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
  • [21] Magnetic sphincter augmentation versus fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: pros and cons
    Sterris, Jason A.
    Dunn, Colin P.
    Bildzukewicz, Nikolai A.
    Lipham, John C.
    CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 36 (04) : 323 - 328
  • [22] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease after Failed Anti-Reflux Procedure
    Shemanski, Kimberly A.
    Alicuben, Evan T.
    Samaan, Jamil S.
    Bildzukewicz, Nikolai A.
    Samakar, Kamran
    Dobrowolsky, Adrian
    Liu, Jeffrey Y.
    Houghton, Caitlin C.
    Sandhu, Kulmeet
    Lipham, John C.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2018, 227 (04) : E72 - E72
  • [23] Esophageal Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation as a Novel Approach to Post-bariatric Surgery Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Kuckelman, John P.
    Phillips, Cody J.
    Derickson, Michael J.
    Faler, Byron J.
    Martin, Matthew J.
    OBESITY SURGERY, 2018, 28 (10) : 3080 - 3086
  • [24] Esophageal Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation as a Novel Approach to Post-bariatric Surgery Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    John P. Kuckelman
    Cody J. Phillips
    Michael J. Derickson
    Byron J. Faler
    Matthew J. Martin
    Obesity Surgery, 2018, 28 : 3080 - 3086
  • [25] Magnetic sphincter augmentation device placement for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux
    Laird, Jason
    JAAPA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, 2020, 33 (12): : 30 - 32
  • [26] Magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux in overweight and obese patients
    Vivek, Anjali
    Latorre-Rodriguez, Andres R.
    Mittal, Sumeet K.
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2023, 36
  • [27] Is Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation a More Reproducible Procedure than Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease?
    Reynolds, Jessica
    Bildzukewicz, Nikolai
    Rona, Kais
    Louie, Brian E.
    Warren, Heather F.
    Taiganides, Paul
    Doggett, Stephanie
    Buckley, Francis P.
    Lipham, John
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2016, 150 (04) : S1250 - S1250
  • [28] Characterization of Dysphagia after Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device Placement for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Alicuben, Evan T.
    Tatum, James M.
    Samaan, Jamil S.
    Bildzukewicz, Nikolai A.
    Samakar, Kamran
    Houghton, Caitlin C.
    Stone, Gregory
    Sandhu, Kulmeet
    Dobrowolsky, Adrian
    Lipham, John C.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2018, 227 (04) : S16 - S16
  • [29] Magnetic sphincter augmentation is an effective treatment for atypical symptoms caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Ward, Marc A.
    Ebrahim, Ahmed
    Kopita, Jeffrey
    Arviso, Lindsay
    Ogola, Gerald O.
    Buckmaster, Brittany
    Leeds, Steven G.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2020, 34 (11): : 4909 - 4915
  • [30] Six to 12-year outcomes of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Davide Ferrari
    Emanuele Asti
    Veronica Lazzari
    Stefano Siboni
    Daniele Bernardi
    Luigi Bonavina
    Scientific Reports, 10