BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Nov 27, 2025; 17(11): 111815
Published online Nov 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i11.111815
Application status of endoscopic anti-reflux mucosal interventions in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease
Ze-Hua Zhang, Shuang-Zhu Yang, Jing-Jing Lian, Ai-Ping Xu, Xiao-Jing Du, Tao Chen, Mei-Dong Xu
Ze-Hua Zhang, Shuang-Zhu Yang, Jing-Jing Lian, Ai-Ping Xu, Xiao-Jing Du, Tao Chen, Mei-Dong Xu, Endoscopy Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200120, China
Author contributions: Zhang ZH and Yang SZ contributed to literature review and draft the manuscript; Lian JJ, Xu AP, Du XJ, Chen T, and Xu MD contributed to review the manuscript; Xu MD contributed to revised the manuscript. All author approves the final manuscript.
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 82200613; Shanghai “Rising Stars of Medical Talents” Youth Development Program, No. SHWSRS(2025)_071; The Healthcare Talents Youth Program of Shanghai Pudong New Area, No. 2025PDWSYCQN-03; Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, No. 2024ZDXK0001; the Medical Discipline Construction Project of Pudong Health Committee of Shanghai, No. PWZxq2022-6, No. 2024-PWXZ-07, and No. 2025PDWSYCBJ-01; and Shanghai East Hospital's Key Clinical Disciplines and Specialty Departments, No. 2024-DFZD-005.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Mei-Dong Xu, MD, PhD, Endoscopy Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 150 Jimo Road, Shanghai 200120, China. 1800512@tongji.edu.cn
Received: July 10, 2025
Revised: August 6, 2025
Accepted: September 24, 2025
Published online: November 27, 2025
Processing time: 138 Days and 14.3 Hours
Abstract

Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has shown an upward trend over the years. Even though patients with GERD have a poor quality of life, the current treatment options are highly limited. In recent years, however, the development of anti-reflux mucosal intervention (ARMI), a novel strategy for treating GERD, has provided hope to such patients. ARMI comprises three main steps: Anti-reflux mucosectomy, anti-reflux mucosal ablation, and peroral endoscopic cardial constriction. ARMI involves the constriction of the pericardial mucosa through endoscopic surgery so as to reduce the damage caused by the reflux of gastric contents. This study compares different ARMI techniques, their therapeutic efficacy in treating GERD, indications and contraindications, endoscopic operational procedures, perioperative management, and adverse events, in an attempt to provide clinical guidance.

Keywords: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Anti-reflux mucosal intervention; Anti-reflux mucosectomy; Anti-reflux mucosal ablation; Peroral endoscopic cardial constriction; Surgical contraindications; Postoperative adverse reaction

Core Tip: Anti-reflux mucosal intervention is a promising endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease. This article compares three main anti-reflux mucosal intervention techniques - anti-reflux mucosectomy, anti-reflux mucosal ablation, and peroral endoscopic cardial constriction - in terms of efficacy, indications and contraindications, endoscopic operational procedures, perioperative management, and adverse events. It highlights their respective advantages and limitations, emphasizing that treatment selection should be individualized based on patient-specific factors, clinical scenarios, and response to previous interventions.