Short term safety of magnetic sphincter augmentation vs minimally invasive fundoplication: an ACS-NSQIP analysis.

PURPOSE: Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation (MSA) is an FDA-approved anti-reflux procedure with comparable outcomes to fundoplication. However, most data regarding its use are limited to single or small multicenter studies which may limit the generalizability of its efficacy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing MSA vs fundoplication in a national database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2017-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Registry was utilized to evaluate patients undergoing MSA or fundoplication. Patients requiring Collis gastroplasty, paraesophageal hernia repair, and emergency cases, were excluded. Patient outcomes included overall complication rates, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 7,882 patients underwent MSA (n = 597) or fundoplication (n = 7285). MSA patients were younger (51 vs 57, p < 0.001), and more often male (49.6 vs 34.3%, p < 0.001). While patients undergoing MSA experienced similar rates of reoperation (1.0 vs 2.0%, p = 0.095), they experienced fewer readmissions (2.2 vs 4.7%, p = 0.005), complications (0.6 vs 4.0%, p < 0.001), shorter mean (SD) hospital length of stay(days) (0.4 ± 4.3 vs 1.8 ± 4.6, p < 0.001) and operative time(min) (80.8 ± 36.1 vs 118.7 ± 63.7, p < 0.001). Mortality was similar between groups (0 vs 0.3%, p = 0.175). On multivariable analysis, MSA was independently associated with reduced postoperative complications (OR 0.23, CI 0.08 to 0.61, p = 0.002), readmissions (OR 0.53, CI 0.30 to 0.94, p = 0.02), operative time (RC - 36.56, CI - 41.62 to - 31.49. p < 0.001) and length of stay (RC - 1.22, CI - 1.61 to - 0.84 p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this national database study, compared to fundoplication MSA was associated with reduced postoperative complications, fewer readmissions, and shorter operative time and hospital length of stay. While randomized trials are lacking between MSA and fundoplication, both institutional and national database studies continue to support the use of MSA as a safe anti-reflux operation.

Tumor differentiation impacts response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The current staging system for esophageal adenocarcinoma only considers tumor grade in early tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of tumor differentiation on response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This was a multi-institution retrospective review of all patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy from January 2010 to December 2017. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival was compared between patients with well- or moderately differentiated (G1/2) tumors versus poorly differentiated (G3) tumors. RESULTS: There were 550 patients, 485 men (88.2%) and 65 women. The median age was 61 years, and the tumor was G1/2 in 288 (52.4%) and G3 in 262 patients. Overall clinical stage before neoadjuvant therapy was similar between groups. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was found in 87 patients (15.8%). The frequency of pCR was similar between groups, but residual disease in the esophagus and lymph nodes was significantly more likely with G3 tumors. Median follow-up was 63 months and absolute survival, overall survival, and disease-free survival were all significantly worse in patients with G3 tumors. Further, even with pCR, patients with G3 tumors had significantly worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that response to neoadjuvant therapy was not affected by tumor differentiation. However, poor differentiation was associated with worse survival compared with patients with G1/2 tumors, even among those with pCR. These results suggest that poor differentiation should be considered as an added risk factor for clinical staging in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation: laparoscopic or robotic approach?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-the pathologic reflux of gastric contents into the distal esophagus-is the most common benign disorder of the esophagus. Its incidence is at 10-20% of the Western population and it yearly cost of treatment in the USA in 9.3 billion dollars. Although first line treatment for the disorder is medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors, an estimated 30-40% of patients will continue to experience medically refractory GERD. In this population anti-reflux surgery can be offered. Traditional anti-reflux surgery is done via the Nissen fundoplication, a technically difficult surgery with uncomfortable side effects of bloating and inability to belch. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) of the lower esophagus via the LINX device was introduced a less technically challenging alternative to the Nissen. The LINX provides fewer side effects of bloating and inability to belch and has been adapted widely to the practice of anti-reflux surgery. In this paper we discuss the progression of surgical practices with the LINX, including an analysis of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches to MSA device implantation.

