A meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic partial versus Nissen fundoplication

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid



For proven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, partial fundoplication is considered as effective as Nissen, but with fewer side effects. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effect of laparoscopic partial fundoplication (LPF) with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF).


Extensive medical literature searches of the PubMed, Medline and Embase databases were performed up to April 2010 for all randomized clinical trials that compared LPF versus LNF. The effect variables analysed were the incidence of post-operative dysphagia, heartburn, inability to belch, outcome or satisfaction and Visick score. Meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval.


Thirteen randomized trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 1374 patients underwent LPF or LNF. There was a significant reduction of the incidence of post-operative dysphagia (OR = 0.44, P < 0.0001) and inability to belch (OR = 0.41, P < 0.005) for the LPF compared to that of the LNF group. Compared with LPF, LNF resulted in a significant reduction of the incidence of post-operative heartburn (OR = 1.94, P < 0.01). The outcome or satisfaction of patients and Visick I and II scores were comparable between the two groups.


Both LPF and LNF are effective for the treatment of proven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. LPF enables a decreased post-operative dysphagia and gas-related side effects, while LNF is more successful in controlling reflux symptoms, particularly heartburn, than LPF. A balance should be found between anti-reflux and side effects.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles