Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BMJ Open logoLink to BMJ Open
. 2020 Mar 16;10(3):e034257. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034257

Long-term patient satisfaction and durability of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery in a large Danish cohort: study protocol for a retrospective cohort study with development of a novel scoring system for patient selection

Jonas Sanberg Ljungdalh 1,2,✉, Katrine Hass Rubin 3, Jesper Durup 4, Kim Christian Houlind 2,5
PMCID: PMC7076240  PMID: 32184312

Abstract

Introduction

Laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is standard of care in surgical treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and is not without risks of adverse effects, including disruption of the fundoplication and postfundoplication dysphagia, in some cases leading to reoperation. Non-surgical factors such as pre-existing anxiety or depression influence postoperative satisfaction and symptom relief. Previous studies have focused on a short-term follow-up or only certain aspects of disease, such as reoperation or postoperative quality of life. The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term patient-satisfaction and durability of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery in a large Danish cohort using a comprehensive multimodal follow-up, and to develop a clinically applicable scoring system usable in selecting patients for anti-reflux surgery.

Methods and analysis

The study is a retrospective cohort study utilising data from patient records and follow-up with patient-reported quality of life as well as registry-based data. The study population consists of all adult patients having undergone laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery at The Department of Surgery, Kolding Hospital, a part of Lillebaelt Hospital Denmark in an 11-year period. From electronic records; patient characteristics, preoperative endoscopic findings, reflux disease characteristics and details on type of surgery, will be identified. Disease-specific quality of life and dysphagia will be collected from a patient-reported follow-up. From Danish national registries, data on comorbidity, reoperative surgery, use of pharmacological anti-reflux treatment, mortality and socioeconomic factors will be included. Primary outcome of this study is treatment success at follow-up.

Ethics and dissemination

Study approval has been obtained from The Danish Patient Safety Agency, The Danish Health Data Authority and Statistics Denmark, complying to Danish and EU legislation. Inclusion in the study will require informed consent from participating subjects. The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals regardless of whether these are positive, negative or inconclusive.

Trial registration number

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959020).

Keywords: gastrooesophageal reflux, fundoplication, quality of life, reoperation, patient selection

Strengths and limitations of this study.

  • The study is a single-centre retrospective observational cohort study with prospective follow-up.

  • The study is large but does not include a control group.

  • Patient-reported quality of life is combined with unique national registries allowing for comprehensive follow-up.

  • A combination of relevant outcomes allows for a realistic estimate of the success of anti-reflux surgery.

  • Findings from this study will be used to begin development of a clinical scoring system allowing for better patient selection.

Introduction

Episodic reflux of gastric contests to the oesophagus is physiological but is considered gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) when accompanied by bothersome symptoms, typically heartburn, regurgitation or retrosternal pain. Extra-oesophageal symptoms such as asthma, laryngitis and chronic cough may also occur.1 GORD is a complex and multifaceted disease.2 3 GORD affects 10%–20% of the Western population,4 and has been shown to significantly reduce the quality of life.5 Worldwide, the prevalence of GORD has been increasing.6–9

The treatment of GORD consists of anti-secretory drugs, mainly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), or anti-reflux surgery.10 Laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is considered standard of care in surgical treatment of GORD,11 and with careful patient selection based on thorough preoperative workup12; symptom control and patient satisfaction are high compared with medical therapy.13 14

Despite a tailored approach, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is not without risks of adverse effects, such as disruption of the fundoplication, postfundoplication dysphagia, gas-bloat syndrome and recurrence of GORD, in some cases leading to reoperation.15–20 Furthermore non-surgical factors such as pre-existing anxiety or depression disorders can influence postoperative satisfaction and symptom relief when compared with patients without concomitant psychological disorders.21

Although few studies conclude that medical and surgical treatments of GORD have similar effectiveness,22 23 disease-specific quality of life generally improves after anti-reflux surgery and patient satisfaction is high.13 Depending on type of surgical procedure, the postoperative quality of life, ranges from significantly increased compared with preoperative measurements, to values as found in subjects devoid of GERD.24–34 Approximately 73%–98% are satisfied with their condition after surgery and would choose surgery again.31–33 35–38

Laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is more effective than medical management with regards to short-to-medium length follow-up.14 39 40 Few studies provide a long-term follow-up. After 10 years, the benefits of surgery seem to decrease, but there is still a significant improvement in quality of life compared with preoperative measurements.41 42 Known causes of dissatisfaction are postoperative complication, redo-fundoplication and developing new symptoms such as gas-bloat and dysphagia combined with inadequate symptom relief.43 44

Follow-up of randomised clinical trials has demonstrated that anti-reflux surgery patients use acid suppressing drugs, primarily PPI therapy at postoperative follow-up. However, use have been considered minimal with <20% using PPI therapy,39 and 27%–44% using PPI at a 5-year follow-up.45 A recent register-based study,46 demonstrated a greater number of redeemed prescriptions of PPI after primary anti-reflux surgery, than previously known. Five-year, ten-year and fifteen-year risks of long-term PPI use were 29.4%, 41.1% and 56.6%, respectively. However, this register-based study could not examine whether patients had objective recurrence of reflux disease and also did not examine indication for treatment as well as position of prescribing physician.

From 2001 to 2011, 94.4% of PPI were prescribed in primary care,47 and it is unknown why postfundoplication patients are prescribed PPI. It has previously been demonstrated that the use of acid suppressing drugs after anti-reflux surgery does not necessarily correlate with abnormal acid exposure to the oesophagus.48 49 In general, the use of PPI has increased rapidly in Denmark, rising 243% from 2001 to 2011 despite more restrictive guidelines and changes in reimbursement.47 As the majority of PPIs are prescribed by general practitioners and not by the surgical centres, surgeons have very little knowledge of this aspect of life following anti-reflux surgery.

Our hypothesis is that instead of merely considering a single outcome (eg, reoperation, quality of life or use of pharmacological treatment postoperatively), a multimodal approach involving all these factors as a composite endpoint could provide a more truthful estimate of anti-reflux surgery treatment efficacy.

The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term patient satisfaction and durability of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery in a large Danish cohort using comprehensive multimodal follow-up, and using the results of follow-up, to develop a clinically applicable scoring system usable in selecting patients for anti-reflux surgery.

Methods and analysis

The study is a retrospective cohort study utilising data from patient records and follow-up with patient-reported quality of life as well as registry-based data. The study was commenced on 1 March 2017 and collection of data is expected to be concluded by 1 June 2020.

Study population

The study population consists of all adult patients (age≥18) having undergone laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (n=557) (Nomesco Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP)50: KJBC01) from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2013 in The Department of Surgery, Kolding Hospital, a part of Lillebaelt Hospital Denmark. Kolding Hospital, a part of Lillebaelt Hospital, is a tertiary surgical centre with regards to anti-reflux surgery. It is one of the two centres servicing the region of Southern Denmark and its 1.27 million inhabitants. Patients are identified through Lillebaelt Hospital’s Patient Administrative System. Day of surgery will be considered index date.

Date of follow-up will be the date, patient filled out quality-of-life questionnaires as described below. For patients deceased since index date, permission to include data from electronic patient records and registry-based data has been obtained from The Danish Patient Safety Authority.

All patients will be contacted by the existing Danish national digital communication system (e-Boks) and asked them to participate in the study using an online survey. Patients exempt from using the system, will be contacted by letter with physical questionnaires. Only patients providing informed consent will be included in the study.

Data sources

Data for the study will consist of electronic patient records, follow-up with patient-reported quality-of-life measurements and registry-based data.

Electronic patient records

From the electronic patient records, the following data will be identified: age (years), sex (male/female), body mass index (kg/m2), alcohol consumption (drinks of 12 g ethanol per week), tobacco use (current, former or never-smoker), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)51 and previous abdominal surgery (yes/no).

