Cargando…
Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management
BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) erosion, disruption or displacement clearly requires device removal. However, up to 5.5% of patients without anatomical failure require removal for dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms. Studies characterizing these patients or their management are li...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10156860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36689039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09878-y |
_version_ | 1785036629068480512 |
---|---|
author | Eriksson, Sven Schwameis, Katrin Ayazi, Shahin Hoppo, Toshitaka Zheng, Ping Jobe, Blair A. |
author_facet | Eriksson, Sven Schwameis, Katrin Ayazi, Shahin Hoppo, Toshitaka Zheng, Ping Jobe, Blair A. |
author_sort | Eriksson, Sven |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) erosion, disruption or displacement clearly requires device removal. However, up to 5.5% of patients without anatomical failure require removal for dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms. Studies characterizing these patients or their management are limited. We aimed to characterize these patients, compare their outcomes, and determine the necessity for further reflux surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 777 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Patients who underwent device removal for persistent dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms were included. Demographic, clinical, objective testing, and quality of life data obtained preoperatively, after implantation and following removal were compared between removal for dysphagia and GERD groups. Sub-analyses were performed comparing outcomes with and without an anti-reflux surgery (ARS) at the time of removal. RESULTS: A total of 40 (5.1%) patients underwent device removal, 31 (77.5%) for dysphagia and 9 (22.5%) for GERD. After implantation, dysphagia patients had less heartburn (12.9-vs-77.7%, p = 0.0005) less regurgitation (16.1-vs-55.5%, p = 0.0286), and more pH-normalization (91.7-vs-33.3%, p = 0.0158). Removal without ARS was performed in 5 (55.6%) GERD and 22 (71.0%) dysphagia patients. Removal for dysphagia patients had more complete symptom resolution (63.6-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0159), freedom from PPIs (81.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0016) and pH-normalization (77.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0455). Patients who underwent removal for dysphagia had comparable symptom resolution (p = 0.6770, freedom from PPI (p = 0.3841) and pH-normalization (p = 0.2534) with or without ARS. Those who refused ARS with removal for GERD had more heartburn (100.0%-vs-25.0%, p = 0.0476), regurgitation (80.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476) and PPI use (75.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476). CONCLUSIONS: MSA removal outcomes are dependent on the indication for removal. Removal for dysphagia yields excellent outcomes regardless of anti-reflux surgery. Patients with persistent GERD had worse outcomes on all measures without ARS. We propose a tailored approach to MSA removal-based indication for removal. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10156860 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101568602023-05-05 Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management Eriksson, Sven Schwameis, Katrin Ayazi, Shahin Hoppo, Toshitaka Zheng, Ping Jobe, Blair A. Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) erosion, disruption or displacement clearly requires device removal. However, up to 5.5% of patients without anatomical failure require removal for dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms. Studies characterizing these patients or their management are limited. We aimed to characterize these patients, compare their outcomes, and determine the necessity for further reflux surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 777 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Patients who underwent device removal for persistent dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms were included. Demographic, clinical, objective testing, and quality of life data obtained preoperatively, after implantation and following removal were compared between removal for dysphagia and GERD groups. Sub-analyses were performed comparing outcomes with and without an anti-reflux surgery (ARS) at the time of removal. RESULTS: A total of 40 (5.1%) patients underwent device removal, 31 (77.5%) for dysphagia and 9 (22.5%) for GERD. After implantation, dysphagia patients had less heartburn (12.9-vs-77.7%, p = 0.0005) less regurgitation (16.1-vs-55.5%, p = 0.0286), and more pH-normalization (91.7-vs-33.3%, p = 0.0158). Removal without ARS was performed in 5 (55.6%) GERD and 22 (71.0%) dysphagia patients. Removal for dysphagia patients had more complete symptom resolution (63.6-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0159), freedom from PPIs (81.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0016) and pH-normalization (77.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0455). Patients who underwent removal for dysphagia had comparable symptom resolution (p = 0.6770, freedom from PPI (p = 0.3841) and pH-normalization (p = 0.2534) with or without ARS. Those who refused ARS with removal for GERD had more heartburn (100.0%-vs-25.0%, p = 0.0476), regurgitation (80.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476) and PPI use (75.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476). CONCLUSIONS: MSA removal outcomes are dependent on the indication for removal. Removal for dysphagia yields excellent outcomes regardless of anti-reflux surgery. Patients with persistent GERD had worse outcomes on all measures without ARS. We propose a tailored approach to MSA removal-based indication for removal. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] Springer US 2023-01-23 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10156860/ /pubmed/36689039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09878-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Eriksson, Sven Schwameis, Katrin Ayazi, Shahin Hoppo, Toshitaka Zheng, Ping Jobe, Blair A. Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
title | Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
title_full | Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
title_fullStr | Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
title_full_unstemmed | Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
title_short | Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
title_sort | removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10156860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36689039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09878-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT erikssonsven removalofthemagneticsphincteraugmentationdeviceanassessmentofetiologyclinicalpresentationandmanagement AT schwameiskatrin removalofthemagneticsphincteraugmentationdeviceanassessmentofetiologyclinicalpresentationandmanagement AT ayazishahin removalofthemagneticsphincteraugmentationdeviceanassessmentofetiologyclinicalpresentationandmanagement AT hoppotoshitaka removalofthemagneticsphincteraugmentationdeviceanassessmentofetiologyclinicalpresentationandmanagement AT zhengping removalofthemagneticsphincteraugmentationdeviceanassessmentofetiologyclinicalpresentationandmanagement AT jobeblaira removalofthemagneticsphincteraugmentationdeviceanassessmentofetiologyclinicalpresentationandmanagement |