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 24 条
  • [1] Worldwide Experience with Erosion of the Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device
    Alicuben, Evan T.
    Bell, Reginald C. W.
    Jobe, Blair A.
    Buckley, F. P., III
    Smith, C. Daniel
    Graybeal, Casey J.
    Lipham, John C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2018, 22 (08) : 1442 - 1447
  • [2] Ayazi S, 2020, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V230, P733, DOI 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.01.026
  • [3] Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Postoperative Dysphagia: Characterization, Clinical Risk Factors, and Management
    Ayazi, Shahin
    Zheng, Ping
    Zaidi, Ali H.
    Chovanec, Kristy
    Chowdhury, Nobel
    Salvitti, Madison
    Komatsu, Yoshihiro
    Omstead, Ashten N.
    Hoppo, Toshitaka
    Jobe, Blair A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2020, 24 (01) : 39 - 49
  • [4] LINX® Reflux Management System in chronic gastroesophageal reflux: a novel effective technology for restoring the natural barrier to reflux
    Bonavina, Luigi
    Saino, Greta
    Lipham, John C.
    DeMeester, Tom R.
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 6 (04): : 261 - 268
  • [5] Magnetic Augmentation of the Lower Esophageal Sphincter: Results of a Feasibility Clinical Trial
    Bonavina, Luigi
    Saino, Greta I.
    Bona, Davide
    Lipham, John
    Ganz, Robert A.
    Dunn, Daniel
    DeMeester, Tom
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2008, 12 (12) : 2133 - 2140
  • [6] Favorable results from a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with large hiatal hernias undergoing LINX magnetic sphincter augmentation
    Buckley, F. P., III
    Bell, Reginald C. W.
    Freeman, Kate
    Doggett, Stephanie
    Heidrick, Rachel
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2018, 32 (04): : 1762 - 1768
  • [7] Cuenca-Abente F, 2006, MANAGING FAILED ANTI-REFLUX THERAPY, P57, DOI 10.1007/1-84628-011-7_5
  • [8] 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
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [9] Safety and efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation dilation
    Fletcher, Reid
    Dunst, Christy M.
    Abdelmoaty, Walaa F.
    Alicuben, Evan T.
    Shemmeri, Ealaf
    Parker, Brett
    Mueller, Dolores
    Sharata, Ahmed M.
    Reavis, Kevin M.
    Davila Bradley, Daniel
    Bildzukewicz, Nikolai A.
    Louie, Brian E.
    Lipham, John C.
    DeMeester, Steven R.
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 35 (07): : 3861 - 3864
  • [10] Long-term Outcomes of Patients Receiving a Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device for Gastroesophageal Reflux
    Ganz, Robert A.
    Edmundowicz, Steven A.
    Taiganides, Paul A.
    Lipham, John C.
    Smith, C. Daniel
    DeVault, Kenneth R.
    Horgan, Santiago
    Jacobsen, Garth
    Luketich, James D.
    Smith, Christopher C.
    Schlack-Haerer, Steven C.
    Kothari, Shanu N.
    Dunst, Christy M.
    Watson, Thomas J.
    Peters, Jeffrey
    Oelschlager, Brant K.
    Perry, Kyle A.
    Melvin, Scott
    Bemelman, Willem A.
    Smout, Andre J. P. M.
    Dunn, Dan
    [J]. CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2016, 14 (05) : 671 - 677