Evolution of a novel technology for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a safety perspective of magnetic sphincter augmentation

被引:15
|
作者
DeMarchi, Janet [1 ]
Schwiers, Michael [2 ]
Soberman, Mark [3 ]
Tokarski, Allison [4 ]
机构
[1] Ethicon Inc, Med Affairs, Cincinnati, OH 45242 USA
[2] Ethicon Inc, Biostat, Cincinnati, OH USA
[3] Ethicon Inc, Med Safety, Cincinnati, OH USA
[4] Ethicon Inc, Clin Affairs, Cincinnati, OH USA
关键词
gastroesophageal reflux disease; GERD; LINX; magnetic sphincter augmentation; MSA; MANAGEMENT-SYSTEM; LINX(R) REFLUX; ESOPHAGEAL; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1093/dote/doab036
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Magnetic sphincter augmentation using the LINX (R) device is a minimally invasive surgical option for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. An estimated 30,000 devices have been implanted worldwide. Device removals and erosion are identified risks. The objective of this analysis is to explore the procedure evolution with an emphasis on the removals and associated characteristics that may guide future clinical practice. TheManufacturer and User FacilityDevice Experience and Ethicon's complaint databases were queried for all surgical device explants since January 2013. Device unit sales were used to determine the rates. The endpoint was based upon the time from implant to explant. Explant and erosion rates were calculated at yearly intervals and the Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to measure the time to explant. Chi-square analyses were used to investigate the risk of explant associated with the size, geography and implant year. Overall, 7-year cumulative risk of removal was 4.81% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) CI: 4.31-5.36%). The likelihood of removal was significantly related to the device size (P < 0.0001), with smaller sizes being more likely to be explanted. The primary reasons for device removal and relative percentages were dysphagia/odynophagia (47.9%), persistent gastroesophageal reflux disease (20.5%) and unknown/other (11.2%). Overall, the 7-year cumulative risk of erosion was 0.28% (95% CI: 0.17-0.46%). The average device size increased from 14.2 beads +/- 1.0 in 2013 to 15.3 beads +/- 1.2 in 2019 (P < 0.001). Surgical technique and perioperative management play an important role in the outcomes. Clinical practice changes since magnetic sphincter augmentation has been incorporated into clinical use are associated with improved outcomes and should be further characterized. Smaller device size is associated with increased removal and erosion rates.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Safety profile of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Froiio, Caterina
    Aiolfi, Alberto
    Bona, Davide
    Bonavina, Luigi
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2023, 10
  • [2] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Patti, Marco G.
    Herbella, Fernando A. M.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 46 (09) : 2251 - 2252
  • [3] Results of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Katrin Schwameis
    Milena Nikolic
    Deivis G. Morales Castellano
    Ariane Steindl
    Sarah Macheck
    Ivan Kristo
    Barbara Zörner
    Sebastian F. Schoppmann
    World Journal of Surgery, 2018, 42 : 3263 - 3269
  • [4] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for the Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Marco G. Patti
    Fernando A. M. Herbella
    World Journal of Surgery, 2022, 46 : 2251 - 2252
  • [5] Results of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Schwameis, Katrin
    Nikolic, Milena
    Castellano, Deivis G. Morales
    Steindl, Ariane
    Macheck, Sarah
    Kristo, Ivan
    Zoerner, Barbara
    Schoppmann, Sebastian F.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 42 (10) : 3263 - 3269
  • [6] The role of magnetic sphincter augmentation in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Bonavina, Luigi
    Boyle, Nick
    Schoppmann, Sebastian F.
    CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2021, 37 (04) : 384 - 389
  • [7] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Outcomes in Severe Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Ferrari, Davide
    Siboni, Stefano
    Riva, Carlo Galdino
    Guerrazzi, Guglielmo
    Lovece, Andrea
    Bonavina, Luigi
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2021, 8
  • [8] Safety analysis of first 1000 patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Lipham, J. C.
    Taiganides, P. A.
    Louie, B. E.
    Ganz, R. A.
    DeMeester, T. R.
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2015, 28 (04): : 305 - 311
  • [9] Magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: review of clinical studies
    Emanuele Asti
    Alberto Aiolfi
    Veronica Lazzari
    Andrea Sironi
    Matteo Porta
    Luigi Bonavina
    Updates in Surgery, 2018, 70 : 323 - 330
  • [10] Magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: review of clinical studies
    Asti, Emanuele
    Aiolfi, Alberto
    Lazzari, Veronica
    Sironi, Andrea
    Porta, Matteo
    Bonavina, Luigi
    UPDATES IN SURGERY, 2018, 70 (03) : 323 - 330