Adverse Events After Implantation of a Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device for Gastroesophageal Reflux

Safety profile of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background

The magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) procedure is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Adverse events requiring MSA device removal are rare, but the true prevalence and incidence may be underestimated.

Methods

Retrospective study on a prospectively collected database. Patients who underwent MSA procedure between March 2007 and September 2021 in two tertiary-care referral centers for esophageal surgery were included. The trend of MSA explant, the changes in the sizing technique and crura repair over the years, the technique of explant, and the clinical outcomes of the revisional procedure were reviewed.

Results

Out of 397 consecutive patients, 50 (12.4%) underwent MSA removal, with a median time to explant of 39.5 [IQR = 53.7] months. Main symptoms leading to removal were dysphagia (43.2%), heartburn (25%), and epigastric pain (13.6%). Erosion occurred in 2.5% of patients. Smaller (12- and 13-bead) devices were the ones most frequently explanted. The majority of the explants were performed laparoscopically with endoscopic assistance. There was no perioperative morbidity, and the median length of stay was 2.8 ± 1.4 days. After 2014, changes in sizing technique and crura repair resulted in a decreased incidence of explants from 23% to 5% (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis confirmed the protective role of added bead units [HR 0.06 (95% CI = 0.001-0.220); p < 0.000].

Conclusion

Oversizing and full mediastinal dissection with posterior hiatoplasty may improve the outcomes of the MSA procedure and possibly reduce removal rates.

Ineffective esophageal motility: The impact of change of criteria in Chicago Classification version 4.0 on predicting outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation

BACKGROUND

The most recent update of the Chicago Classification (CCv4.0) attempts to provide a more clinically relevant definition for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). The impact of this new definition on predicting outcome after antireflux surgery is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare utility of IEM diagnosis based on CCv4.0 to CCv3.0 in predicting surgical outcome after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and to assess any additional parameters that hold value in future definitions.

METHODS

Records of 336 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed. Preoperative manometry files were re-analyzed using both Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CCv3.0) and CCv4.0 definitions of IEM. The utility of each IEM definition in predicting surgical outcome was then compared. Individual manometric components and impedance data were also assessed.

KEY RESULTS

Immediate dysphagia was reported by 186 (55.4%) and persistent dysphagia by 42 (12.5%) patients. CCv3.0 IEM criteria were met by 37 (11%) and CCv4.0 IEM by 18 (5.4%) patients (p = 0.011). CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 IEM were equally poor predictors of immediate (AUC = 0.503 vs. 0.512, p = 0.7482) and persistent (AUC = 0.519 vs. 0.510, p = 0.7544) dysphagia. The predicted dysphagia probability of less than 70% bolus clearance (BC) was 17.4%, higher than CCv4.0 IEM at 16.7%. When BC was incorporated into CCv4.0 IEM criteria, the probability increased significantly to 30.0% (p = 0.0042).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

The CCv3.0 and CCv4.0 of IEM are poor predictors of dysphagia after MSA. Adding BC to the new definition improves its predictive utility and should be considered in future definitions.

Reoperative surgery after magnetic sphincter augmentation

Reoperative surgery following magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is rare. The clinical indications include the removal of MSA for dysphagia, the recurrence of reflux, or the issues of erosion. Diagnostic evaluation follows that of patients with recurrent reflux and dysphagia following surgical fundoplication. Procedures following the complications of MSA can be performed in a minimally invasive fashion, either endoscopically or robotic/laparoscopically, with good clinical outcomes.

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

INTRODUCTION

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) results in less severe side effects compared with Nissen fundoplication, but dysphagia remains the most common side effect reported by patients after MSA. This study aimed to characterize and review the management of postoperative dysphagia and identify the preoperative factors that predict persistent dysphagia after MSA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA between 2013 and 2018. Preoperative objective evaluation included upper endoscopy, esophagram, high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM), and esophageal pH testing. Postoperative persistent dysphagia was defined as a postoperative score of > 3 for the dysphagia-specific item within the GERD-HRQL at a minimum of 3 months following MSA. A timeline of dysphagia and dilation rates was constructed and correlated with the evolution of our patient management practices and modifications in surgical technique.

RESULTS

A total of 380 patients underwent MSA, at a mean (SD) follow up of 11.5 (8.7) months, 59 (15.5%) patients were experiencing persistent dysphagia. Thirty-one percent of patients required at least one dilation for dysphagia or chest pain and the overall response rate to this procedure was 67%, 7 (1.8%) patients required device removal specifically for dysphagia. Independent predictors of persistent dysphagia based on logistic regression model included (1) absence of a large hernia (OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.08-7.57, p = 0.035)); (2) the presence of preoperative dysphagia (OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.05-4.58, p = 0.037)); and (3) having less than 80% peristaltic contractions on HRIM (OR 2.50 (95% CI 1.09-5.73, p = 0.031)). Graded cutoffs of distal contractile integral (DCI), mean wave amplitude, DeMeester score, sex, and body mass index were evaluated within the model and did not predict postoperative dysphagia. Frequent eating after surgery, avoidance of early dilation, and increase in the size of the LINX device selected decreased the need for dilation.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of patients who underwent MSA, we report 15.5% rate of persistent postoperative dysphagia. The overall response rate to dilation therapy is 67%, and the efficacy of dilation with each subsequent procedure reduces. Patients with normal hiatal anatomy, significant preoperative dysphagia, and less than 80% peristaltic contractions of the smooth muscle portion of the esophagus should be counseled that they have an increased risk for persistent postoperative dysphagia.

Extraluminal Approaches to Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common affliction in Western society. In patients in whom GERD is resistant to medical therapy or who desire nonpharmacological definitive therapy, several surgical interventions are available. The most common and traditional surgical therapy is partial or complete gastric fundoplication; however, new alternatives, including the magnetic augmentation system LINX and EndoStim device, are increasingly common and efficacious.

Spotlight on the Linx™ Reflux Management System for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: evidence and research

BACKGROUND

The initial approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) management typically involves lifestyle modification and medical therapy utilizing acid reducing agents such as histamine blockers and proton pump inhibitors. In severe cases refractory to such treatments, surgical therapy may be indicated. The gold standard for surgical treatment of GERD is the laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. In recent years, a new technique known as magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been developed using the Linx™ Reflux Management System. This is an implantable ring of magnetic beads that is placed around the esophagus at the gastroesophageal junction to restore lower esophageal integrity. The aim of this review is to discuss the current literature regarding indications, surgical technique, efficacy, and complications of MSA using the Linx device.

METHODS

A standardized literature search was performed yielding 367 abstracts. After elimination due to duplicates between databases and irrelevance, 96 articles remained. The information found to be significant and non-redundant was included in this review.

CONCLUSION

After several years of clinical application, the Linx device has been shown to not only be effective for the management of GERD but also be as effective as fundoplication. With respect to safety, the most common complication of MSA is dysphagia. This often resolved without intervention, but esophageal dilation or device explanation are occasionally necessary. Not fully appreciated in earlier reviews, erosion of the device into the esophagus appears to be the most significant complication of the device after extended follow-up. While very rare, the potentially severe consequences of this phenomenon suggest that the device should be used with some restraint and that patients should be made aware of this potential morbidity. Fortunately, in the few cases of device erosion described in the literature reviewed, the Linx device was easily and safely removed.

Surgical Anti-Reflux Options Beyond Fundoplication

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper provides an overview of current and future surgical interventions available for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) beyond the well established and recognized fundoplication. Review the current indications and outcomes of these surgical procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Fundoplication has been a cornerstone of the surgical management of GERD. However, other effective surgical options exist and can be considered based on prior interventions as well as patient, anatomical or other factors. These options are intended to address some of the shortcomings or potential complications of fundoplication such as symptom recurrence, dysphagia, or gas bloating, for example. Alternative procedures to fundoplication include magnetic sphincter augmentation, electrical stimulation and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The indication for surgical management remains failure of or inability to tolerate medical therapy.

Lower Esophageal Sphincter Augmentation for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: The Safety of a Modern Implant

INTRODUCTION

Use of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSAD) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is increasing. As this innovative treatment for GERD gains widespread use and adoption, an assessment of its safety since U.S. market introduction is presented.

METHODS

Events were collected from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which reports events submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of suspected device-associated deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions. The reporting period was from March 22, 2012 (FDA approval) through May 31, 2016, and included only events occurring in the United States. Additional information was provided by the manufacturer, allowing calculation of implant rates and durations.

RESULTS

An estimated 3283 patients underwent magnetic sphincter augmentation (165 surgeons at 191 institutions). The median implant duration was 1.4 years, with 1016 patients implanted for at least 2 years. No deaths, life-threatening events, or device malfunctions were reported. The overall rate of device removal was 2.7% (89/3283). The most common reasons for device removal were dysphagia (52/89) and persistent reflux symptoms (19/89). Removal for erosion and migration was 0.15% (5/3283) and 0% (0/3283), respectively. There were no perforations. Of the device removals, 57.3% (51/89) occurred <1 year after implant, 30.3% (27/89) between 1 and 2 years, and 12.4% (11/89) >2 years after implant. The rate of device removal and erosion with an implant duration >2 years were 1.1% (11/1016) and 0.1% (1/1016), respectively. All device removals and erosions were managed nonemergently, with no complications or long-term consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

During a 4-year period in more than 3000 patients, no unanticipated MSAD complications have emerged, and there is no data to suggest a trend of increased events over time. The presentation and management of device-related issues have been less complicated than revisions for laparoscopic fundoplication or other interventions for GERD. MSAD is considered safe for the widespread treatment of GERD.