Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Outcomes in Severe Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

Introduction: Outcomes of laparoscopic procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are variable depending on surgical expertise and/or patient-related factors. Some procedures may be inadequate in patients with severe disease. Effectiveness of laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has not been extensively tested in patients with severe disease. Methods: A prospectively collected database was analyzed to identify patients who underwent MSA at a single institution. Individuals who had previous esophago-gastric surgery were excluded. Severe GERD was defined as lower esophageal sphincter pressure <5 mmHg, distal esophageal amplitude <30 mmHg, Barrett's metaplasia, stricture or grade C-D esophagitis, and/or DeMeester score >50. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe GERD were compared with those of patients with mild to moderate GERD who served as control group. Results: Over the study period, a total of 336 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 102 (30.4%) had severe GERD. The median follow-up was 24 months (IQR = 75) in severe GERD patients and 32 months (IQR = 84) in those with non-severe GERD. Patients with severe GERD had a higher rate of dysphagia and higher GERD-HRQL scores. After the MSA procedure, symptoms, health-related quality of life scores, and proton-pump inhibitors consumption significantly decreased in both groups (p < 0.05). No difference between groups was found in the prevalence of severe post-operative dysphagia, the need for endoscopic dilation or device removal, and the DeMeester score. Conclusion: Laparoscopic MSA is safe and effective in reducing symptoms, PPI use, and esophageal acid exposure also in patients with severe GERD.

Reference high-resolution manometry values after magnetic sphincter augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an innovative antireflux procedure that can improve lower esophageal sphincter (LES) competency and reduce symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Some patients report postoperative dysphagia. To date, no studies have described reference high-resolution manometry (HRM) values after MSA implantation. METHODS: High-resolution manometry was performed in patients free of dysphagia after MSA with or without concurrent crura repair. Reference values for all parameters of the Chicago Classification were defined as those between the 5th and 95th percentiles. The contribution of concurrent crura repair to LES competency and to reference values was also analyzed. KEY RESULTS: Eighty-four patients met the study inclusion criteria. The upper limit of normality for integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) and intrabolus pressure (IBP) was 20.2 mmHg and 30.3 mmHg, respectively. Both variables were higher after MSA compared to normative Chicago Classification v3.0 values. The Distal Contractile Integral upper limit was in the range of normality. Patients undergoing crura repair had a significantly higher IRP (p = 0.0378) and lower GERDQ-A scores (p = 0.0374) and Reflux Symptom Index (p = 0.0030) compared to those who underwent MSA device implantation alone. CONCLUSION & INFERENCES: This study provides HRM reference values for patients undergoing successful MSA implantation. Crural repair appears to be a key component of LES augmentation and is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Esophageal foreign bodies: observational cohort study and factors associated with recurrent impaction.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal foreign bodies, including food bolus impaction, represent a common clinical problem. The prevalence of underlying esophageal disease depends on study design and degree of suspicion of a structural or functional esophageal abnormality. Aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with recurrent impaction. METHODS: The prospectively collected database at a University Hospital and Swallowing Center was reviewed from January 2012 to June 2019 to identify all patients admitted for esophageal foreign bodies. Patients who underwent an emergency endoscopic procedure represented the final study sample. Patient characteristics, including history of previous esophageal foreign bodies, and type of endoscopic procedure were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients, 41 males and 24 females with a median age of 59 years, underwent emergency endoscopy for esophageal foreign bodies during the study period. Food bolus was the most common foreign body (n = 43, 66%). Flexible endoscopy was successful in retrieving or pushing the foreign bodies in the stomach in 91% of patients. In 54% of patients, impaction was secondary to an underlying esophageal disorder, which was previously unrecognized in half of them. Recurrent impaction was more common in patients with esophageal disease (P < 0.011). Surgical therapy was required in 4 patients (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Food bolus impaction is a common sentinel event in patients with underlying esophageal disease and is associated with recurrent impaction. Diagnostic endoscopy with biopsies should possibly be performed at the first episode of impaction. Patients with negative biopsies should undergo barium swallow study and high-resolution esophageal manometry.

Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy, Pneumatic Dilatation, and Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Esophageal Achalasia.

Background: Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilatation (PD), and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are common treatments for esophageal achalasia. Literature evidence is restricted to pairwise analysis and PD versus POEM comparison is missing. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to comprehensively compare outcomes within these three surgical approaches with those of esophageal achalasia. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were consulted. A systematic review and a fully Bayesian study level arm-based random effect NMA were performed. Results: Nineteen studies (14 observational and 5 randomized controlled trial) and 4407 patients were included. Overall, 50.4% underwent LHM, 42.8% PD, and 6.8% POEM. The postoperative dysphagia remission was statistically significantly improved in POEM compared with LHM and PD (risk ratio [RR] = 1.21; 95% credible intervals [CIs] = 1.04-1.47 and RR = 1.40; 95% CIs = 1.14-1.79, respectively). Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) rate was higher in POEM than in LHM and PD (RR = 1.75; 95% CIs = 1.35-2.03 and RR = 1.36; 95% CIs = 1.18-1.68, respectively). Postoperative Eckardt score was significantly lower in POEM than in LHM and PD (standardized mean difference (smd) = -0.6; 95% CIs = -1.4 to -0.2 and smd = -1.2; 95% CIs = -2.3 to -0.2, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found comparing LHM and PD in any of the analyzed outcomes. Conclusions: In the short-term follow-up, POEM seems to be associated with better dysphagia improvement and higher postoperative GERD than LHM and PD. The choice of the ideal initial management should be left to multidisciplinary team discussion and personalized on each patient basis.

High-resolution manometry findings after Linx procedure for gastro-esophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation with the Linx® system is a novel laparoscopic procedure for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). Only few data are available regarding the impact of Linx on high-resolution manometry (HRM) variables. METHODS: The prospectively collected database of patients who underwent Linx procedure at a single institution was queried. All patients who completed pre- and postoperative HRM, GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire, and functional outcome swallowing scale (FOSS) questionnaire were included in the study. KEY RESULTS: Forty-five out of 304 patients were included. At a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 10) after surgery, a statistically significant increase of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) total length (P = .002), intra-abdominal length (P = .001), integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), intrabolus pressure (IBP), and esophagogastric contractile integral (EGJ-CI) was noted (P < .001). Distal esophageal amplitude (P = .004), mean distal contractile integral (DCI) (P < .001), post multiple repeated swallows DCI (P = .001), and the percent of normal peristalsis increased (P = .040). All patients were relieved of reflux symptoms. Ineffective esophageal motility reversed to normal in 36% of patients after surgery. The only factor significantly associated with postoperative dysphagia was preoperative dysphagia (P = .006). Postoperatively, a significant correlation between IRP and DCI (r = 0.361 and P = .019) and between IBP and DCI (r = 0.443 and P = .003) was found. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The Linx procedure had a remarkable effect on esophageal motility in the short-term follow-up. It appears that the overall postoperative increase of IRP and IBP may justify the higher DCI values. Preoperative dysphagia was the only factor associated with postoperative dysphagia.

Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation After Gastric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Persistent or de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may be a significant clinical issue after gastric/bariatric surgical procedures. We investigated the effect of magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in the treatment of GERD after previous gastric/bariatric surgery. DATABASE: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. We searched multiple databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus) up to May 2019. We also queried the prospectively collected database of patients who underwent MSA at our tertiary-care hospital and compared postsurgical to naïve patients operated during the same time period. RESULTS: Seven studies (3 case series and 4 case reports), for a total of 35 patients, met the inclusion criteria in the systematic review. The most common index operation was a bariatric procedure, either sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. After MSA implant, the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) score significantly improved compared to baseline (P = .005). Two patients (5.7%) required laparoscopic device removal. In the local institutional cohort series of 67 patients treated by MSA, the prevalence of preoperative grade B esophagitis, operative time, size of MSA, and length of stay were greater in patients with prior gastric surgery compared to naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: MSA is a safe, simple, and standardized antireflux procedure. It is also feasible in patients with refractory GERD following gastric/bariatric surgery. Further prospective and comparative studies are needed to validate the preliminary clinical experience in this subset of patients.

