Posterior Partial Fundoplications: Indications and Technique



Fig. 10.1
Creation of Toupet fundoplication with key posterior gastropexy sutures and right fundoplication sutures to the esophagus. Left sided esophagopexy fundoplication sutures not shown



Various types of partial fundoplications were described throughout the mid twentieth century, all having the goal of reducing postoperative dysphagia, gas bloat, and other side-effects which were common in patients having undergone a complete fundoplication. Initially, the partial wraps gained popularity more in the European countries, while the Nissen (complete 360° fundoplication) held international popularity. Although impossible to know exact numbers, it is generally thought that a Nissen procedure remains the most popular treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) worldwide with partial fundoplications as a primary antireflux surgery, being much less common. Most surgeons perform partial fundoplications only for specific indications such as for patients with severe esophageal motility disorders or for achalasia following myotomy. However, there seems to be a trend in the literature suggesting that partial fundoplications are being performed for an expanded list of indications. In this chapter, we review the indications, technique, and outcomes for the PPF.



Indications


A comprehensive description of the indications for antireflux surgery appears elsewhere in this textbook, and a review of PPF versus other types of fundoplication in specific situations will be discussed later in this chapter. Briefly, as with other types of fundoplications, including the Nissen, PPF is indicated in patients with documented GERD or after reduction of a hiatal hernia (Table 10.1). Most surgeons give preference to a partial fundoplication over a complete wrap after a Heller myotomy performed for achalasia, or a myotomy and fundoplication after resection of an epiphrenic diverticulum. Additionally, patients whom have had a previous gastric resection or who have a tubular stomach may benefit from partial wraps due to lack of sufficient fundus to perform a full 360° wrap.


Table 10.1
Fundoplication indications





















Indications for complete or partial fundoplication

GERD

After reduction of hiatal hernia

Indications that favor partial fundoplication

Achalasia, after myotomy

Epiphrenic diverticulum, after myotomy

Previous gastric resection

Tubular stomach


Patients with Esophageal Dysmotility


It is widely taught that partial fundoplication is superior to complete wraps in patients with severe esophageal dysmotility. To investigate, a surgical group in the UK stratified 127 reflux patients into effective and ineffective esophageal motility groups based on preoperative manometry, followed by randomization for either a Nissen or PPF [3]. At 1 year after surgery, patients who had a Nissen fundoplication had increased dysphagia scores and chest pain when eating compared to those who had a PPF. Interestingly, after the 1-year follow-up, they reported no difference in dysphagia, reflux related symptoms, or chest pain between the normal and abnormal motility patient groups, regardless of the type of fundoplication. Furthermore, they reported that there were no significant differences in dysphagia rates between effective and ineffective motility groups who had a total fundoplication (28.6 vs. 16.7 %, p = 0.361). Similarly, Shaw and colleagues conducted a randomized, prospective trial of 100 patients with 5-year follow-up, and reported that preoperative esophageal dysmotility had no influence over the outcome regardless of a complete or partial fundoplication [4]. Other randomized trials have demonstrated similar results [57]. Finally, Fein and Seyfried reviewed nine randomized trials comparing laparoscopic Nissen with various partial fundoplications. They concluded the preoperative non-specific esophageal motility disorders have no effect on the results of antireflux surgery no matter the type of fundoplication [8]. Although this goes against common surgical teaching, we conclude that the literature does not support an increased role of partial fundoplication in most cases of preoperative dysmotility (“tailored approach”).


Surgical Technique


The common surgical goals of any fundoplication are to augment the lower esophageal sphincter with a gastric collar, restoration of the angle of His and the abdominal segment of esophagus, and repair of a hiatal hernia if present (Table 10.2). When performed correctly, the fundoplication patient will have limited dysphagia, minimal reflux symptoms, and permanent repair. Many variations have been described since Toupet’s original description of an 180° posterior wrap. This original wrap, which did not close the hiatus or mobilize the fundus, had a high failure rate both from wrap herniation and incomplete reflux control. The “Toupet” was subsequently modified to make it more permanent and a better reflux barrier. Major variations included increasing the degree of fundic wrap and closing the hiatus to prevent mediastinal migration. Today the most common type of partial posterior wrap is a 270° to 340° wrap with posterior hiatal closure, which will be described below [9].