The Impact of Ineffective Esophageal Motility on Patients Undergoing Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and characterize outcomes of MSA in patients with IEM. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MSA improves patients with gastroesophageal reflux and normal motility. However, many patients have IEM, which could impact the outcomes of MSA and discourage use. METHODS: An international, multi-institutional case control study of IEM patients undergoing MSA matched to normal patients was performed. Primary outcomes were new onset dysphagia and need for postoperative interventions. RESULTS: A total of 105 IEM patients underwent MSA with matching controls. At 1 year after MSA: GERD-Health Related Quality of Life was similar; DeMeester scores in IEM patients improved to 15.7 and 8.5 in controls ( P = 0.021); and normalization of the DeMeester score for IEM = 61.7% and controls = 73.1% ( P = 0.079).In IEM patients, 10/12 (83%) with preop dysphagia had resolution; 11/66 (17%) had new onset dysphagia and 55/66 (83%) never had dysphagia. Comparatively, in non-IEM patients, 22/24 (92%) had dysphagia resolve; 2/24 (8%) had persistent dysphagia; 7/69 (10%) had new onset dysphagia, and 62/69 (90%) never had dysphagia.Overall, 19 (18%) IEM patients were dilated after MSA, whereas 12 (11%) non-IEM patients underwent dilation ( P = 0.151). Nine (9%) patients in both groups had their device explanted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IEM undergoing MSA demonstrate improved quality of life and reduction in acid exposure. Key differences in IEM patients include lower rates of objective GERD resolution, lower resolution of existing dysphagia, higher rates of new onset dysphagia and need for dilation. GERD patients with IEM should be counselled about these possibilities.

Lower Rates of Unplanned Conversion to Open in Robotic Approach to Esophagectomy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have gained popularity worldwide; however, unplanned conversion to an open approach is not uncommon. This study sought to investigate risk factors associated with converting to an open approach and to evaluate outcomes following conversion. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer were identified using the 2016-2019 Procedure Targeted NSQIP Database. Multivariable, stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy. Propensity-matched comparison of robotic (RAMIE) to traditional MIE was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1347 patients were included; 140 patients (10%) underwent conversion to open. Morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and squamous cell carcinoma were associated with a higher likelihood of conversion. A robotic approach was associated with a lower likelihood of conversion to open (OR .57, 95% CI 0.32-.99). On multivariable analysis, squamous cell carcinoma pathology was the only variable independently associated with higher odds of conversion (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.02-6.98). Propensity-matched comparison of RAMIE vs MIE showed no significant difference in conversion rate (6.5% vs 9.1%, P = .298), morbidity, or mortality. DISCUSSION: A robotic approach to esophagectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of unplanned conversion to open, and patients who were converted to open experienced worse outcomes. Future studies should aim to determine why a robotic esophagectomy approach may lead to fewer open conversions as it may be an underappreciated benefit of this newest operative approach.

Impact of Robotic Approach on Post-Anastomotic Leaks After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Although mortality rates after esophagectomy have decreased over the last 30 years, anastomotic leaks still commonly persist and portend significant morbidity. Previous studies have analyzed patient and perio-perative risk factors for leaks, yet data describing the association of leaks and an open or minimally invasive approach are lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of operative approach on leak rates and subsequent management of the leaks. METHODS: We queried the Procedure-Targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database for patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer in the years from 2016 to 2019. Patient demographics, disease-related information, peri-operative data, and short-term outcomes were reviewed. Multivariable, stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with post-operative anastomotic leaks. RESULTS: Of the 2696 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer, anastomotic leaks occurred in 374 (14%). Based on approach, 13% of open, 14% of laparoscopic, and 18% of robotic cases were complicated by leak (P = .123). Multivariable analysis identified the following significant risk factors for leak: diabetes (OR 1.32, P = .047), hypertension (OR 1.32, P = .022), and longer operative time (OR 1.61, P < .001). The percentage of leaks requiring endoscopic or operative intervention was 75% for open, 79% for laparoscopic, and 54% for robotic cases (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy for cancer occur frequently regardless of surgical approach. Furthermore, these leaks are managed differently after an open, laparoscopic, or robotic approach. Robotic esophagectomies complicated by anastomotic leak required less invasive management.

