Evan T Alicuben1, James M Tatum1, Nikolai Bildzukewicz1, Kamran Samakar1, Jamil S Samaan1, Einav N Silverstein1, Kulmeet Sandhu1, Caitlin C Houghton1, John C Lipham2. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St. #514, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St. #514, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. john.lipham@med.usc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intestinal metaplasia represents an esophageal mucosal transformation due to uncontrolled gastroesophageal reflux disease. Fundoplication has been shown to lead to regression of disease. Magnetic sphincter augmentation is an alternative to fundoplication that effectively treats reflux disease. Initially, patients with intestinal metaplasia were not considered candidates for device placement, so outcomes in these patients are unknown. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent magnetic sphincter augmentation device placement between 2007 and 2017 was performed. All patients underwent pre-operative endoscopic evaluation and were categorized as having ultra-short segment (less than 1 cm), short-segment (1-3 cm), or long-segment (greater than or equal to 3 cm) disease. To be included in the study, pathologic examination demonstrating columnar mucosa with goblet cells was required. RESULTS: There were 86 patients with biopsy-proven non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia. 35 patients had ultra-short segment, 37 patients had short-segment, and 14 patients had long-segment disease. At a median follow-up of 1.2 years, 67/86 (78%) patients completed endoscopic follow-up. 48/67 (71.6%) patients had regression of intestinal metaplasia. There was no progression to dysplasia or carcinoma. Patients with abnormal post-operative DeMeester scores were less likely to have regression of disease. Regression was more likely in the ultra-short segment (82.8%) and short-segment (73.3%) groups compared to the long-segment group (25.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic sphincter augmentation is effective in achieving regression of intestinal metaplasia. Longer-term follow-up is needed to assess durability of effect and make meaningful comparisons to fundoplication.
BACKGROUND:Intestinal metaplasia represents an esophageal mucosal transformation due to uncontrolled gastroesophageal reflux disease. Fundoplication has been shown to lead to regression of disease. Magnetic sphincter augmentation is an alternative to fundoplication that effectively treats reflux disease. Initially, patients with intestinal metaplasia were not considered candidates for device placement, so outcomes in these patients are unknown. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent magnetic sphincter augmentation device placement between 2007 and 2017 was performed. All patients underwent pre-operative endoscopic evaluation and were categorized as having ultra-short segment (less than 1 cm), short-segment (1-3 cm), or long-segment (greater than or equal to 3 cm) disease. To be included in the study, pathologic examination demonstrating columnar mucosa with goblet cells was required. RESULTS: There were 86 patients with biopsy-proven non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia. 35 patients had ultra-short segment, 37 patients had short-segment, and 14 patients had long-segment disease. At a median follow-up of 1.2 years, 67/86 (78%) patients completed endoscopic follow-up. 48/67 (71.6%) patients had regression of intestinal metaplasia. There was no progression to dysplasia or carcinoma. Patients with abnormal post-operative DeMeester scores were less likely to have regression of disease. Regression was more likely in the ultra-short segment (82.8%) and short-segment (73.3%) groups compared to the long-segment group (25.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic sphincter augmentation is effective in achieving regression of intestinal metaplasia. Longer-term follow-up is needed to assess durability of effect and make meaningful comparisons to fundoplication.
Authors: Robert A Ganz; Steven A Edmundowicz; Paul A Taiganides; John C Lipham; C Daniel Smith; Kenneth R DeVault; Santiago Horgan; Garth Jacobsen; James D Luketich; Christopher C Smith; Steven C Schlack-Haerer; Shanu N Kothari; Christy M Dunst; Thomas J Watson; Jeffrey Peters; Brant K Oelschlager; Kyle A Perry; Scott Melvin; Willem A Bemelman; André J P M Smout; Dan Dunn Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Benjamin C Knight; Peter G Devitt; David I Watson; Lorelle T Smith; Glyn G Jamieson; Sarah K Thompson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kais A Rona; Jessica Reynolds; Katrin Schwameis; Joerg Zehetner; Kamran Samakar; Paul Oh; David Vong; Kulmeet Sandhu; Namir Katkhouda; Nikolai Bildzukewicz; John C Lipham Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Joerg Zehetner; Steven R DeMeester; Shahin Ayazi; Jesse L Costales; Florian Augustin; Arzu Oezcelik; John C Lipham; Helen J Sohn; Jeffrey A Hagen; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Robert A Ganz; Jeffrey H Peters; Santiago Horgan; Willem A Bemelman; Christy M Dunst; Steven A Edmundowicz; John C Lipham; James D Luketich; W Scott Melvin; Brant K Oelschlager; Steven C Schlack-Haerer; C Daniel Smith; Christopher C Smith; Dan Dunn; Paul A Taiganides Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Greta Saino; Luigi Bonavina; John C Lipham; Daniel Dunn; Robert A Ganz Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Kryssia Rodriguez-Castro; Pellegrino Crafa; Marilisa Franceschi; Lorella Franzoni; Lorenzo Brozzi; Antonio Ferronato; Alice Morini; Lucio Cuoco; Gianluca Baldassarre; Barbara Pertoldi; Francesco Di Mario Journal: Acta Biomed Date: 2022-03-14