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.

Esophageal Penetration of the Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device: History Repeats Itself

BACKGROUND

An alternative approach to the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has recently been introduced in clinical practice, involving the implantation of a magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSAD). This "magnetic ring" is implanted laparoscopically around the lower esophageal sphincter to improve its barrier function. The literature is still limited on the midterm results achieved in controlling reflux because the MSAD is a very new procedure. So far, only a few cases of the MSAD causing erosion of the esophagus have been reported.

METHODS

We report on two cases of progressive and severe dysphagia after the implantation of an MSAD elsewhere. In both cases, the symptoms were caused by the migration of the device into the esophagus.

RESULTS

The devices were removed endoscopically in a single step in both cases, using the Olympus cutter. After 3 months, the first patient had a laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication without any complications and with a good final reflux control. The second only underwent removal of the device, using the same endoscopic approach and again without any complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Judging from the literature, MSAD implantation may be an effective way to control GERD, but the method can carry major complications, such as migration of the device into the esophagus (as in the two cases reported here). Endoscopic removal of a device possibly penetrating inside the esophagus is feasible and safe, and may later be followed up with a laparoscopic antireflux procedure without any particular difficulty.