Preoperative endoscopically verified occurrence of hiatal hernia (yes/no), oesophagitis (yes/no) will be included as well as, from 24 hours pH measurement and oesophageal manometry, reflux index (%), symptom correlation (%) and presence of oesophageal motility disorder (hypomotility, normal motility or hypermotility). Patients preoperative reflux symptoms defined as typical symptoms (yes/no), atypical symptoms (yes/no) and dysphagia (yes/no) are included as are surgical data included duration of surgery (minutes), type of fundoplication (270° Toupet/360° Nissen), length of hospital stay (days), peroperative and postoperative complications registered within 30 days as defined by Clavien-Dindo.52

Quality-of-life follow-up

Patients will be contacted as described above and asked them to answer validated questionnaires regarding disease-specific quality of life, GERD-Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (GERD-HRQL)53 and dysphagia (Dysphagia Handicap Index).54 Patients will also be asked if they are currently taking PPI (yes/no), in what dosage (never/when needed/once a day/two times per day), which symptoms have warranted PPI use (reflux symptoms/dysphagia/gastritis/pre-emptive against peptic ulcer disease/other) and which physician prescribed the drug (general practitioner/surgeon/other doctor at hospital/other specialist in private practice)

Registries

All Danish inhabitants are issued with a civil registry number at birth or at date of moving to Denmark. The civil registry number is a unique personal identifier and is used across a variety of nationwide databases with regards to health, financial and educational data.55 Data from the following nationwide Danish registries will be included in the study:

The National Patient Registry (NPR) on re-operative surgery (NCSP: KJBC00-02, KJBW96-98, KJBB00-01, KJBB96-97) and endoscopy (NCSP: KUJD02-05, KJCA55) during follow-up). NPR contains records of all discharge diagnosis since 1977 and all outpatient diagnosis since 1994.56 57 All performed procedures, including endoscopies and surgeries, are also registered using NCSP.

The National Patient Registry of Psychiatry (NPR-PSYK) on psychiatric diagnoses (ICD-10: F01-F99) in a 2-year period before primary surgery. NPR-PSYK is a sub-registry of NPR and specifically contains records of all psychiatric discharge and outpatient diagnosis from psychiatric departments since 1995.56 57

The Civil Registry on marital status, 90-day mortality after primary surgery and all-cause mortality during follow-up. The Danish Civil Registry maintains complete records of births, deaths, civic status and emigration status of the entire Danish population based on civil registration number.58

The Danish National Prescription Registry on use of anti-reflux medication (ATC: A02BA, A02BC, A02BX), anti-thrombotic treatment (ATC: B01A), non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (ATC: M01A) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) (ATC: N06AB) in a time period beginning 2 years before surgery and ending at end of follow-up. The Danish National Prescription Registry contains information on all sale of prescription drugs including date of sale, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification code, civil registration number of buyer and package volume since 1994.59

Statistics Denmark on educational level at time of primary surgery60 defined by the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED),61 occupation status (employed/unemployed/retired)62 and equivalent annual income in the year preceding primary surgery.63

Primary outcome

Primary outcome of the study is treatment success or failure, with failure defined for each patient as at least one of the following statements being fulfilled:

  1. Having undergone reoperation (NSCP: KJBC00-02, KJBW96-98, KJBB00-01, KJBB96-97) between index date and end of follow-up.

  2. Having filled prescription of >60 defined daily dosages (DDD) per year of PPI redeemed using no less than two scripts in any year between index date and end of follow-up.

  3. Having no measure ≥3 on GERD-HRQL indicating symptoms being bothersome every day.

  4. Having no measure ≥4 on Dysphagia Handicap index indicating symptoms being a moderate problem.

Date of failure will be defined as follows: In case of (1), date of failure will be date of reoperation. In case of (2), date of failure will be date of first prescription filled in the year, where >60 DDD of PPI are filled with at least two scripts. In case of (3) or (4), date of failure will be end of follow-up.

Secondary outcomes

Secondary outcome will be 90-day mortality after primary surgery, rate of reoperation, use of PPI in DDD/year, use of PPI at follow-up (including indication and prescribing physician) and quality of life defined by GERD HRQL, Dysphagia Handicap Index. As a secondary outcome, concordance between failures defined only be register-based data and failures based on quality-of-life data will be examined.

Statistical analysis

Contingency tables

Contingency tables will be created listing:

  1. Patient characteristics: Age (median), sex (male/female), body mass index (kg/m2), alcohol consumption (drinks of 12 g ethanol per week), tobacco use (current, former or never-smoker), ASA score, CCI, preoperative psychiatric diagnoses, use of anti-reflux medication (yes/no), and ulcerogenic medication before surgery (yes/no) and previous abdominal surgery (yes/no), educational level at time of primary surgery (ISCED), occupation status (employed/unemployed/retired) and equivalent annual income in the year preceding primary surgery.

