Need for frequent dilations after magnetic sphincter augmentation: an assessment of associated factors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia is the most common complaint after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA), with nearly one-third of patients requiring at least one dilation following MSA. A subset of patients require frequent dilations, but there is a paucity of data on the characteristics of this population. This study aimed to identify predictors of the need for frequent dilations within the first year after implant and to assess these patients' outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA over an 8-year period. Frequent dilations were defined as 2 or more dilations within 1 year of surgery. Patients completed baseline and 1-year postoperative GERD-HRQL questionnaires and objective physiology testing. Baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, and objective testing data were compared between patients who did and did not require frequent dilations. RESULTS: A total of 697 (62.7% female) patients underwent MSA, with 62 (8.9%) patients requiring frequent dilation. At a mean (SD) of 12.3 (3.4) months follow-up, the frequent dilation group had higher median GERD-HRQL total scores (21.0 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001), PPI use (20.8% vs.10.1%, p = 0.023), dissatisfaction (46.7% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001), and device removal (25.8% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) rates. Acid normalization was comparable (p = 0.997). Independent predictors of frequent dilation included preoperative odynophagia (OR 2.85; p = 0.001), IRP > 15 mmHg (OR 2.88; p = 0.006), and > 30% incomplete bolus clearance (OR 1.94; p = 0.004). At a mean (SD) of 15.7 (10.7) months, 28 (45.1%) patients underwent device removal after frequent dilation. Independent predictors of device removal after frequent dilation within 5 years of surgery were preoperative odynophagia (OR 7.18; p = 0.042), LES resting pressure > 45 mmHg (OR 28.5; p = 0.005), and ≥ 10% failed swallows (OR 23.5; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The need for frequent dilations after MSA is a marker for poor symptom control, dissatisfaction, and device removal. Patients with preoperative odynophagia, high LES pressures, and poor esophageal motility should be counseled of their risk for these poor outcomes.

Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) erosion, disruption or displacement clearly requires device removal. However, up to 5.5% of patients without anatomical failure require removal for dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms. Studies characterizing these patients or their management are limited. We aimed to characterize these patients, compare their outcomes, and determine the necessity for further reflux surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 777 patients who underwent MSA at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Patients who underwent device removal for persistent dysphagia or recurrent GERD symptoms were included. Demographic, clinical, objective testing, and quality of life data obtained preoperatively, after implantation and following removal were compared between removal for dysphagia and GERD groups. Sub-analyses were performed comparing outcomes with and without an anti-reflux surgery (ARS) at the time of removal. RESULTS: A total of 40 (5.1%) patients underwent device removal, 31 (77.5%) for dysphagia and 9 (22.5%) for GERD. After implantation, dysphagia patients had less heartburn (12.9-vs-77.7%, p = 0.0005) less regurgitation (16.1-vs-55.5%, p = 0.0286), and more pH-normalization (91.7-vs-33.3%, p = 0.0158). Removal without ARS was performed in 5 (55.6%) GERD and 22 (71.0%) dysphagia patients. Removal for dysphagia patients had more complete symptom resolution (63.6-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0159), freedom from PPIs (81.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0016) and pH-normalization (77.8-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0455). Patients who underwent removal for dysphagia had comparable symptom resolution (p = 0.6770, freedom from PPI (p = 0.3841) and pH-normalization (p = 0.2534) with or without ARS. Those who refused ARS with removal for GERD had more heartburn (100.0%-vs-25.0%, p = 0.0476), regurgitation (80.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476) and PPI use (75.0%-vs-0.0%, p = 0.0476). CONCLUSIONS: MSA removal outcomes are dependent on the indication for removal. Removal for dysphagia yields excellent outcomes regardless of anti-reflux surgery. Patients with persistent GERD had worse outcomes on all measures without ARS. We propose a tailored approach to MSA removal-based indication for removal.

GERD after Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: Assessment of Incidence and Predisposing Factors.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an effective intervention for achalasia, but GERD is a major postoperative adverse event. This study aimed to characterize post-POEM GERD and identify preoperative or technical factors impacting development or severity of GERD. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent POEM at our institution. Favorable outcome was defined as postoperative Eckardt score of 3 or less. Subjective GERD was defined as symptoms consistent with reflux. Objective GERD was based on a DeMeester score greater than 14.7 or Los Angeles grade C or D esophagitis. Severe GERD was defined as a DeMeester score greater than 50.0 or Los Angeles grade D esophagitis Preoperative clinical and objective data and technical surgical elements were compared between those with and without GERD. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each GERD definition. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients underwent POEM. At a mean ± SD follow-up of 21.7 ± 20.7 months, 93.4% achieved favorable outcome. Subjective, objective, and severe objective GERD were found in 38.8%, 50.5%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively. Of those with objective GERD, 24.0% had no reflux symptoms. Women were more likely to report GERD symptoms (p = 0.007), but objective GERD rates were similar between sexes (p = 0.606). The independent predictors for objective GERD were normal preoperative diameter of esophagus (odds ratio [OR] 3.4; p = 0.008) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure less than 45 mmHg (OR 1.86; p = 0.027). The independent predictors for severe objective GERD were LES pressure less than 45 mmHg (OR 6.57; p = 0.007) and obesity (OR 5.03; p = 0.005). The length of esophageal or gastric myotomy or indication of procedure had no impact on the incidence or severity of GERD. CONCLUSION: The rate of pathologic GERD after POEM is higher than symptomatic GERD. A nonhypertensive preoperative LES is a predictor for post-POEM GERD. No modifiable factors impact GERD after POEM.

Comparison of surgical payer costs and implication on the healthcare expenses between laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) in a large healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a promising antireflux surgical treatment. The cost associated with the device may be perceived as a drawback by payers, which may limit the adoption of this technique. There are limited data regarding the cost of MSA in the management of reflux disease. The aims of the study were to report the clinical outcome and quality of life measures in patients after MSA and to compare the pharmaceutical and procedure payer costs and the disease-related and overall expense of MSA compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) from a payer perspective. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This prospective observational study was performed in conjunction with the region's largest health insurance company. Data were collected on patients who underwent MSA over a 2-year period beginning in September 2015 at the study network hospitals. The LNF comparison group was procured from members' claims data of the payer. Inclusion was predicated by patients having continuous coverage during study period. The total procedural reimbursement and the disease-related and overall medical claims submitted up to 12 months prior to surgery and up to 12 months following surgery were obtained. The payer reimbursement data are presented as allowed cost per member per month (PMPM). These values were then compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 195 patients who underwent MSA and 1131 that had LNF. MSA results in comparable symptom control, PPI elimination rate, and quality of life measures compared to values reported for LNF in the literature. The median (IQR) reimbursement of surgery was $13,522 (13,195-14,439) for those who underwent MSA and $13,388 (9951-16,261) for patients with LNF, p = 0.02. In patients who underwent MSA, the median reimbursement related to the upper gastrointestinal disease was $ 305 PMPM, at 12 months prior to surgery and $ 104 at 12 months after surgery, representing 66% decrease in cost. These values were $ 233 PMPM and $126 PMPM for patients who underwent LNF, representing a 46% decrease (p = 0.0001). At 12 months following surgery, the reimbursement for overall medical expenses had decreased by 10.7% in the MSA group and 1.4% in the LNF group when compared to the preoperative baseline reimbursement. The reimbursement for PPI use after surgery showed a 95% decrease in the MSA group and 90% among LNF group when compared to the preoperative baseline (p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: When compared with LNF, MSA results in a reduction of disease-related expenses for the payer in the year following surgery. While MSA is associated with a higher procedural payer cost compared to LNF, payer costs may offset due to reduction in the expenses after surgery.

In vivo assessment of a biological occluder for NOTES gastrotomy closure.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the closure of a transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) access using a multilayer extracellular matrix (ECM) occluder in a canine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mongrel dogs (n = 4) underwent a transgastric NOTES peritoneoscopy and the gastrotomy was closed by deploying a 2-sided ECM occluder. Animals were killed at 7 days (n = 2) and 8 weeks (n = 2) for macroscopic and microscopic assessment. RESULTS: All procedures were completed without any complications. No air leaks were detected immediately after the procedure and at 48 hours postoperatively. At 7 days, ECM appeared to be resolved and mild mucosal inflammation was found at the site of gastrotomy. At 8 weeks, the gastrotomy site was macroscopically and microscopically covered with a normal-appearing gastric mucosa. There was an absence of inflammatory cells and no evidence of the ECM. CONCLUSION: The ECM occluder is safe and effective in this "proof-of-concept" preclinical model.