Table 10.2
Key steps in partial posterior fundoplication
















Technique key points

Optimal laparoscopic position is supine with steep reverse Trendelenburg

Circumferential hiatal dissection in a clockwise fashion starting with the right crus and avoiding the vagus nerves to maximize intra-abdominal esophageal length

Fundoplication after division of short gastric vessels

Posterior and anterior gastropexy


Open Verses Laparoscopic


Minimally invasive surgery has been described as the greatest surgical advance of the last century. Due to difficult hiatal exposure during a laparotomy, gastric fundoplication was an early candidate to benefit from laparoscopy. Since its introduction by Dallemagne et al. in 1991, the question of the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundoplication has been irrefutably answered. To date, at least 19 trials comparing open verses laparoscopic fundoplication have been performed, 12 of which were randomized-controlled trials and recently compiled into a systematic review and meta-analysis. The results clearly showed that patients whom had undergone laparoscopic fundoplication were discharged from the hospital ~2.5 days earlier, returned to normal activity 8 days earlier, and had a 65 % reduction in the relative odds of postoperative complications compared with patients having undergone an open technique [10]. On follow-up, either by questionnaire or by pH monitor, both cohorts had a similar decrease in GERD symptomatology. Importantly, despite a decreased complication rate and equal treatment failure rate, the laparoscopic cohort had a significantly higher incidence of repeat surgery, perhaps reflecting the patient’s willingness to undergo a better-tolerated operation rather than a higher absolute failure rate.

A few investigators have looked specifically at laparoscopic verses open PPF fundoplication [11]. In a prospective randomized trial of nearly 200 patients, a laparoscopic approach decreased hospital length of stay and overall complication rate, despite having a similarly decreased patient-assessed symptom score on 1 and 3-year follow-up. Dissimilar to the above-mentioned meta-analysis, however, there were no differences between reoperation rates, although for the open cohort, the indication was most commonly incisional hernia, while for the laparoscopic group it was for recurrent disease.

Taken together, the literature supports laparoscopic fundoplication as a safe and effective alternative to an open technique and we recommend it in the majority of patients. Remaining indications for performing an open fundoplication include inexperience with laparoscopy, intra-operative complications that are unable to be repaired using laparoscopic measures, and patient preference. Some authorities recommend an open technique when performing a reoperation after a previous fundoplication, especially if the original operation was performed in an open fashion. Others have reported good results using laparoscopy on reoperation and thus this question is best left up to the surgeon and dependent on their laparoscopic experience.


Laparoscopic PPF


Preparation begins prior to the day of surgery. Patients with a profound esophageal motility disorder, such as achalasia, should be placed on a clear liquid diet 24 h prior to surgery. Good communication with the anesthesiologist is important to avoid a potentially lethal aspiration event as most patients with GERD or poor esophageal motility are at high-risk for aspiration and therefore rapid sequence induction and intubation is recommended.


Patient Position


The patient is positioned on the operating room table in supine position. The patient’s arms can either be tucked or outstretched to ~80° and secured on padded arm boards. We prefer to abduct the legs on flat-padded split leg boards to minimize the possibility of neurovascular injury. The patient should be well secured in order to achieve steep reverse trendelenburg, which will help in displacing organs from the hiatus. The surgeon can either stand between the patient’s legs, or on the patient’s left depending on preference. When only one assistant is available, we find that it is best for the surgeon to stand on the patient’s left with the first assistant in between the patient’s legs (Fig. 10.2).

