ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07809620Updated Sep 22, 2026

Preoperative Predictors of Symptom Improvement After Laparoscopic Fundoplication

An observational study in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Hiatal Hernia and Esophagitis, Peptic, sponsored by Minia University. Recruiting at 1 site in Egypt. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-22.

Sponsored by Minia University · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Sep 2026; still recruiting 1 month later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
470
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Laparoscopic fundoplication is the standard operation for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that does not respond adequately to medication, and it relieves reflux symptoms in most patients who are carefully selected for it. Even so, published studies consistently report that between 10% and 30% of patients continue to have symptoms afterwards, develop troublesome side effects such as difficulty swallowing or bloating, or are dissatisfied with the result. Much of this disappointment reflects who was chosen for surgery rather than any technical fault in the operation: patients whose symptoms are not actually caused by acid reflux predictably gain little benefit from a well-constructed wrap.

Individual factors measured before surgery, such as the amount of acid in the esophagus, the link between symptoms and reflux episodes, the type of symptoms, and how well the patient responded to acid-suppressing tablets, have each been linked to the outcome. However, most of that evidence comes from retrospective studies that used different definitions of success, so it is still unclear which factors matter independently once they are considered together.

This study will follow adults with objectively confirmed GERD who are scheduled for elective laparoscopic fundoplication at Minia University Hospitals. Before surgery, every participant undergoes the same standardized assessment: upper endoscopy, 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring off acid-suppressing medication, high-resolution manometry, measurement of height and weight, and questionnaires covering reflux symptoms, anxiety, depression and physical symptom burden. Participants then complete validated symptom questionnaires again at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the operation.

The main measure of success is "responder status" at 12 months, meaning at least a 50% improvement in the total GERD-HRQL symptom score compared with before surgery, supported by the patient's own rating of satisfaction. The investigators will analyze ten factors recorded before surgery to determine which of them independently predict this outcome, and will use the results to build and test a prediction tool that surgeons can apply during preoperative counseling.

The study does not assign any treatment. The type of wrap performed, either a complete (Nissen) or a partial posterior (Toupet) fundoplication, is chosen by the treating surgeon according to a prespecified rule based on esophageal motility, exactly as in routine practice. Taking part involves completing questionnaires and attending the usual follow-up appointments, and adds no additional procedural risk.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Gastroesophageal reflux disease affects an estimated 10-20% of adults in Western populations, with a rising prevalence elsewhere. Most patients are controlled with lifestyle measures and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, but a substantial subgroup has medically refractory disease, troublesome regurgitation, PPI dependence with concerns about long-term use, or a large hiatal hernia. For these patients, laparoscopic fundoplication remains the most durable and widely performed antireflux operation, and it normalizes esophageal acid exposure in the majority of appropriately selected patients.

Published series nonetheless report that a meaningful minority, commonly 10-30%, experience persistent or recurrent symptoms, troublesome side effects such as dysphagia or gas-bloat, or dissatisfaction with the outcome. Suboptimal results are frequently attributable not to technical failure but to patient selection. Operating on patients whose symptoms are not driven by acid reflux, for example those with functional heartburn or esophageal hypersensitivity, predictably yields poor symptomatic benefit despite a technically sound wrap.

Several preoperative factors have been individually associated with symptomatic outcome. Objective pathological acid exposure, a positive symptom-reflux association, predominance of typical symptoms, and a good preoperative response to acid-suppressive therapy have each been linked to favorable results. Atypical or extra-esophageal symptom predominance, normal acid exposure, high psychological burden, obesity, and certain motility abnormalities have been associated with less benefit. Much of this evidence derives from heterogeneous retrospective series with differing outcome definitions, and the independent contribution of each factor, when modeled together and adjusted for confounding within a contemporary diagnostic framework (Lyon Consensus; Chicago Classification version 4.0), remains incompletely defined.

OBJECTIVES Primary objective: to identify the independent preoperative predictors of clinically significant symptom improvement 12 months after laparoscopic fundoplication.

