Novel Interdisciplinary Approach to GERD: Concomitant Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair with Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is an endoscopic alternative for the treatment of GERD. However, TIF does not address the hiatal hernia (HH). We present a novel approach with a laparoscopic HH repair followed by same-session TIF, coined concomitant transoral incisionless fundoplication (cTIF). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of cTIF in a collaborative approach between Gastroenterology and surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with confirmed GERD and >2 cm HH who underwent cTIF between 2018 and 2020 were included. Symptoms were assessed using the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Index, and the Reflux Symptom Index pre and post cTIF. One-way ANOVA and paired samples t-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent cTIF (53% were men, mean age was 59.3 years) with 100% technical success. Mean ± SD HH measurement on endoscopy was 2.9 ± 1.5 cm. Scores on Reflux Disease Questionnaire for symptom frequency and symptom severity improved significantly from before to 6 months after cTIF (17.4 to 4.72; p < 0.01 and 16.7 to 4.56; p < 0.05, respectively). According to the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Index, significant decreases were seen post cTIF in heartburn (23.26 to 7.37; p < 0.01) and regurgitation (14.26 to 0; p = 0.05). Reflux Symptom Index similarly decreased after cTIF (17.7 to 8.1 post cTIF; p < 0.01). Mean DeMeester score decreased from 43.7 to 4.9 and acid exposure time decreased from 12.7% to 1.28% post cTIF (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: We present a novel multidisciplinary approach to GERD using a combined endoscopic and surgical approach with close collaboration between Gastroenterology and surgery. Our results suggest that cTIF is safe and effective in reducing reflux symptoms in a large spectrum of GERD patients.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional EMR (CEMR) for the resection of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare UEMR and CEMR for the resection of colorectal polyps with respect to efficacy and safety. METHODS: A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for studies that were published until May 2020. Only studies that compared the resection of colorectal polyps using UEMR with CEMR were included. Outcomes examined included rates of en bloc resection, recurrence, postprocedure bleeding, perforation, and resection time. RESULTS: Seven studies totaling 1237 polyps were included: 614 polyps were resected with UEMR and 623 polyps with CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of overall en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.39; P < .001; I2 = 38%), with subgroup analysis showing a significant increase in the rates of en bloc resection in polyps ≥20 mm (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14; P = .02; I2 = 44%) but not in polyps <20 mm (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, .65-1.76; P = .80; I2 = 27%), and with a significant reduction in the rate of recurrence (OR, .30; 95% CI, .16-.57; P = .0002; I2 = 0%), again driven by improvements in polyps ≥20 mm. There was no significant difference in postprocedure bleeding (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, .57-2.17; P = .76; I2 = 0%) or perforation (OR, .72; 95% CI, .19-2.83; P = .64; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that UEMR is a safe and efficacious alternative to CEMR. With appropriate training, UEMR may be strongly considered as a first-line option for resection of colorectal polyps.