  2. GORD characteristics: Symptom profile: typical symptoms (yes/no), atypical symptoms (yes/no) and dysphagia (yes/no), endoscopically verified occurrence of hiatal hernia (yes/no), oesophagitis (yes/no), measures from 24 hours pH measurement and oesophageal manometry: reflux index (%), symptom correlation (%) and presence of oesophageal motility disorder (hypomotility, normal motility or hypermotility).

  3. Operative characteristics: Duration of surgery (minutes), type of fundoplication (270° Toupet/360° Nissen), length of hospital stay (days), peroperative and postoperative complications registered within 30 days as defined by Clavien-Dindo and 90-day mortality.

  4. Follow-up: Rate of reoperation (%), use of PPI in DDD/year, use of PPI at follow-up (including indication and prescribing physician), GERD-HRQL and Dysphagia Handicap Index.

Categorical and continuous variables will be compared using χ2, Fisher’s Exact test and Kruskal-Wallis test where appropriate, including when comparing secondary outcomes between patients defined as having treatment failure and treatment success. Included patients with missing data from explanatory variables will be omitted from the study.

Cox regression

Cox regression will be performed with treatment success as dependent variable, time to end of follow-up (as defined above) and the following variables will be tested and included as independent variables where appropriate: Age (median), sex (male/female), body mass index (kg/m2), alcohol consumption (drinks of 12 g ethanol per week), tobacco use (current, former or never-smoker), ASA score, CCI, preoperative psychiatric diagnoses, use of anti-reflux medication (yes/no), and ulcerogenic medication before surgery (yes/no) and previous abdominal surgery (yes/no), educational level at time of primary surgery (ISCED), occupation status (employed/unemployed/retired) and equivalent annual income in the year preceding primary surgery, typical symptoms (yes/no), atypical symptoms (yes/no) and dysphagia (yes/no), endoscopically verified occurrence of hiatal hernia (yes/no), oesophagitis (yes/no), measures from 24 hours pH-measurement and oesophageal manometry: reflux index (%), symptom correlation (%) and presence of oesophageal motility disorder (hypomotility, normal motility or hypermotility), type of fundoplication (270° Toupet/360° Nissen).

Proportional hazards assumption will be tested and reported appropriately. Interactions between all included covariates will be investigated and included as interaction terms in the regression analysis if statistically significant.

Clinical scoring system

Using results from the Cox regression and using the methods for validation described by Steyerberg and Vergouwe,64 a clinical scoring system will be developed with the purpose of identifying probability of treatment success based on preoperative known variables. The scoring system will be internally validated using bootstrap resampling. External validation will be the subject of future studies.

Power calculation

Previous studies have shown a reoperation rate of 5% after anti-reflux surgery in Denmark65 and a long-term PPI use of 38.5%.46 Pilot data from our study show that some patients undergo reoperation without long-term PPI use and therefore we assume a composite failure rate of 40%.

For Cox regression analysis, assuming a loss to follow-out leaving 450 patients for analysis, a failure event rate in the study population of 40%, significance level of 0.05 and power of 0.9, the estimated effect size and coefficient demonstrated will be −0.4832.

Data management

Data collected from electronic patient records and patient-reported quality-of-life follow-up will be stored using RedCAP (REDCap 7.4.23, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA) hosted by OPEN—Open Patient Data Explorative Network, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Denmark. Data will be transferred to Statistics Denmark and merged with registry data. All analysis will be performed using STATA V.15 (StataCorp, College Station, Texax, USA) on the servers of Statistics Denmark.

Patient and public involvement statement

The hypothesis of this study was conceived with the help of patients through outpatient clinical follow-up after anti-reflux surgery. Through patient experience of the different postoperative consequences and complications, this study’s composite endpoint involves both reoperation, pharmacological treatment and quality of life.

Patient participation is essential in this follow-up study but does not affect the conduct of the study. Time required for participation has been evaluated by a small sample of patients and was considered minimal.

All patient eligible for inclusion in the study, are offered to be informed of the results, whether they participate or not. The results and their consequence for future patient selection, will be disseminated to the public through media.