A272838_1_En_10_Fig2_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.2
Laparoscopic positioning


Laparoscopic Port Sites


The initial port site is placed 12 cm below the xiphoid process and 2.5 cm to the left of the midline using either an open or closed technique of entry as per surgeon preference (Fig. 10.3). It is important that this port not be placed too inferior or the mediastinum may be difficult to visualize. This initial port is typically a 10–12 mm for entry of a 10 mm 30–45° laparoscope. We prefer a 10 mm scope for optimal visualization. After entry, the abdomen is explored looking for iatrogenic injury and presence of intra-abdominal adhesions that would hinder subsequent port placement. A 5 mm port is then placed 15 cm from the xiphoid and 2–3 cm inferior to the right costal margin for the liver retractor. The left lobe of the liver is retracted anteriorly using the preferred liver retractor of the surgeon and secured to the operating room table. A 5 mm port is then placed between the first two ports and used by the assistant to retract for the surgeon. With the liver retracted, a 5 mm port is placed just inferior to the xiphoid and will serve as the surgeon’s left hand. Lastly, a 5 mm port is placed 10 cm from the xiphoid and 3 cm below the left costal margin for the surgeon’s right hand.

A272838_1_En_10_Fig3_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.3
Laparoscopic port site positioning


Hiatal Dissection


Using an atraumatic grasper, the assistant surgeon grasps the anterior epigastric fat pad and retracts the stomach downward and towards the left lower quadrant. The surgeon divides the hepatogastric ligament along the edge of the caudate lobe, preserving the nerve of Laterjet, and any aberrant left hepatic arteries if present, using ultrasonic or bipolar shears (Fig. 10.4). If a giant paraesophageal hernia is present, it is often better to gain access to the mediastinum anteriorly in order to avoid structures, such as the left gastric artery, that may be herniated just inside the right crus. The right anterior phrenoesophageal ligament and peritoneum overlying the anterior abdominal esophagus is fully divided staying superficial in order to avoid injury to the anterior vagus and esophagus. Careful mediastinal dissection is then performed by sweeping the esophagus away from the right crus. At this point, it is important to identify the posterior vagus and sweep it towards the esophagus, often best achieved by the surgeon retracting the right crus laterally with his or her left hand (Fig. 10.5). The left hand can then elevate the anterior crus and the mediastinal dissection is continued circumferentially in a clockwise fashion until the left and right crural limbs are freed anteriorly and posteriorly. This mediastinal dissection is performed with a combination of sharp and blunt dissection until 3–4 cm of tension-free intra-abdominal esophagus is freed. Meticulous attention is needed to avoid inadvertent vagal or esophageal injury. The hiatus is then closed posteriorly with interrupted permanent suture. Hiatal closure can be tight when repairing a large hiatal or paraesophageal hernia, or preferably somewhat lax when performing a fundoplication, particularly in a patient with a motility disorder such as achalasia.

A272838_1_En_10_Fig4_HTML.jpg


Fig. 10.4
Division of the gastrohepatic ligament


A272838_1_En_10_Fig5_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.5
Retrogastroesophageal junction dissection with sweep of vagus nerve anteriorly with the esophagus


Fundoplication


The short gastric vessels are ligated along the upper third of the gastric fundus (from the inferior pole of the spleen proximally, or approximately 10–15 cm inferior to the Angle of His) allowing free rotation of the gastric fundus without tension. A retroesophageal window is created and the posterior wall of the fundus is grasped and dragged behind the posterior vagus and posterior distal esophagus. A “shoeshine” maneuver is performed to confirm that no twisting of the esophagus is present (Fig. 10.6). If the fundus is grasped and pulled correctly, it should lie to the right of the esophagus without retracting back when let free. The assistant now grasps the gastric fundus retracting it towards midline, which in turn retracts the esophagus, exposing the posterior hiatus (Fig. 10.7). A posterior gastropexy is performed by suturing the posterior fundus to the inferior crus with one to three interrupted permanent sutures. A bougie is then placed carefully and under laparoscopic vision if desired. The size of the bougie will vary based on the diameter of the esophagus and whether or not a myotomy has been performed; with a myotomy, we tend to use a smaller bougie (48–52Fr), whereas without a myotomy, a larger size bougie (54–60Fr) can be placed based on visual estimation of the patient’s esophagus and degree of dysmotility or reflux. Two coronal stitches are placed at 10 and 2 o’clock securing the shoulders of the fundus to the diaphragmatic hiatus. Next, two to three interrupted sutures are placed from the esophagus to the left and right fundus (Fig. 10.8). If a myotomy has been performed, the edges of the fundus should be sutured to the muscle edges which will in turn splay the myotomy open.

