Comparison of EsophyX2.0 and MUSE systems for transoral incisionless fundoplication: Technical aspects and outcomes up to 3 years.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) with the EsophyX2.0 and MUSE systems for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: TIF outcomes from prospective protocols (Esophy2.0X 2007-2012; MUSE 2015-2019) were retrospectively compared regarding technical success, moderate/severe adverse events, morpho-functional findings up to 1 year, and clinical outcomes up to 3 years. Inclusion criteria were (i) at least 6-month symptomatic GERD, full/partial response to proton pump inhibitors (PPI), esophagitis, and nonerosive reflux disease/hypersensitive esophagus (both protocols); (ii) hiatal hernia <3 cm (Esophy2.0X) and ≤2.5 cm (MUSE); and (iii) Barrett's esophagus <3 cm (MUSE). RESULTS: In the 50 EsophyX2.0 and 46 MUSE procedures, technical success and adverse event rates were similar, but MUSE-related adverse events (4.4%) were life-threatening. At 12 months, hiatal hernia recurred more frequently after EsophyX2.0 (P = 0.008). At 6 months, significantly fewer total and acid refluxes were reported after both TIF, but not more significantly at 1 year. Symptoms improved after both TIF up to 1 year (P < 0.0001), but to a greater extent in MUSE patients up to 3 years (P < 0.0001 vs. P < 0.01 for EsophyX2.0). The rates of 3-year off-PPI therapy patients were 73.5% in the MUSE and 53.3% in the EsophyX2.0 series (P = 0.069). CONCLUSION: Although no conclusion could be drawn from this limited study, the MUSE technique seemed more effective in the long term in patients with hiatal hernia; however, there were more severe adverse events than with EsophyX2.0.