Ethics and dissemination

Permission to contact patient for the project has been obtained from The Danish Patient Safety Agency. Each patient must consent to inclusion in the study, including the use of electronic patient records and registry-based data as described above. For deceased patients, permission for use of electronic patient records and registry-based data has been obtained from The Danish Patient Safety Agency. Specific permission for use of registry-based data has been obtained from The Danish Health Data Authority and Statistics Denmark.

The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals regardless of whether these are positive, negative or inconclusive. Two peer-reviewed articles are expected to come from this study: one including the primary results, and another calculating a clinical scoring system based on the results.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments
bmjopen-2019-034257.reviewer_comments.pdf (426.5KB, pdf)
Author's manuscript
bmjopen-2019-034257.draft_revisions.pdf (590.8KB, pdf)

Footnotes

Contributors: JSL: Conception of the work, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the article, critical revision of the article, final approval of the version to be published. KHR: Data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the article, final approval of the version to be published. JD: Data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the article, final approval of the version to be published. KCH: Conception of the work, data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the article, final approval of the version to be published.

Funding: This study is supported by The Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark with a 1-year faculty scholarship, The Research Council at Lillebaelt Hospital with funds for acquiring registry data and The Region of Southern Denmark with a 1-year scholarship.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient consent for publication: Not required.

Ethics approval: The study has been approved and registered at Lillebaelt Hospital according to current Danish Law and has previously been approved by The Danish Data Protection Agency (Permission #17/1942). Generated datasets will be stored on the servers of Statistics Denmark in compliance with Danish and EU regulations on personal health data and will be anonymised after merging, so that the unique personal identifier is removed.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References