A272838_1_En_10_Fig6_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.6
“Shoe shine” maneuver


A272838_1_En_10_Fig7_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.7
Posterior gastropexy sutures with crural closure


A272838_1_En_10_Fig8_HTML.gif


Fig. 10.8
Completed posterior partial fundoplication


Open PPF Technique



Patient Position


The patient is positioned on the operating room table in supine position, with their arms tucked. After intubation and induction of general anesthesia, a urinary catheter is placed and an upper midline incision is made from subxiphoid to supraumbilical. The surgeon may use any retraction system they prefer with the goal of optimal exposure by retraction of the xiphoid and inferior ribcage forward. As with any laparotomy, retraction is needed to separate the abdominal fascia and wound edges. Raising the head of the bed 20°–30° helps to cause the small intestine and omentum to fall inferiorly creating maximum hiatal exposure.


Technique


Hiatal dissection begins by retraction of the left lobe of the liver forward to expose the esophageal hiatus. At this point it may be necessary to divide the left triangular ligament of the liver. The phrenoesophageal ligament, comprising a superficial peritoneum and deeper fibrous layer is incised circumferentially around the esophagus to display the edges of the two hiatal pillars. Attention to detail is required during this dissection to prevent injury to the left and right vagal trunks that are found anteriorly and posteriorly respectively. Additionally, the surgeon must be meticulous during this dissection to avoid iatrogenic esophageal perforation.

When the distal esophagus is thoroughly freed from its surroundings, umbilical tape or a Penrose drain is placed behind and around the esophagus to retract it anteriorly exposing the posterior hiatus. The stomach is retracted inferiorly to expose 5–6 cm of distal esophagus. The open fundoplication is performed in a similar fashion to the laparoscopic technique (see previous).

In the original description, Toupet did not include a hiatal repair or closure, but if the hiatal orifice remains too large after the technique described above is performed, we recommend placing sutures across the hiatus to prevent slippage of the fundus.


Robotic Fundoplication


Robotic surgery is the newest commonly performed minimally invasive procedure and has been increasingly utilized in the urologic and gynecologic literature. Currently, no clear indications exist in general surgery for robotic surgery. The precise manipulations and improved dexterity afforded by the use of the robot have intrigued general surgeons and have been applied to a diverse range of operations ranging from pelvic dissections to thyroid surgery.

Due to the complexity of performing a laparoscopic fundoplication, this procedure is an easy target for a novel technique. In a pilot study of six patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic PPF, Wykypiel and colleagues reported no intra-operative complications, and no reflux symptoms or dysphagia on 6-month follow-up [12]. Since this early experience, seven randomized trials have been performed comparing robotic versus laparoscopic fundoplication. A recent meta-analysis and systematic review of these randomized trials confirmed no significant difference between the robotic group and laparoscopic group for hospital stay, operative complications, postoperative dysphagia, or postoperative GERD symptom relief, although there was significant increase in operative time for those patients in the robotic cohort (weighted mean difference = 4.15; 95 % CI = 1.93–6.38; p < 0.001) [13]. As the authors suggest, although these results are limited by small sample sizes and short follow-up, it appears that robotic surgery provides no additional benefit over laparoscopic surgery and is associated with increased operative time and cost.


Postoperative Management


After the operation is completed, the patient is brought to the recovery room, and then admitted to the surgical floor. Postoperatively, the patient takes nothing per mouth and is started on intravenous fluids and narcotics/anti-emetics as needed. For patients whom had undergone laparoscopic surgery their diet can usually be advanced later the day of surgery when post anesthesia nausea has resolved. Typically, the diet is advanced to a liquid diet for one meal, and then pureed diet for 2 weeks. We then advance from pureed to a soft diet for several days until returning to a general diet. Generally, laparoscopic patients are discharged on postoperative day 1, while patients having undergone an open technique require 2–3 more days of in-hospital recovery. We advise patients to avoid retching by taking anti-emetics at the first sign of nausea. Though most important in the first 6 months after surgery, we recommend life-long avoidance by pre-emptive antiemetic use.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 30, 2017 | Posted by in GASTROENTEROLOGY | Comments Off on Posterior Partial Fundoplications: Indications and Technique

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access