Comparison of Needlescopic and Conventional Laparoscopic Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Related Diseases: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Abstract

Background: Recently, in pursuit of minimal invasion, needlescopic surgery (NS) using forceps thinner than the previous standard has garnered attention as a surgical approach to various diseases. Objective: We compared the outcomes of NS for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-related diseases with the conventional method using propensity score-matched analysis. Subjects and Methods: Among 205 of 328 cases who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for the first time from June 2008 to December 2019, excluding 115 cases using mesh and 8 cases undergoing reduced port surgery, 25 subjects in the NS group and 25 subjects in the conventional group were extracted upon propensity score matching for six factors: age, gender, body mass index, degree of esophageal hiatal hernia, duration of intraesophageal acid reflux, and severity of reflux esophagitis. Results: The NS group used the Toupet method, whereas the conventional group used the Nissen method for 2 cases and the Toupet method for 23 cases. There were no significant differences between them (P = .490). Although the operative time (143 versus 112 minutes, P = .038) was longer in the NS group, there were no differences in the bleeding volume (nearly equal at 0 mL in both groups), laparotomy conversion rate, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications (P = .588, P = 1.000, P = 1.000, P = 1.000, respectively). There was also no significant difference in recurrence: 2 cases in the conventional group (8%) and 1 case in the NS group (4%) (P = 1.000). Moreover, the degree of esophageal hiatal hernia, the severity of reflux esophagitis, and the duration of intraesophageal acid reflux all improved after the surgery in both groups (NS group: P = .001, P < .001, P = .002; conventional group: P = .007, P < .001, P = .003). Conclusions: The short-term outcomes of NS for GERD-related diseases were good, with a longer operative time but no difference in terms of safety or outcomes compared with the conventional method. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Jikei University School of Medicine [30-238 (9259)].