Literature DB >> 32671521

Safety and efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation dilation.

Reid Fletcher1, Christy M Dunst2,1, Walaa F Abdelmoaty1, Evan T Alicuben3, Ealaf Shemmeri4, Brett Parker1, Dolores Müller2, Ahmed M Sharata1, Kevin M Reavis2, Daniel Davila Bradley2, Nikolai A Bildzukewicz3, Brian E Louie4, John C Lipham3, Steven R DeMeester5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSA) provides effective relief of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Dysphagia after MSA implantation sometimes prompts endoscopic dilation. The manufacturer's instructions are that it be performed 6 or more weeks after implantation under fluoroscopic guidance to not more than 15 mm keeping 3 or more beads closed. The purpose of this study was to assess adherence to these recommendations and explore the techniques used and outcomes after MSA dilation. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We conducted a multicenter retrospective review of patients undergoing dilation for dysphagia after MSA placement from 2012 to 2018.
RESULTS: A total of 144 patients underwent 245 dilations. The median size of MSA placed was 14 beads (range 12-17) and the median time to dilation was 175 days. A second dilation was performed in 67 patients, 22 patients had a third dilation and 7 patients underwent 4 or more dilations. In total, 17 devices (11.8%) were eventually explanted. The majority of dilations were performed with a balloon dilator (81%). The median dilator size was 18 mm and 73.4% were done with a dilator larger than 15 mm. There was no association between dilator size and need for subsequent dilation. Fluoroscopy was used in 28% of cases. There were no perforations or device erosions related to dilation. DISCUSSION: There is no clinical credence to the manufacturer's recommendation for the use of fluoroscopy and limitation to 15 mm when dilating a patient for dysphagia after MSA implantation. Use of a larger size dilator was not associated with perforation or device erosion, but also did not reduce the need for repeat dilation. Given this, we would recommend that the initial dilation for any size MSA device be done using a 15 mm through-the-scope balloon dilator. Dysphagia prompting dilation after MSA implantation is associated with nearly a 12% risk of device explantation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dilation; Dysphagia; GERD; LINX; Magnetic sphincter augmentation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32671521     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07799-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  9 in total

1.  Long-term Outcomes of Patients Receiving a Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device for Gastroesophageal Reflux.

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

2.  Factors influencing the outcome of magnetic sphincter augmentation for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Heather F Warren; Lisa M Brown; Matias Mihura; Alexander S Farivar; Ralph W Aye; Brian E Louie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Safety analysis of first 1000 patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  J C Lipham; P A Taiganides; B E Louie; R A Ganz; T R DeMeester
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.429

4.  Efficacy of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation across the Spectrum of GERD Disease Severity.

Authors:  Katrin Schwameis; Shahin Ayazi; Ping Zheng; Andrew D Grubic; Madison Salvitti; Toshitaka Hoppo; Blair A Jobe
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Laparoscopic Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation vs Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 100 Patients.

Authors:  Jessica L Reynolds; Joerg Zehetner; Phil Wu; Shawn Shah; Nikolai Bildzukewicz; John C Lipham
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus double-dose proton pump inhibitors for management of moderate-to-severe regurgitation in GERD: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Reginald Bell; John Lipham; Brian Louie; Valerie Williams; James Luketich; Michael Hill; William Richards; Christy Dunst; Dan Lister; Lauren McDowell-Jacobs; Patrick Reardon; Karen Woods; Jon Gould; F Paul Buckley; Shanu Kothari; Leena Khaitan; C Daniel Smith; Adrian Park; Christopher Smith; Garth Jacobsen; Ghulam Abbas; Philip Katz
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Short-term outcomes using magnetic sphincter augmentation versus Nissen fundoplication for medically resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Brian E Louie; Alexander S Farivar; Dale Shultz; Christina Brennan; Eric Vallières; Ralph W Aye
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Favorable results from a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with large hiatal hernias undergoing LINX magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Authors:  F P Buckley; Reginald C W Bell; Kate Freeman; Stephanie Doggett; Rachel Heidrick
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Postoperative Dysphagia: Characterization, Clinical Risk Factors, and Management.

Authors:  Shahin Ayazi; Ping Zheng; Ali H Zaidi; Kristy Chovanec; Nobel Chowdhury; Madison Salvitti; Yoshihiro Komatsu; Ashten N Omstead; Toshitaka Hoppo; Blair A Jobe
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 3.452

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.