  • 1.Madanick RD. Extraesophageal presentations of GERD: where is the science? Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2014;43:105–20. 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Boeckxstaens GE, Rohof WO. Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2014;43:15–25. 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Herregods TVK, Bredenoord AJ, Smout AJPM. Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease: new understanding in a new era. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:1202–13. 10.1111/nmo.12611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, et al. Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 2014;63:871–80. 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hansen JM, Wildner-Christensen M, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms in a Danish population: a prospective follow-up analysis of symptoms, quality of life, and health-care use. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:2394–403. 10.1038/ajg.2009.391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Friedenberg FK, Hanlon A, Vanar V, et al. Trends in gastroesophageal reflux disease as measured by the National ambulatory medical care survey. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:1911–7. 10.1007/s10620-009-1004-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.El-Serag HB. Time trends of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:17–26. 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Richter JE, Rubenstein JH. Presentation and Epidemiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Gastroenterology 2018;154:267–76. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rubenstein JH, Chen JW. Epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2014;43:1–14. 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:308–28. quiz 329 10.1038/ajg.2012.444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fuchs KH, Babic B, Breithaupt W, et al. EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 2014;28:1753–73. 10.1007/s00464-014-3431-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jobe BA, Richter JE, Hoppo T, et al. Preoperative diagnostic workup before antireflux surgery: an evidence and experience-based consensus of the esophageal diagnostic Advisory panel. J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:586–97. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rickenbacher N, Kötter T, Kochen MM, et al. Fundoplication versus medical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2014;28:143–55. 10.1007/s00464-013-3140-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wileman SM, McCann S, Grant AM, et al. Medical versus surgical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD003243 10.1002/14651858.CD003243.pub2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Broeders JA, Sportel IG, Jamieson GG, et al. Impact of ineffective oesophageal motility and wrap type on dysphagia after laparoscopic fundoplication. Br J Surg 2011;98:1414–21. 10.1002/bjs.7573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bunting DM, Szczebiot L, Peyser PM. Pain after laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014;96:95–100. 10.1308/003588414X13824511649256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Furnée EJB, Draaisma WA, Broeders IAMJ, et al. Surgical reintervention after failed antireflux surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:1539–49. 10.1007/s11605-009-0873-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hunter JG, Swanstrom L, Waring JP. Dysphagia after laparoscopic antireflux surgery. The impact of operative technique. Ann Surg 1996;224:51–7. 10.1097/00000658-199607000-00008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Iqbal A, Awad Z, Simkins J, et al. Repair of 104 failed anti-reflux operations. Ann Surg 2006;244:42–51. 10.1097/01.sla.0000217627.59289.eb [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Patterson EJ, Herron DM, Hansen PD, et al. Effect of an esophageal bougie on the incidence of dysphagia following Nissen fundoplication: a prospective, blinded, randomized clinical trial. Arch Surg 2000;135:1052–5. 10.1001/archsurg.135.9.1055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Velanovich V, Karmy-Jones R. Psychiatric disorders affect outcomes of antireflux operations for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 2001;15:171–5. 10.1007/s004640000318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Frazzoni M, Grisendi A, Lanzani A, et al. Laparoscopic fundoplication versus lansoprazole for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A pH-metric comparison. Dig Liver Dis 2002;34:99–104. 10.1016/S1590-8658(02)80237-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lundell L, Attwood S, Ell C, et al. Comparing laparoscopic antireflux surgery with esomeprazole in the management of patients with chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a 3-year interim analysis of the Lotus trial. Gut 2008;57:1207–13. 10.1136/gut.2008.148833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Anvari M, Allen C, Marshall J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication versus proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): 3-year outcomes. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2547–54. 10.1007/s00464-011-1585-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Blazejczyk K, Hoene A, Glitsch A, et al. Evaluation of short-term and long-term results after laparoscopic antireflux surgery: esophageal manometry and 24-h pH monitoring versus quality of life index. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2013;398:1107–14. 10.1007/s00423-013-1118-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Youssef YK, Shekar N, Lutfi R, et al. Long-Term evaluation of patient satisfaction and reflux symptoms after laparoscopic fundoplication with Collis gastroplasty. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1702–5. 10.1007/s00464-006-0048-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fernando HC, Luketich JD, Christie NA, et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic Toupet compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Surg Endosc 2002;16:905–8. 10.1007/s004640080007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Schweiger UM, et al. Quality of life and symptomatic outcome three to five years after laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with impaired esophageal motility. Am J Surg 2002;183:110–6. 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00868-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kamolz T, Granderath FA, Bammer T, et al. Dysphagia and quality of life after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in patients with and without prosthetic reinforcement of the hiatal crura. Surg Endosc 2002;16:572–7. 10.1007/s00464-001-9136-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kamolz T, Granderath FA, Schweiger UM, et al. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in patients with nonerosive reflux disease. long-term quality-of-life assessment and surgical outcome. Surg Endosc 2005;19:494–500. 10.1007/s00464-003-9267-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pessaux P, Arnaud J-P, Delattre J-F, et al. Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: five-year results and beyond in 1340 patients. Arch Surg 2005;140:946–51. 10.1001/archsurg.140.10.946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rosenthal R, Peterli R, Guenin MO, et al. Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: long-term outcomes and quality of life. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2006;16:557–61. 10.1089/lap.2006.16.557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sgromo B, Irvine LA, Cuschieri A, et al. Long-Term comparative outcome between laparoscopic total Nissen and Toupet fundoplication: symptomatic relief, patient satisfaction and quality of life. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1048–53. 10.1007/s00464-007-9671-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Streets CG, DeMeester SR, DeMeester TR, et al. Excellent quality of life after Nissen fundoplication depends on successful elimination of reflux symptoms and not the invasiveness of the surgical approach. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:1019–25. 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03898-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Schweiger UM, et al. Quality of life, surgical outcome, and patient satisfaction three years after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. World J Surg 2002;26:1234–8. 10.1007/s00268-002-6416-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Granderath UM, et al. Gas-related symptoms after laparoscopic 360 degrees Nissen or 270 degrees Toupet fundoplication in gastrooesophageal reflux disease patients with aerophagia as comorbidity. Dig Liver Dis 2007;39:312–8. 10.1016/j.dld.2006.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fein M, Bueter M, Thalheimer A, et al. Ten-Year outcome of laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1893–9. 10.1007/s11605-008-0659-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gee DW, Andreoli MT, Rattner DW. Measuring the effectiveness of laparoscopic antireflux surgery: long-term results. Arch Surg 2008;143:482–7. 10.1001/archsurg.143.5.482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Grant AM, Cotton SC, Boachie C, et al. Minimal access surgery compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: five year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial (reflux). BMJ 2013;346:f1908 10.1136/bmj.f1908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ciovica R, Gadenstätter M, Klingler A, et al. Quality of life in GERD patients: medical treatment versus antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:934–9. 10.1016/j.gassur.2006.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dallemagne B, Weerts J, Markiewicz S, et al. Clinical results of laparoscopic fundoplication at ten years after surgery. Surg Endosc 2006;20:159–65. 10.1007/s00464-005-0174-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kellokumpu I, Voutilainen M, Haglund C, et al. Quality of life following laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: assessing short-term and long-term outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:3810–8. 10.3748/wjg.v19.i24.3810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Humphries LA, Hernandez JM, Clark W, et al. Causes of dissatisfaction after laparoscopic fundoplication: the impact of new symptoms, recurrent symptoms, and the patient experience. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1537–45. 10.1007/s00464-012-2611-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Neuvonen P, Iivonen M, Sintonen H, et al. Health-Related quality of life 10 years after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication-results of a community-based Hospital. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2014;24:134–8. 10.1089/lap.2013.0479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Galmiche J-P, Hatlebakk J, Attwood S, et al. Laparoscopic antireflux surgery vs esomeprazole treatment for chronic GERD: the Lotus randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011;305:1969–77. 10.1001/jama.2011.626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lødrup A, Pottegård A, Hallas J, et al. Use of proton pump inhibitors after antireflux surgery: a nationwide register-based follow-up study. Gut 2014;63:1544–9. 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Haastrup P, Paulsen MS, Zwisler JE, et al. Rapidly increasing prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in primary care despite interventions: a nationwide observational study. Eur J Gen Pract 2014;20:290–3. 10.3109/13814788.2014.905535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Draaisma WA, Rijnhart-de Jong HG, Broeders IAMJ, et al. Five-Year subjective and objective results of laparoscopic and conventional Nissen fundoplication: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 2006;244:34–41. 10.1097/01.sla.0000217667.55939.64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lord RVN, Kaminski A, Oberg S, et al. Absence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a majority of patients taking acid suppression medications after Nissen fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6:3–10. 10.1016/S1091-255X(01)00031-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Nomesco NM-SC, Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee . NOMESCO classification of surgical procedures (NCSP), version 1.16. Copenhagen: NOMESCO, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge Abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:676–82. 10.1093/aje/kwq433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187–96. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Velanovich V. The development of the GERD-HRQL symptom severity instrument. Dis Esophagus 2007;20:130–4. 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00658.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Silbergleit AK, Schultz L, Jacobson BH, et al. The dysphagia handicap index: development and validation. Dysphagia 2012;27:46–52. 10.1007/s00455-011-9336-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Adelborg K, et al. The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: from health care contacts to database records. Clin Epidemiol 2019;11:563–91. 10.2147/CLEP.S179083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish national patient register. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:30–3. 10.1177/1403494811401482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Sandegaard JL, et al. The Danish national patient registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015;7:449–90. 10.2147/CLEP.S91125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT. The Danish civil registration system as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2014;29:541–9. 10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pottegård A, Schmidt SAJ, Wallach-Kildemoes H, et al. Data resource profile: the Danish national prescription registry. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:798 10.1093/ije/dyw213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Jensen VM, Rasmussen AW. Danish education registers. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:91–4. 10.1177/1403494810394715 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.UNESCO Institute for Statistics International standard classification of education (ISCED 2011), 2011. Available: http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/international-standard-classification-education-isced
  • 62.Petersson F, Baadsgaard M, Thygesen LC. Danish registers on personal labour market affiliation. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:95–8. 10.1177/1403494811408483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Baadsgaard M, Quitzau J. Danish registers on personal income and transfer payments. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:103–5. 10.1177/1403494811405098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1925–31. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Funch-Jensen P, Bendixen A, Iversen MG, et al. Complications and frequency of redo antireflux surgery in Denmark: a nationwide study, 1997-2005. Surg Endosc 2008;22:627–30. 10.1007/s00464-007-9705-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Reviewer comments
bmjopen-2019-034257.reviewer_comments.pdf (426.5KB, pdf)
Author's manuscript
bmjopen-2019-034257.draft_revisions.pdf (590.8KB, pdf)

Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES