Does a biologic prosthesis really reduce recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair? [2]

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 246, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1116-1117

  Rice, Thomas W ^a   Blackstone, Eugene H ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOPROSTHESIS; DEATH; FOLLOW UP; HERNIOPLASTY; HIATUS HERNIA; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LETTER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RECURRENT DISEASE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SMALL INTESTINE; SUBMUCOSA;

BIOPROSTHESIS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HERNIA, HIATAL; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RECURRENCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 36549080046     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31815c299c     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Oelschlager BK, Pelligrini CA, Hunter J, et al. Biologic prosthesis reduces recurrence after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair. Ann Surg. 2006;244:481-490.
2. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002 5;287:2801-2804.
3. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:549-556.
4. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Multiplicity in randomized trials II: subgroup and interim analyses. Lancet. 2005;365:1657-1661.
5. Hashemi M, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, et al. Laparoscopic repair of large type III hiatal hernia: objective followup reveals high recurrence rate. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:553-560.