Gastric electric stimulator versus gastrectomy for the treatment of medically refractory gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) are known therapeutic options for medically refractory gastroparesis (MRG) although there are limited data comparing their outcomes. We aim to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing GES vs upfront LG for the treatment of MRG while examining factors associated with GES failure and conversion to LG. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 181 consecutive patients who underwent GES or LG for MRG at our institution from January 2003 to December 2017. Data collection consisted of chart review and follow-up telephone survey. Statistical analysis utilized Chi-squared, ANOVA, and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 130 (72%) patients underwent GES and 51 (28%) LG as primary intervention. GES patients were more likely to have diabetic gastroparesis (GES 67% vs LG 39%, p < 0.001), while primary LG patients were more likely to have post-surgical gastroparesis (GES 5% vs LG 43%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, primary LG patients had higher rates of major in-hospital morbidity events (GES 5% vs LG 18%, p = 0.017) and longer hospital stays (GES 3 vs LG 9 days, p < 0.001). However, over a mean 35-month follow-up period, there were no differences in the rates of major morbidity, readmissions, or mortality. Multivariable regression analysis revealed patients undergoing GES as a primary intervention were less likely to report improvement in symptoms on follow-up compared to primary LG patients OR 0.160 (95% CI 0.048-0.532). Additionally, patients who converted to LG from GES were more likely to have post-surgical gastroparesis as the primary etiology. CONCLUSION: GES as a first-line surgical treatment of MRG was associated with worse outcomes compared to LG. Post-surgical etiology was associated with an increased likelihood of GES failure, and in such patients, upfront gastrectomy may be a superior alternative to GES. Further studies are needed to determine patient selection for operative treatment of MRG.

Loosening the belt on magnetic sphincter augmentation indications: does body mass index matter?

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the impact of obesity on MSA outcomes is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of MSA in patients with GERD and obesity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic MSA at three high-volume centers from 2016 to 2019. Patients were grouped into four cohorts according to the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification: BMI < 25 (normal weight), BMI 25-29.9 (overweight), BMI 30-34.9 (obese class I), and BMI > 35 (obese class II-III). Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 621 patients underwent laparoscopic MSA during the study period. Follow-up with endoscopy or video esophagram was available for 361 patients (58%) with a median follow-up of 15.4 months. Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar except the BMI > 35 group had more females and a higher preoperative median DeMeester score. There were no significant differences in outcomes between normal weight, overweight, and obese patient groups undergoing MSA. All groups experienced significant reductions in acid suppressive medication use, low GERD-HRQL scores, low DeMeester scores, few intraoperative and postoperative complications, and low rates of hiatal hernia recurrence after MSA. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic sphincter augmentation is safe and effective in improving GERD symptoms, reducing esophageal acid exposure, and preventing hiatal hernia recurrence, irrespective of patient BMI. MSA should be considered an acceptable treatment option for obese patients with GERD.

Understanding the GERD Barrier.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is steadily increasing in incidence and now affects 18% to 28% of the population in the United States. A thorough understanding of the pathophysiology underlying this disease is necessary to improve the current standard of care. Most GERD pathophysiology models focus on the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) as the key element which prevents esophageal reflux. More recent research has highlighted the crural diaphragm (CD) as an additional critical component of the GERD barrier. We now know that the CD actively relaxes when the distal esophagus is distended and contracts when the stomach is distended. Crural myotomy in animal models increases esophageal acid exposure, highlighting the CD's vital role. There are also multiple physiological studies in patients with symptomatic hiatal hernia that demonstrate CD dysfunction is associated with GERD. Finally, computer models integrating physiological data predict that the CD and the LES each contribute roughly 50% to the GERD barrier. This more robust understanding has implications for future procedural management of GERD. Specifically, effective GERD management mandates repair of the CD and reinforcement of the LES. Given the high rate of hiatal hernia recurrences, it seems that novel antireflux procedures should target this essential component of the GERD barrier. Future research should focus on methods to maintain crural integrity, decrease hiatal hernia recurrence, and improve long-term competency of the GERD barrier.

