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
  • [31] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Management Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy
    Treitl, Daniela
    Ben-David, Kfir
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2016, 150 (04) : S1186 - S1187
  • [32] Longer-term outcomes of gastroesophageal reflux disease treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation
    Puri, Aiysha
    Steven, Sue
    Markar, Sheraz R.
    Boyle, Nicholas
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2023, 36 (10)
  • [33] Magnetic sphincter augmentation is an effective treatment for atypical symptoms caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Marc A. Ward
    Ahmed Ebrahim
    Jeffrey Kopita
    Lindsay Arviso
    Gerald O. Ogola
    Brittany Buckmaster
    Steven G. Leeds
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 4909 - 4915
  • [34] Subjective and Objective Measures of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Patients Undergoing Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation
    Kothari, Shanu N.
    Kallies, Kara J.
    Borgert, Andrew J.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2019, 229 (04) : E3 - E3
  • [35] Six to 12-year outcomes of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease
    Ferrari, Davide
    Asti, Emanuele
    Lazzari, Veronica
    Siboni, Stefano
    Bernardi, Daniele
    Bonavina, Luigi
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [36] Novel Surgical Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Systematic Review of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Electric Stimulation Therapy
    Stanak, Michal
    Erdos, Judit
    Hawlik, Katharina
    Birsan, Tudor
    GASTROENTEROLOGY RESEARCH, 2018, 11 (03) : 161 - 173
  • [37] Manometric Changes to the Lower Esophageal Sphincter After Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation in Patients With Chronic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
    Warren, Heather F.
    Louie, Brian E.
    Farivar, Alexander S.
    Wilshire, Candice
    Aye, Ralph W.
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2017, 266 (01) : 99 - 104
  • [38] Real-world evidence with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a scoping review
    Caterina Froiio
    Ahmad Tareq
    Valentina Riggio
    Stefano Siboni
    Luigi Bonavina
    European Surgery, 2023, 55 : 8 - 19
  • [39] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Algorithm for Post-bariatric Surgery Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients
    Nikhil C. Reddy
    Joseph Sujka
    Christopher DuCoin
    Obesity Surgery, 2022, 32 : 3185 - 3187
  • [40] Real-world evidence with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a scoping review
    Froiio, Caterina
    Tareq, Ahmad
    Riggio, Valentina
    Siboni, Stefano
    Bonavina, Luigi
    EUROPEAN SURGERY-ACTA CHIRURGICA AUSTRIACA, 2023, 55 (01): : 8 - 19