Worldwide Experience with Erosion of the Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device

被引:54
作者
Alicuben, Evan T. [1 ]
Bell, Reginald C. W. [2 ]
Jobe, Blair A. [3 ,4 ]
Buckley, F. P., III [5 ]
Smith, C. Daniel [6 ]
Graybeal, Casey J. [7 ]
Lipham, John C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southern Calif, Dept Surg, Keck Med USC, 1510 San Pablo St 514, Los Angeles, CA 90033 USA
[2] SurgOne Foregut Inst, Englewood, CO USA
[3] Allegheny Hlth Network, Esophageal & Lung Inst, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] Temple Univ, Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA
[5] Univ Texas Austin, Foregut & Reflux Surg, Dell Med Sch, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[6] Esophageal Inst Atlanta, Atlanta, GA USA
[7] Northeast Georgia Phys Grp, Heartburn & Swallowing Ctr, Gainesville, GA USA
关键词
Magnetic sphincter augmentation device; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Esophageal erosion; GASTROESOPHAGEAL-REFLUX DISEASE; ANGELCHIK PROSTHESIS; SINGLE-CENTER; REMOVAL;
D O I
10.1007/s11605-018-3775-0
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The magnetic sphincter augmentation device continues to become a more common antireflux surgical option with low complication rates. Erosion into the esophagus is an important complication to recognize and is reported to occur at very low incidences (0.1-0.15%). Characterization of this complication remains limited. We aim to describe the worldwide experience with erosion of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device including presentation, techniques for removal, and possible risk factors. Materials and Methods We reviewed data obtained from the device manufacturer Torax Medical, Inc., as well as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. The study period was from February 2007 through July 2017 and included all devices placed worldwide. Results In total, 9453 devices were placed and there were 29 reported cases of erosions. The median time to presentation of an erosion was 26 months with most occurring between 1 and 4 years after placement. The risk of erosion was 0.3% at 4 years after device implantation. Most patients experienced new-onset dysphagia prompting evaluation. Devices were successfully removed in all patients most commonly via an endoscopic removal of the eroded portion followed by a delayed laparoscopic removal of the remaining beads. At a median follow-up of 58 days post-removal, there were no complications and 24 patients have returned to baseline. Four patients reported ongoing mild dysphagia. Conclusions Erosion of the LINX device is an important but rare complication to recognize that has been safely managed via minimally invasive approaches without long-term consequences.
引用
收藏
页码:1442 / 1447
页数:6
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   Removal of the Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device Surgical Technique and Results of a Single-center Cohort Study [J].
Asti, Emanuele ;
Siboni, Stefano ;
Lazzari, Veronica ;
Bonitta, Gianluca ;
Sironi, Andrea ;
Bonavina, Luigi .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2017, 265 (05) :941-945
[2]   Endoluminal perforation of a magnetic antireflux device [J].
Bauer, Margit ;
Meining, Alexander ;
Kranzfelder, Michael ;
Jell, Alissa ;
Schirren, Rebekka ;
Wilhelm, Dirk ;
Friess, Helmut ;
Feussner, Hubertus .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2015, 29 (12) :3806-3810
[3]   One Hundred Consecutive Patients Treated with Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: 6 Years of Clinical Experience from a Single Center [J].
Bonavina, Luigi ;
Saino, Greta ;
Bona, Davide ;
Sironi, Andrea ;
Lazzari, Veronica .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2013, 217 (04) :577-585
[4]   Long-term Outcomes of Patients Receiving a Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device for Gastroesophageal Reflux [J].
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 .
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2016, 14 (05) :671-677
[5]   Safety analysis of first 1000 patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease [J].
Lipham, J. C. ;
Taiganides, P. A. ;
Louie, B. E. ;
Ganz, R. A. ;
DeMeester, T. R. .
DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2015, 28 (04) :305-311
[6]  
MaxwellArmstrong CA, 1997, BRIT J SURG, V84, P862, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02678.x
[7]  
Miholic J, 2013, NEW ENGL J MED, V368, P2038, DOI [10.1056/NEJMoa1205544, 10.1056/NEJMc1303656]
[8]   Two-Stage Explantation of a Magnetic Lower Esophageal Sphincter Augmentation Device Due to Esophageal Erosion [J].
Parmar, Abhishek D. ;
Tessler, Robert A. ;
Chang, Howard Y. ;
Svahn, Jonathan D. .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 27 (08) :829-833
[9]  
Reynolds JL, 2014, AM SURGEON, V80, P1034
[10]   Esophageal Penetration of the Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device: History Repeats Itself [J].
Salvador, Renato ;
Costantini, Mario ;
Capovilla, Giovanni ;
Polese, Lino ;
Merigliano, Stefano .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 27 (08) :834-838