Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2020

01-08-2020 | Esophagitis | 2020 SAGES Oral

The role of preoperative workup in predicting dysphagia, dilation, or explantation after magnetic sphincter augmentation

Authors: Steven G. Leeds, Ahmed Ebrahim, Eric M. Potter, Jessica S. Clothier, Purvi Prajapati, Gerald O. Ogola, Marc A. Ward

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease using a ring of titanium beads to improve the function of the lower esophageal sphincter. Prior to implantation, a comprehensive preoperative esophageal workup is required to determine patient candidacy in an effort to reduce the dysphagia, dilation, and explantation rate of the device. This study was designed to assess the best predictors for these endpoints.

Methods

A prospectively maintained IRB-approved database was retrospectively reviewed for patients undergoing MSA implantation. Patients were divided into 3 groups, those that needed no intervention, those that needed medical intervention with oral steroids for reported dysphagia, and surgical intervention, which included endoscopic dilation and/or surgical explantation. Primary endpoints included preoperative objective and subjective testing from a comprehensive esophageal workup including intraoperative notation of number of beads on the device.

Results

There were 99 patients eligible for the study with a mean age of 52 and mean follow-up of 10.2 months. Mean BMI was 27 and 59% were female. The no-intervention group had 59 patients, medical intervention group had 25 patients, and surgical intervention group had 15 patients. Preoperative esophageal manometry findings, pH testing off medications, endoscopic and radiologic evaluation showed no difference between the 3 groups. No differences were seen in preoperative subjective evaluations based on GERD-HRQL or RSI scores. There was no difference in average number of beads on the device between the 3 groups.

Conclusion

A comprehensive esophageal workup is important to confirm the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and rule out other esophageal pathology. However, this study shows that a preoperative comprehensive esophageal workup does not predict which patients will develop dysphagia or require either medical or surgical interventions following MSA implantation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ganz RA et al (2016) Long-term outcomes of patients receiving a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for gastroesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(5):671–677CrossRef Ganz RA et al (2016) Long-term outcomes of patients receiving a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for gastroesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(5):671–677CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Louie BE et al (2018) Objective evidence of reflux control after magnetic sphincter augmentation: one year results from a post approval study. Ann Surg 270:302–308CrossRef Louie BE et al (2018) Objective evidence of reflux control after magnetic sphincter augmentation: one year results from a post approval study. Ann Surg 270:302–308CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bell R et al (2019) Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus double-dose proton pump inhibitors for management of moderate-to-severe regurgitation in GERD: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 89(1):14–22.e1CrossRef Bell R et al (2019) Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus double-dose proton pump inhibitors for management of moderate-to-severe regurgitation in GERD: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 89(1):14–22.e1CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bonavina L et al (2008) Magnetic augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter: results of a feasibility clinical trial. J Gastrointest Surg 12(12):2133–2140CrossRef Bonavina L et al (2008) Magnetic augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter: results of a feasibility clinical trial. J Gastrointest Surg 12(12):2133–2140CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Buckley FP 3rd et al (2018) Favorable results from a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with large hiatal hernias undergoing LINX magnetic sphincter augmentation. Surg Endosc 32(4):1762–1768CrossRef Buckley FP 3rd et al (2018) Favorable results from a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with large hiatal hernias undergoing LINX magnetic sphincter augmentation. Surg Endosc 32(4):1762–1768CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tatum JM et al (2019) Minimal versus obligatory dissection of the diaphragmatic hiatus during magnetic sphincter augmentation surgery. Surg Endosc 33(3):782–788CrossRef Tatum JM et al (2019) Minimal versus obligatory dissection of the diaphragmatic hiatus during magnetic sphincter augmentation surgery. Surg Endosc 33(3):782–788CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Zhang H et al (2016) Revaluation of the efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 30(9):3684–3690CrossRef Zhang H et al (2016) Revaluation of the efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 30(9):3684–3690CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(2): p. 186–8. Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(2): p. 186–8.
9.
go back to reference Alicuben ET et al (2019) Routine esophageal manometry is not useful in patients with normal videoesophagram. Surg Endosc 33(5):1650–1653CrossRef Alicuben ET et al (2019) Routine esophageal manometry is not useful in patients with normal videoesophagram. Surg Endosc 33(5):1650–1653CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Schwameis K et al (2017) Post-Nissen dysphagia and bloating syndrome: outcomes after conversion to toupet fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg 21(3):441–445CrossRef Schwameis K et al (2017) Post-Nissen dysphagia and bloating syndrome: outcomes after conversion to toupet fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg 21(3):441–445CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Asti E et al (2017) Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: surgical technique and results of a single-center cohort study. Ann Surg 265(5):941–945CrossRef Asti E et al (2017) Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: surgical technique and results of a single-center cohort study. Ann Surg 265(5):941–945CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lipham JC et al (2015) Safety analysis of first 1000 patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dis Esophagus 28(4):305–311CrossRef Lipham JC et al (2015) Safety analysis of first 1000 patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dis Esophagus 28(4):305–311CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Smith CD et al (2017) Lower esophageal sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: the safety of a modern implant. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(6):586–591CrossRef Smith CD et al (2017) Lower esophageal sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: the safety of a modern implant. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(6):586–591CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The role of preoperative workup in predicting dysphagia, dilation, or explantation after magnetic sphincter augmentation
Authors
Steven G. Leeds
Ahmed Ebrahim
Eric M. Potter
Jessica S. Clothier
Purvi Prajapati
Gerald O. Ogola
Marc A. Ward
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07664-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2020 Go to the issue