Secondary objectives: to estimate the proportion of patients achieving clinically significant symptom improvement at 12 months; to identify preoperative predictors of secondary outcomes including discontinuation of antisecretory therapy, resolution of regurgitation, and postoperative dysphagia and gas-bloat symptoms; to develop and internally validate a multivariable prediction model and an optional simplified risk score; and to examine the concordance between subjective symptom improvement and objective reflux control in the subgroup undergoing postoperative physiological retesting.

Primary hypothesis: pathological esophageal acid exposure, a positive symptom-reflux association, predominance of typical symptoms, and a good preoperative PPI response are each independently associated with higher odds of symptom improvement. Secondary hypothesis: high baseline psychological burden, atypical or extra-esophageal symptom predominance, normal acid exposure, and obesity are independently associated with lower odds of improvement.

DESIGN AND SETTING Prospective observational cohort study conducted in accordance with the STROBE statement and, for the prediction-model component, the TRIPOD reporting guideline. Consecutive patients meeting the eligibility criteria are enrolled at preoperative assessment and followed for 12 months after surgery. There is no randomization and no experimental allocation; the type of fundoplication is determined by a prespecified motility-based algorithm reflecting routine clinical practice. The study is conducted at the Department of Surgery, Minia University Hospitals, Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, a tertiary referral center for foregut surgery, with the option of additional collaborating centers applying the same protocol.

CANDIDATE PREOPERATIVE PREDICTORS Ten prespecified preoperative variables are recorded for every participant, with age and sex forced into the multivariable model as covariates: (1) pathological acid exposure, defined as acid exposure time greater than 6% on off-PPI 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring and/or a DeMeester score greater than 14.7, categorized as pathological versus borderline or normal; (2) symptom-reflux association, defined as symptom association probability at least 95% and/or symptom index at least 50% for the index symptom, categorized as positive versus negative; (3) symptom phenotype, categorized as predominantly typical (heartburn or regurgitation) versus atypical or extra-esophageal (cough, throat symptoms, non-cardiac chest pain); (4) PPI response, defined as at least 50% relief of the dominant symptom on standard- or double-dose PPI for at least 8 weeks, categorized as good versus poor; (5) esophageal body motility on high-resolution manometry using the Chicago Classification version 4.0, categorized as normal versus ineffective esophageal motility; (6) hiatal hernia size measured as axial hernia length on endoscopy, manometry or imaging, categorized as at least 3 cm versus less than 3 cm; (7) erosive esophagitis by Los Angeles grade at endoscopy, categorized as erosive (grades A to D) versus non-erosive; (8) body mass index from measured weight and height at baseline, categorized as at least 30 versus less than 30 kg/m2; (9) psychological burden, defined as a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety or depression subscale score of at least 8 and/or elevated somatization on the PHQ-15, categorized as high versus low; and (10) symptom duration, categorized as at least 5 years versus less than 5 years.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE All operations are performed or directly supervised by experienced foregut surgeons using a standardized laparoscopic technique: complete hiatal dissection with preservation of the vagi, circumferential mobilization of the distal esophagus to achieve at least 2.5 cm of tension-free intra-abdominal length, posterior crural approximation, and division of short gastric vessels as required to construct a tension-free wrap. A complete (Nissen, 360-degree) fundoplication, fashioned as a short floppy 1.5-2 cm wrap calibrated over a 56-60 Fr bougie, is performed in patients with normal esophageal body motility. A posterior partial (Toupet, 270-degree) fundoplication is performed in patients with ineffective esophageal motility. Wrap type is recorded and included as a covariate and subgroup variable. Standardized antibiotic and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, analgesia, and a stepwise postoperative diet are applied.

SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS Assessments are performed at screening and baseline, at operation, and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Baseline assessment comprises informed consent and eligibility, demographics and history, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, off-PPI 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring, high-resolution manometry, GERD-HRQL, GerdQ, HADS and PHQ-15, anthropometry, and antisecretory medication use. GERD-HRQL, GerdQ and medication use are repeated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months; HADS and PHQ-15 and patient satisfaction at 6 and 12 months; anthropometry at 12 months. Adverse events are recorded at every postoperative contact. Postoperative endoscopy and pH-impedance are performed selectively, for persistent symptoms or as part of the objective-control substudy.

SAMPLE SIZE The primary analysis is a multivariable logistic regression predicting responder status. The number of candidate predictors in the final model is constrained by the number of events in the less frequent outcome category, applying a minimum of ten events per variable. Assuming a conservative non-responder proportion of 20% and a final model containing up to eight predictors, at least 80 non-responder events are required, corresponding to 400 patients with complete 12-month follow-up. Allowing for approximately 15% attrition, the target enrollment is 470 patients. With 400 evaluable patients, a predictor present in roughly 30% of the cohort is detectable with about 80% power at a two-sided alpha of 0.05 for an adjusted odds ratio of approximately 2.0, and the target satisfies published criteria for the minimum sample size required to develop a multivariable prediction model with acceptable shrinkage and precision.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Continuous variables are summarized as mean with standard deviation or median with interquartile range according to distribution, and categorical variables as counts and percentages. Responders and non-responders are compared using the t-test or Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-squared or Fisher exact test as appropriate. A multivariable binary logistic regression model is fitted with responder status as the dependent variable; candidate predictors are specified a priori, variables with a univariable association at p less than 0.10 and those of established clinical importance are entered up to the limit of eight predictors, and age and sex are forced into the model. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and two-sided p-values at an alpha of 0.05. Linearity of continuous predictors is assessed using restricted cubic splines where appropriate, and multicollinearity is checked using variance inflation factors. Discrimination is quantified by the C-statistic, calibration is assessed using a calibration plot and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and overall fit is summarized by the Nagelkerke R-squared. Internal validation uses bootstrap resampling with 1,000 replications to estimate optimism, derive a uniform shrinkage factor, and report an optimism-corrected C-statistic. A simplified integer risk score may be derived from the shrunken regression coefficients. If missingness exceeds 5% and is plausibly at random, multiple imputation by chained equations is used with results pooled by Rubin's rules, and a complete-case analysis is reported as a sensitivity analysis. Prespecified subgroup analyses include complete versus partial wrap and typical versus atypical symptom phenotype. Secondary binary outcomes are analyzed with logistic regression, and time to symptomatic recurrence is explored using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression. No interim analysis is planned. Analyses will be performed in R version 4.3 or later and/or IBM SPSS Statistics.

BIAS MINIMIZATION Selection bias is reduced by enrolling consecutive eligible patients and reporting participant flow per STROBE. Outcome ascertainment uses validated self-administered instruments with prespecified definitions, and outcome assessors are, where feasible, independent of the operating team. Assessors are trained on the operational definitions, and source-data verification is performed on a random sample of records. All predictors and the analysis plan are specified before data lock to avoid data-driven model selection.

ETHICS The study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable local regulations. Ethical approval was granted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board) of the Faculty of Medicine, Minia University (approval number 2132:9/26, dated 02 September 2026). Written informed consent is obtained from every participant. Because the study is observational and surgery is performed on routine clinical indications, it carries no incremental procedural risk beyond standard care; the principal burden is completion of questionnaires.

02

Conditions studied

  • Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
  • Hiatal Hernia
  • Esophagitis, Peptic
  • Barrett Esophagus

Keywords

  • Fundoplication
  • Nissen fundoplication
  • Toupet fundoplication
  • Antireflux surgery
  • GERD-HRQL
  • Esophageal pH monitoring
  • High-resolution manometry
03

In context

Gastroesophageal Reflux

1,211 studies on the registry are indexed under Gastroesophageal Reflux; 202 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 470 is above the median of 178 across 348 observational studies indexed under Gastroesophageal Reflux.

Browse Gastroesophageal Reflux studies →

Lead sponsor

Minia University is the lead sponsor of 370 studies on the registry; 117 are open to participants now.

Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Consecutive adults with objectively documented gastroesophageal reflux disease who are scheduled for elective laparoscopic fundoplication at a tertiary referral center for foregut surgery. Patients are identified and enrolled at the time of preoperative assessment.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Adults aged 18 years or older.
  • Objectively documented gastroesophageal reflux disease, defined by at least one of the following: pathological acid exposure on off-PPI 24-hour pH or pH-impedance monitoring; Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis; -proven Barrett's esophagus; or a positive symptom-reflux association.
  • Medically or PPI-dependent disease, troublesome regurgitation, or a symptomatic hiatal hernia, with an elective decision for laparoscopic fundoplication.
  • Able to provide written and to complete the study questionnaires.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous antireflux or other major foregut or esophagogastric surgery.
  • Achalasia or a major esophageal motility disorder on high-resolution manometry (Chicago Classification version 4.0): absent contractility, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, or hypercontractile esophagus.
  • Giant or complex paraesophageal hernia requiring non-standard reconstruction, or a concurrent bariatric or other major intra-abdominal procedure.
  • Esophageal or gastric .
  • Emergency surgery.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Inability to complete patient-reported outcome instruments or to attend follow-up.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(4)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Biopsy and archival tissue

A biopsy takes a small piece of tissue to examine. “Archival tissue” is a sample already taken, for example at diagnosis, and kept by the hospital.

Whether a stored sample will do depends on when it was taken, how much there is and what the study needs. Ask whether the study accepts your stored sample or needs a new biopsy.

Relapsed and refractory

Relapsed: the illness came back after treatment had worked. Refractory: it did not respond to treatment, or stopped responding while still on it.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Cancer (malignancy)

Malignancy means cancer. Criteria about another or earlier malignancy ask whether you have had a different cancer, usually within a set number of years.

Some are commonly allowed, such as treated skin cancers other than melanoma and early cancers removed completely — check the exceptions this study lists.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
470 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Complete (Nissen) fundoplication

    Participants with normal esophageal body motility on high-resolution manometry (Chicago Classification version 4.0) who undergo laparoscopic complete 360-degree fundoplication, fashioned as a short floppy 1.5-2 cm wrap calibrated over a 56-60 Fr bougie. Allocation is by the treating team according to the prespecified motility-based algorithm reflecting routine care, not by the study.

    Procedure: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication

  • Partial posterior (Toupet) fundoplication

    Participants with ineffective esophageal motility on high-resolution manometry (Chicago Classification version 4.0) who undergo laparoscopic posterior partial 270-degree fundoplication. Allocation is by the treating team according to the prespecified motility-based algorithm reflecting routine care, not by the study.

    Procedure: Laparoscopic Toupet fundoplication

Interventions

  • ProcedureLaparoscopic Nissen fundoplication

    Standardized laparoscopic complete 360-degree fundoplication with complete hiatal dissection, preservation of the vagi, circumferential mobilization of the distal esophagus to at least 2.5 cm of tension-free intra-abdominal length, posterior crural approximation, and division of short gastric vessels as required. Performed as part of routine clinical care and observed by the study.

    Also known as: Nissen fundoplication; complete 360-degree wrap

  • ProcedureLaparoscopic Toupet fundoplication

    Standardized laparoscopic posterior partial 270-degree fundoplication using the same hiatal dissection and esophageal mobilization as for the complete wrap. Performed as part of routine clinical care and observed by the study.

