Evidence Hub

Anti-reflux mucosectomy for gastroesophageal reflux disease in the absence of hiatus hernia: a pilot study

H. Inoue, H. Ito, H. Ikeda, C. Sato, Hiroki Sato, Chainarong Phalanusitthepha, B. Hayee, N. Eleftheriadis et al.

Annals of gastroenterology : quarterly publication of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology, 2014

10 participants · 191 citations

Abstract

Background In our previous case report of circumferential mucosal resection for short-segment Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia, symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) were significantly improved. This observation suggests that anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) could represent an effective anti-reflux procedure, with the advantage that no artificial devices or prostheses would be left in situ. Methods In this pilot study, 10 patients with treatment-refractory GERD received ARMS, 2 of whom circumferential, and the remaining 8 crescentic. Results Key symptoms of GERD improved significantly after ARMS. In the DeMeester score, mean heartburn score decreased from 2.7 to 0.3 (P=0.0011), regurgitation score from 2.5 to 0.3 (P=0.0022), and total score from 5.2 to 0.67 (P=0.0011). At endoscopic examination, the flap valve grade decreased from 3.2 to 1.2 (P=0.0152). In 24-h esophageal pH monitoring the fraction of time at pH 0.14 of bile reflux was controlled from 52% to 4% (P=0.05). In 2 cases of total circumferential resection, repeat balloon dilation was necessary to control stenosis. In all cases, proton pump inhibitor prescription could be discontinued with no ill effects. Conclusion This initial case series demonstrated the potential anti-reflux effect of ARMS, with a crescentic mucosal resection appearing adequate. Further longitudinal study of patients without sliding hiatus hernia will be required to establish ARMS as an effective technique to control…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 10 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free