Esophageal Calibration with Soft Orogasrtric Tube During Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication may Reduce Postoperative Transient Dysphagia

Gastroesophageal reflux is the most common benign disorder of the esophagus and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication has become the standard surgical treatment for its treatment. In our area, where the use of bougie calibration is debatable, postoperative dysphagia is encountered often after this surgery although it is usually not permanent. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of using a soft silicone tube 39 F in diameter for esophageal calibration during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication on the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. We divided cases scheduled to undergo laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication between January 2009 and November 2010 into two groups, each consisting 25 patients. Esophageal calibration with a 39 F silicone orogastric tube was used for the first group while there was no operative calibration in the second group. The surgical duration was recorded; the presence and severity of the postoperative dysphagia was calculated by using a dysphagia severity scoring system during the 1-year postoperative follow-up. The dysphagia severity scores were significantly lower in group 1 than group 2 on the postoperative second day and at the end of the first week and first month. We did not find a significant difference at the end of the 6-month and first year. There was also no significant difference regarding surgery duration. The use of a soft orogastric tube 39 F in diameter for esophagus calibration during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication has significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative transient dysphagia without affecting the duration of surgery. Although dysphagia gradually resolves in the majority of patients, a safe and easy calibration method for its prevention is worth developing, and we believe that the use of our method in larger series could be beneficial.     

Management of asthma in patients supervised by primary care physicians or by specialists.

French asthma patients may be supervised by general practitioners (GPs) and/or specialists. Therefore, this study examined asthma management in patients exclusively supervised by specialists (SPE), GPs, (GP) and both (GP+SPE group), and compared the findings. Asthma patients were consecutively recruited in 348 pharmacies. Each patient completed a questionnaire providing data on personal characteristics, asthma management, perception of disease and asthma supervision. Asthma control was measured using the Asthma Control Test. Questionnaires were linked to computerised records of medications which had been dispensed before inclusion in the study. From the 1,256 patients (mean age = 36.1 yrs, 54.3% females), 11.4, 36.6, and 52.0% were placed in the SPE, GP, and GP+SPE groups, respectively. During the previous 4 weeks, most patients in the SPE group were properly controlled (52.2 versus 26.4 and 21.5% in GP and GP+SPE groups, respectively). The SPE group made more use of fixed combinations of long-acting beta agonist and inhaled corticosteroid, while receiving less short-acting beta agonists, antitussives and antibiotics. Striking differences in symptoms and asthma management were observed according to the type of asthma supervision. The current results strongly support the need to improve the management of asthma in primary care, and the coordination of care between general practitioners and specialists.