A Randomized Multiinstitution Comparison of the Laparoscopic Nissen and Hill Repairs

Background Laparoscopic Hill repair (LHR) and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) are established surgical antireflux procedures but have never been compared in a prospective trial. This trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of LHR against the gold-standard LNF. Methods Patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux from two esophageal centers were randomly assigned and blinded from 2003 to 2007. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included two quality of life metrics—Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia, and Dysphagia—as well as endoscopy, video esophogram, manometry, and pH testing. Results Of 121 patients who consented to the trial, 102 underwent surgery; 46 LNF and 56 LHR were performed, with a mean follow-up of 12 months. Postoperatively, the DeMeester score normalized for both repairs, with no difference between them (LNF 6.8, LHR 11.1, p = 0.26). Postoperative medication use was 4%, and the groups were equivalent. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure increased significantly for LNF (14.93 to 24.10, p = 0.001) but not for LHR (19.91 to 20.25, p = 0.87). Quality of life scores improved significantly for both repairs (LNF 3.77 to 6.65; LHR 3.84 to 6.54, p p = 0.99). Dysphagia scores preoperative/postoperative were LNF 33.88 to 38.33 and LHR 35.44 to 38.72, and were equivalent postoperatively ( p = 0.94). Two LNF and two LHR required reoperation for failed repair. Conclusions The LHR and the LNF both yield excellent and equivalent results for uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux at 12 months. Their mechanisms of action may be different.