Esophageal emergencies: WSES guidelines.

The esophagus traverses three body compartments (neck, thorax, and abdomen) and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Injuries to the esophagus may be classified as foreign body ingestion, caustic ingestion, esophageal perforation, and esophageal trauma. These lesions can be life-threatening either by digestive contamination of surrounding structures in case of esophageal wall breach or concomitant damage of surrounding organs. Early diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention are the keys of successful management.

Esophageal foreign bodies in adults: systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Esophageal Foreign Body (FB) impaction represents a major challenge for healthcare providers. Aim of this systematic review was to analyse the current literature evidence on prevalence, presentation, treatment, and outcomes of impacted esophageal FB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search was conducted between 2000 and 30th June 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies matched the inclusion criteria. The total number of included patients was 13,092. The cervical esophagus was the most frequent impaction site (67%) and sharp-pointed objects were the most common FB (38.1%). Retrosternal pain (78%), dysphagia (48%), and odynophagia (43.4%) were the most common symptoms. A flexible or rigid endoscopic approach was adopted in 65.1% and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Overall, 17.8% of patients had a complication related to the impacted esophageal FB or to the endoscopic manoeuvers. A surgical approach was required in 3.4% of patients. The overall mortality was 0.85%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is the upfront treatment in patients with esophageal perforation or endoscopically irretrievable esophageal FB. A minimally invasive approach can be adopted in selected patients. Effective prevention of FB impaction should focus on accurate diagnostic work-up to search for an underlying motility disorder after a first episode of esophageal impaction, even if transient and self-resolving.

Flexible versus rigid endoscopy in the management of esophageal foreign body impaction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Foreign body (FB) impaction accounts for 4% of emergency endoscopies in clinical practice. Flexible endoscopy (FE) is recommended as the first-line therapeutic option because it can be performed under sedation, is cost-effective, and is well tolerated. Rigid endoscopy (RE) under general anesthesia is less used but may be advantageous in some circumstances. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FE and RE in esophageal FB removal. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were consulted matching the terms "Rigid endoscopy AND Flexible endoscopy AND foreign bod*". Pooled effect measures were calculated using an inverse-variance weighted or Mantel-Haenszel in random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 index and Cochrane Q test. Results: Five observational cohort studies, published between 1993 and 2015, matched the inclusion criteria. One thousand four hundred and two patients were included; FE was performed in 736 patients and RE in 666. Overall, 101 (7.2%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications were mucosal erosion (26.7%), mucosal edema (18.8%), and iatrogenic esophageal perforations (10.9%). Compared to FE, the estimated RE pooled success OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48-2.06; p = 1.00). The pooled OR of iatrogenic perforation, other complications, and overall complications were 2.87 (95% CI 0.96-8.61; p = 0.06), 1.09 (95% CI 0.38-3.18; p = 0.87), and 1.50 (95% CI 0.53-4.25; p = 0.44), respectively. There was no mortality. Conclusions: FE and RE are equally safe and effective for the removal of esophageal FB. To provide a tailored or crossover approach, patients should be managed in multidisciplinary centers where expertise in RE is also available. Formal training and certification in RE should probably be re-evaluated.

Unusual foreign body impacted in the upper oesophagus: original technique for transoral extraction.

Foreign body ingestion is a common event; in the adult population, most ingestions occur in patients with mental disability, psychiatric disorders, alcohol intoxication or in prisoners seeking secondary gain. Removal through flexible endoscopy is generally the first-line approach but rescue oesophagotomy may be necessary for foreign bodies impacted in the upper oesophagus. A 27-year-old man was admitted in the emergency room after intentional ingestion of a wooden spherical object with a central hole. A total body CT scan showed that the object was completely obstructing the upper oesophageal lumen but there were no signs of perforation. In the operating room, a Weerda diverticuloscope and a 5 mm 0° telescope were used to visualise the foreign body under general anaesthesia. A standard endoscopic biopsy forceps was passed through the hole of the sphere and was retracted with the jaws open allowing transoral extraction without complications.