas bloat or need for dilation in patients undergoing Toupet fundoplication with or without a traditional bougie. It is reasonable to discontinue the use of a traditional bougie during Toupet fundoplication, especially due to risk of esophageal perforation.

Background: Endoluminal functional impedance planimetry and panometry assesses secondary peristalsis in response to volumetric distention under sedation. We hypothesize that impedance planimetry and panometry can replace high-resolution manometry in the preoperative assessment prior to anti-reflux surgery. Methods: Single institution prospective data were collected from patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery between 2021 and 2023. A 16-cm functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) assessed planimetry and panometry prior to surgery under general anesthesia at the start of each case. Panometry was recorded and esophageal contractile response was classified as normal (NCR), diminished or disordered (DDCR), or absent (ACR) in real time by a single panometry rater, blinded to preoperative HRM results. FLIP results were then compared to preoperative HRM. Results: Data were collected from 120 patients, 70.8% female, with mean age of 63 ± 3 years. There were 105 patients with intraoperative panometry, and 15 with panometry collected during preoperative endoscopy. There were 60 patients (50%) who had peristaltic dysfunction on HRM, of whom 57 had FLIP dysmotility (55 DDCR, 2 ACR) resulting in 95.0% sensitivity. There were 3 patients with normal secondary peristalsis on FLIP with abnormal HRM, all ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). No major motility disorder was missed by FLIP. A negative predictive value of 91.9% was calculated from 34/37 patients with normal FLIP panometry and normal HRM. Patients with normal HRM but abnormal FLIP had larger hernias compared to patients with concordant studies (7.5 ± 2.8 cm vs. 5.4 ± 3.2 cm, p= 0.043) and higher preoperative dysphagia scores (1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.3, p= 0.021). Conclusion: Impedance planimetry and panometry can assess motility under general anesthesia or sedation and is highly sensitive to peristaltic dysfunction. Panometry is a novel tool that has potential to streamline and improve patient care and therefore should be considered as an alternative to HRM, especially in patients in which HRM would be inaccessible or poorly tolerated.

Introduction: Impedance planimetry (FLIP) provides objective feedback to optimize fundoplication outcomes. Ideal FLIP ranges for differing wraps and bougies have not yet been established. We report FLIP measurements during fundoplication grouped by choice of wrap and bougie with associated outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective gastroesophageal database was performed for all Nissen or Toupet fundoplication with intraoperative FLIP using an 8-cm catheter, 30-mL and/or 40-mL fill and/or 16-cm catheter, 60-mL fill. Surgeons used no bougie, the FLIP balloon as bougie, or a hard bougie. Outcomes included perioperative data, Reflux Symptom Index, GERD-HRQL, Dysphagia scores, need for dilation, postoperative EGD findings, and hernia recurrence. Group comparisons were made using two-tailed Kruskal–Wallis and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Between 2016 and 2022, 333 patients underwent fundoplication and intraoperative FLIP. Procedures included Toupet with hard bougie (TFHB, N= 147), Toupet with FLIP bougie (TFFB, N= 69), Toupet without bougie (TFNB, N= 78), Nissen with hard bougie (NFHB, n= 20), or Nissen with FLIP bougie (NFFB, N= 19). FLIP measurements at 30-mL/40-mL fills varied significantly between groups, notably distensibility index at crural closure (CCDI) and post-fundoplication (FDI). No significant differences in FLIP measurements were seen between those who developed poor postoperative outcomes and those who did not, including when grouping by choice of wrap and bougie. At a 40-mL fill, abnormal motility patients with CCDI > 3.5 mm2/mmHg developed zero postoperative dysphagia. TFFB abnormal motility patients with CCDI > 3.5 mm2/mmHg or FDI > 3.6 mm2/mmHg developed zero postoperative dysphagia. Conclusion: Intraoperative FLIP measurements vary by fundoplication and bougie choice. A CCDI > 3.5 mm2/mmHg (40 mL fill) should be sought in abnormal motility patients, regardless of wrap or bougie, to avoid postoperative dysphagia. TFFB abnormal motility patients with FDI > 3.6 mm2/mmHg (40 mL fill) also developed zero postoperative dysphagia. FDI > 6.2 mm2/mmHg (40 mL fill) was seen in all postoperative hernia recurrences.

Background: Criteria to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) vary. The American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) 2022 Expert Review on GERD focuses on acid exposure time (AET) rather than DeMeester score from ambulatory pH testing (BRAVO). We aim to review outcomes following anti-reflux surgery (ARS) at our institution, grouped by differing criteria for the diagnosis of GERD. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospective gastroesophageal quality database was performed for all patients undergoing evaluation for ARS with preoperative BRAVO ≥ 48 h. Group comparisons were made using two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher’s exact tests and two-tailed statistical significance of p< 0.05. Results: Between 2010 and 2022, 253 patients underwent an evaluation for ARS with BRAVO testing. Most patients (86.9%) met our institution’s historical criteria: LA C/D esophagitis, Barrett’s, or DeMeester ≥ 14.72 on 1+ days. Fewer patients (67.2%) met new AGA criteria: LA B/C/D esophagitis, Barrett’s, or AET ≥ 6% on 2+ days. Sixty-one patients (24%) met historical criteria only, with significantly lower BMI, ASA, less hiatal hernias, and less DeMeester and AET-positive days, a less severe GERD phenotype. There were no differences between groups in perioperative outcomes or % symptom resolution. Objective GERD outcomes (need for dilation, esophagitis, and postop BRAVO) were equivalent between groups. Patient-reported quality of life scores, including GERD-HRQL, RSI, and Dysphagia Score did not differ between groups from preop through 1 year postop. Those who met our historical criteria only reported significantly worse RSI scores (p= 0.03) and worse GERD-HRQL scores at 2 years postop, though not statistically significant (p= 0.07). Conclusion: Updated AGA GERD guidelines exclude a portion of patients who historically would have been diagnosed with and surgically treated for GERD. This cohort appears to have a less severe GERD phenotype but equivalent outcomes up to 1 year, with more atypical GERD symptoms at 2 years postop. AET may better define who should be offered ARS than DeMeester score.