Ortiz PRJ, Navarro VL, Hernández PR, Orozco OP

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 7-13
PDF size: 44.55 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The study included a thorough analysis and revision of 309 patients who were operated after being diagnosed with GERD. In 29 cases, (9.38% of patients) we diagnosed endoscopic and histopathologic Barrett esophagus (intestinal columnar metaplasia). All these patients underwent 270° posterior partial fundoplication Toupet type. The results were as following: All patients (100%) were subject of an endoscopy where 4 biopsies were taken. These biopsies were evidence of the Barrett esophagus diagnostic; 79% of these patients, however, had already had up to two endoscopies prior to the surgery, which had confirmed the diagnostic as well. An evolution and diagnostic analysis was performed using a Visick scale. The analysis included: 21 male patients (72.5% of male patient population) and eight female patients (27.5% of the total female patient population). Of the male patients, 76% presented a hiatal hernia, 100% presented short EB, 9.5% presented motility disorder, 19.4% presented pirosis, 9.5% presented regurgitation and 9.5% presented both laryngitis and dry cough. Within the female patients, 62% presented a hiatal hernia, 87.5% presented short EB, 12.5% presented long EB, 12.5% presented motility disorder, 37.5% pirosis and 25% presented dry cough. All of these symptoms were prior to the surgery. The satisfaction ranking of the patients after the procedure was as follows: 90.5% of male and 100% of female patients ranked the procedure as good or excellent, while 9.5% of male patients ranked the procedure as moderate. From a histopathologic point of view, there is no knowledge of any data showing EB progression in any of the patients with short EB. The long EB diagnosed on the one female patient was also shortened. Two patients showed regression of the condition. Only 28% of the male and 12.5% of the female patients have occasionally required treatment after the procedure and this treatment has lasted no longer than 10 days.

REFERENCES

1. Stylopoulos N, Rattner DW. The history of hiatal hernia surgery: from Bowditch to laparoscopy. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 185-193.

2. Lord RV. Norman Barrett “doyen of esophageal surgery”. Ann Surg 1999; 229: 428-439.

3. Mashimo H, Wagh MS, Goyal RK. Surveillance and screening for Barrett’s esophagus and adenocarcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: S33-41.

4. Shalauta MD, Saad R. Barrett’s esophagus. Am Fam Physician 2004; 69: 2113-2118.

5. Gurski RR, Peters JH, Hagen JA De Meester SR, Bremner CG, Chandrasoma PT et al. Barrett’s esophagus can and does regress after antireflux surgery: a study of prevalence and predictive features. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 196: 706-712.

6. Sharma P. Barrett esophagus: Will effective treatment prevent the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Am J Med 2004; 117: 79S-85S.

7. Oberg S, Wenner J, Johansson J Walther B. Barrett esophagus: risk factors FPR progression to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2005; 242: 49-54.

8. Specnler SJ. The natural history of dysplasia and cancer in esophagitis and Barrett esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003; 36: S2-S5.

9. Romagnoli R, Collard JM, Gutschow C, Yamusah N, Salizzoni M. Outcomes of dysplasia arising in Barrett’s esophagus: a dynamic view. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197: 365-371.

10. Mabrut JY, Baulieux J, Adham M, De La Roche E, Gaudin JL, Souquet JC et al. Impact of antireflux operation on columnar-lined esophagus. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 196: 60-67.

11. Sampliner RE. Practice parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Update guidelines for diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1888-1895.

12. Guelrud M, Ehrlich EE, Endoscopic classification of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointes Endos 2004; 59: 58-65.

13. Spechler SJ. Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: Pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy. Med Clin North Am 2002; 6: 1423-1445.

14. Oelshlager BK, Barreca M, Chang L, Oleynikov D, Pellegrini CA. Clinical and pathologic response of Barrett’s esophagus to laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Ann Surg 2003; 38: 458-464.

15. DeMeester SR, Campos GM, DeMeester TR, Bremner CG, Hagen JA, Peters JH et al. The impact of antireflux procedure on intestinal metaplasia of the cardia. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 547-556.

16. Corey KE, Schmitz SM, Shahhen NJ. Does a surgical antireflux procedure decrease the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus? A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2390-2394.

17. 17.O’Riordan JM, Byrne PJ, Ravi N, Keeling PW, Reynolds JV. Long term clinical and pathologic response of Barrett’s esophagus after antireflux surgery. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 27-33.

18. Csendes A, Burdiles P, Braghetto I, SmoK G, Castro C, Kom O et al. Dysplasia and adenocarcinoma after classic antireflux surgery in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: the need for a long term subjective and objective follow up. Ann Surg 2002; 235: 178-185.

19. Roney JP, Deschamps C, Keneth KW. Management of the Barrett’s esophagus with high grade dysplasia. Surg Clin N Am 2002; 683-695.

20. Altorki NK, Sunagawa H, Little AG et al. High grade dysplasia in the columnar lined esophagus. Am J Surg 1991; (1): 97-100.

21. Rice TW et al. Surgical management of the high grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1993; 88: 1832-1836.

22. Shaheen NJ, Crosby MA, Bozymski EM et al. Is there a publication bias in the reporting of cancer risk in Barrett’s esophagus Gastroenterology 2000; 119: 333-338.

23. Guarner V, Martínez N, Gabino JF. Ten year evaluation of posterior fundoplasty in the treatment of gastroesofageal reflux. Long-term and comparative study of 135 patients. Am J Surg 1980; 139: 200-203.