    Also known as: Toupet fundoplication; posterior partial 270-degree wrap

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Responder status: proportion of participants achieving clinically significant symptom improvement

    Proportion of participants classified as responders. A responder is a participant with a reduction of at least 50% in the total Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) score relative to baseline, corroborated by the patient's global satisfaction rating. The GERD-HRQL comprises 10 symptom items each scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 5 (symptoms incapacitating), giving a total score from 0 to 50, with higher scores indicating worse reflux-related quality of life, together with a separate global item on satisfaction with present condition. The outcome is analyzed as a binary variable, responder versus non-responder, and modeled against ten prespecified preoperative predictors by multivariable logistic regression with age and sex forced as covariates.

    Time frame: 12 months after surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change from baseline in total GERD-HRQL score

    Mean change from baseline in the total GERD-HRQL score. Range 0 to 50; higher scores indicate worse reflux-related quality of life, so a negative change indicates improvement.

    Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery

  2. Change from baseline in GerdQ score

    Mean change from baseline in the total Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire (GerdQ) score. The GerdQ has 6 items giving a total score from 0 to 18; higher scores indicate a greater burden and likelihood of GERD, so a negative change indicates improvement.

    Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery

  3. Discontinuation of antisecretory therapy

    Proportion of participants no longer taking any proton-pump inhibitor or histamine-2 receptor antagonist, ascertained by structured medication review.

    Time frame: 12 months after surgery

  4. Resolution of regurgitation

    Proportion of participants reporting no troublesome regurgitation, ascertained from the regurgitation items of the GERD-HRQL.

    Time frame: 2 months after surgery

  5. New or persistent dysphagia

    Proportion of participants reporting new or persistent dysphagia on a validated dysphagia score, and the proportion requiring endoscopic dilatation.

    Time frame: 12 months after surgery

  6. Gas-bloat symptoms

    Proportion of participants reporting troublesome gas-bloat symptoms, including inability to belch and increased flatulence.

    Time frame: 12 months after surgery

  7. Patient satisfaction

    Proportion of participants who report that they would undergo the operation again given the same circumstances.

    Time frame: 6 and 12 months after surgery

  8. Postoperative morbidity graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification

    Proportion of participants experiencing any postoperative complication, graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification from grade I (any deviation from the normal postoperative course not requiring pharmacological, surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention) to grade V (death). Higher grades indicate more severe complications.

    Time frame: 30 days after surgery

  9. Reoperation and symptomatic recurrence

    Proportion of participants undergoing reoperation for a failed or complicated wrap, and proportion with symptomatic recurrence defined as return of troublesome reflux symptoms after an initial response.

    Time frame: 12 months after surgery

Other outcomes

  1. Normalization of esophageal acid exposure

    Exploratory. Among participants who undergo postoperative 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring, the proportion with normalization of esophageal acid exposure, defined as acid exposure time of 4% or less. Analyzed for concordance with subjective responder status.

    Time frame: 12 months after surgery

  2. Performance of the multivariable prediction model

    Exploratory. Discrimination of the final multivariable logistic regression model, quantified by the C-statistic and reported both apparent and optimism-corrected by bootstrap resampling with 1,000 replications, together with calibration assessed by calibration plot and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

    Time frame: At final analysis, after all participants complete 12-month follow-up

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Sep 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Sep 2028, 24 months after the start.

Of 95 non-industry observational studies under Gastroesophageal Reflux, half reached primary completion within 57 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 18 and three quarters within 167. This study's planned 24 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 116 studies reached it within 45 months; a quarter within 17 and three quarters within 167.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Sep 3, 2026
First posted
Sep 9, 2026
StartActual
Sep 20, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Sep 20, 2028
CompletionEst.
Dec 20, 2028
Last update
Sep 22, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 22, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07809620
Lead sponsor
Minia University
Responsible party
Saleh Khairy Saleh MD (Lecturer of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Minia University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 9, 2026
Start date
Sep 20, 2026
Primary completion
Sep 20, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 20, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 22, 2026

Study contacts

Saleh K Saleh, MD
Contact
salehkhairy@mu.edu.eg
01201765401 ext. +2
Saleh K Saleh, MD
principal investigator · Minia University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion