Factors influencing the outcome of magnetic sphincter augmentation for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease.

OBJECTIVES: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical treatment option for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). MSA consistently improves quality of life, maintains freedom from PPIs, and objectively controls GERD. However, up to 24% of patients did not achieve these outcomes. We sought to identify factors predicting outcomes after MSA placement with the aim of refining selection criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical, endoscopic, manometric, pH data, and intraoperative factors from two databases: Pivotal Trial (N = 99) and our prospectively maintained esophageal database (N = 71). A priori outcomes were defined as excellent (GERD-HRQL <5, no PPI, no esophagitis), good (GERD-HRQL 6-15, no PPI, grade A esophagitis), fair (GERD-HRQL 16 to 25, PPI use, grade B esophagitis), and poor (GERD-HRQL >25, PPI use, grade C/D esophagitis). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of achieving an excellent/good outcome. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients underwent MSA with a median age of 53 years, [43-60] and a median BMI of 27 (IQR = 24-30). At baseline, 93.5% of patients experienced typical symptoms and 69% atypical symptoms. Median DeMeester score was 37.9 (IQR 27.9-51.2) with a structurally intact sphincter in 47%. Esophagitis occurred in 43%. At 48 [19-60] months after MSA, excellent outcomes were achieved in 47%, good in 28%, fair in 22%, and poor in 3%. Median DeMeester score was 15.6 (IQR = 5.8-26.6), esophagitis in 17.6% and daily PPI use in 17%. At univariable analysis, excellent/good outcomes were negatively impacted by BMI, preoperative LES residual pressure, Hill grade, and hiatal hernia. At multivariable analysis, BMI >35 (OR = 0.05, 0.003-0.78, p = 0.03), structurally defective LES (OR = 0.37, 0.13-0.99, p = 0.05), and preoperative LES residual pressure (OR = 0.89, 0.80-0.98, p = 0.02) were independent negative predictors of excellent/good outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic sphincter augmentation results in excellent/good outcomes in most patients but a higher BMI, structurally defective sphincter, and elevated LES residual pressure may prevent this goal.

Novel surgical options for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

There are limited options to patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who are not satisfied with acid suppression therapy. Fundoplication, the standard surgical procedure for GERD, is effective but is associated with adverse side effects and has thus been performed less frequently, creating a need for alternative surgical interventions that are effective, yet less invasive and reversible. Lately, two such interventions were developed: the magnetic sphincter augmentation and electrical stimulation of the lower esophageal sphincter. Human studies describing safety and efficacy over a follow-up period of a number of years have been published, documenting efficacy and safety of these interventions. Future studies should clarify the role of these procedures in the spectrum of GERD therapy.

Acupressure magnets: a possible MRI hazard.

The use of magnets as a component of complementary and alternative medicine is increasingly common. Magnet therapy is used to treat a variety of conditions and often involves tiny magnets adhered to the skin. In auriculotherapy, magnets are placed in specific locations of the ear pinnae which represent particular parts of the body. While generally considered safe, these magnets have the potential to cause imaging problems and serious injury during MRI. We report a case of auriculotherapy magnets which escaped detection despite the use of screening forms and a walk-through metal detector. The magnets caused image artifact but no other patient harm. We recommend updating patient screening practices and educating providers placing therapeutic magnets and performing MRIs of this new potential MRI hazard.

Does the magnetic anal sphincter device compare favourably with sacral nerve stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence?

AIM: The magnetic anal sphincter (MAS) is a recent surgical innovation for severe faecal incontinence (FI). With its place in the treatment algorithm of FI yet to be defined, we report a nonrandomized comparison between MAS and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in a single-centre cohort of patients with FI. METHOD: Data were reviewed from prospective databases. From December 2008 to December 2010, 12 women [median age 65 (42-76) years], having FI for a median of 6.5 years, were implanted with a MAS. Sixteen women, of similar age, preoperative function scores, aetiology and duration of incontinence, and implanted with a permanent SNS pulse generator during the same period, served as a reference group. The duration of hospital stay, complications, change in incontinence and quality of life scores and anal physiology were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The duration of follow up was similar [MAS = 18 (8-30) months vs SNS = 22 (10-28) months; P = 0.318]. Four patients with MAS experienced a 30-day complication, and the device was removed from one patient in each group. A significant improvement in incontinence (P < 0.001) and quality-of-life scores (P < 0.04) occurred in both groups. Mean anal resting pressure increased significantly in patients implanted with a MAS (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: In this single-centre nonrandomized cohort of FI patients, MAS was as effective as SNS in improving continence and quality of life, with similar morbidity. These results can now serve as a prelude to a randomized trial comparing the procedures.