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.     

Utilization of common inflammatory markers in new, symptomatic, primary care outpatients based on their cost-effectiveness.

Few studies have demonstrated the optimal usage of common inflammatory markers, alone or in combination, based on the cost-effectiveness. We analyzed the yield and cost of C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), sialic acid, and protein fractionation in 177 new primary care outpatients with inflammation-related symptoms. A useful result (UR) was assigned if tests contributed to a change in physician's diagnosis or decision-making. Costs of testing were calculated based on either single or simultaneous measurement. Five inflammatory markers generated 147 URs in 123 patients. CRP showed the best contribution to generation of UR, followed by sialic acid, protein fractionation, WBC, and ESR. CRP demonstrated poor correlation with WBC (r = 0.458), while sialic acid strongly correlated with total absolute amount of alpha1 and alpha2 fractions in protein fractionation (r = 0.855) and moderately with ESR (r = 0.651). The combination of CRP and WBC produced the best cost-effectiveness at a cost of Yen 1169 (US dollars 9.6 or Euro 9.7)/additional UR against CRP testing alone. Sialic acid, an automated multichannel analyzer-based test, demonstrated the favorable cost-effectiveness over ESR or protein fractionation when combined with CRP (and WBC). Our results indicate that the optimal usage of these inflammatory markers should involve careful cost-effectiveness considerations.