Less is more: cruroplasty alone is sufficient for revisional hiatal hernia surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of hiatal hernia after anti-reflux surgery is common, with past studies reporting recurrence rates of 10-15%. Most patients experience relief from GERD symptoms following initial repair; however, those suffering from recurrence can have symptoms severe enough to warrant another operation. Although the standard of care is to revise the fundoplication or convert to magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in addition to redo cruroplasty, it stands to reason that with an intact fundoplication, a repeat cruroplasty is all that is necessary to alleviate the patients' symptoms. In other words, only fix that which is broken. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with symptomatic hiatal hernia recurrence who underwent reoperation between January 2011 and September 2018 was conducted. Patients who received revisional cruroplasty alone were compared with cruroplasty plus some other revision (fundoplication revision, or takedown and MSA placement). Demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were collected. RESULTS: There were 73 patients identified. Median time to recurrence after the first procedure was 3.7 (1.9-8.2) years. Thirty-two percent of the patients had GERD symptoms for more than 10 years. Twenty-six patients underwent cruroplasty only. Forty-seven patients underwent cruroplasty plus fundoplication revision. There were no significant differences in operative times (2.4 h cruroplasty alone, 2.8 h full revision, p = 0.75) or postoperative complications between the two groups. Patients had a mean follow-up time of 1.64 years. Of the 73 patients, 8 had subsequent hiatal hernia recurrence. The recurrence rate for patients with cruroplasty alone was 11%, and the recurrence rate for the full revision group was 12% (p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: Leaving an intact fundoplication alone at the time of revisional surgery did not adversely affect surgical outcomes. This data suggests a role for hernia-only repair for recurrent hiatal hernias.

Safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted groin hernia repair.

Robotic surgical technology has grown in popularity and applicability, since its conception with emerging uses in general surgery. The robot's contribution of increased stability and dexterity may be beneficial in technically challenging surgeries, namely, inguinal hernia repair. The aim of this project is to contribute to the growing body of literature on robotic technology for inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) by sharing our experience with RIHR at a large, academic institution. We performed a retrospective chart review spanning from March 2015 to April 2018 on all patients who had undergone RIHR at our university hospital. Extracted data include preoperative demographics, operative features, and postoperative outcomes. Data were analyzed with particular focus on complications, including hernia recurrence. A total of 43 patients were included, 40 of which were male. Mean patient age was 56 (range 18-85 years) and mean patient BMI was 26.4 (range 17.5-42.3). Bilateral hernias were diagnosed in 13 patients. All of the patients received transabdominal approaches, and all but one received placement of synthetic polypropylene mesh. There was variety in mesh placement with 23 patients receiving suture fixation and 14 receiving tack fixation. Several patients received a combination of suture, tacks, and surgical glue. Mean patient in-room time was 4.0 h, mean operative time was 2.9 h, and mean robotic dock time was 2.0 h. Regarding intraoperative complications, there was one bladder injury, which was discovered intraoperatively and repaired primarily. Same-day discharges were achieved in 32 patients (74.4%) of patients. One patient was admitted overnight for management of urinary retention. Additional ten patients were admitted for observation. Post-operatively, none of the cases resulted in wound infections. Eleven patients developed seromas and one patient was diagnosed with a groin hematoma. Median follow-up was 37.5 days, and one recurrence was reported during this time. The recurrent hernia in this case was initially discovered during a separate case and was repaired with temporary mesh. The use of the robot is safe and effective and should be considered an acceptable approach to inguinal hernia repair. Future prospective studies will help define which patients will benefit most from this technology.

Safety and efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation dilation.

BACKGROUND: The magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSA) provides effective relief of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Dysphagia after MSA implantation sometimes prompts endoscopic dilation. The manufacturer's instructions are that it be performed 6 or more weeks after implantation under fluoroscopic guidance to not more than 15 mm keeping 3 or more beads closed. The purpose of this study was to assess adherence to these recommendations and explore the techniques used and outcomes after MSA dilation. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We conducted a multicenter retrospective review of patients undergoing dilation for dysphagia after MSA placement from 2012 to 2018. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients underwent 245 dilations. The median size of MSA placed was 14 beads (range 12-17) and the median time to dilation was 175 days. A second dilation was performed in 67 patients, 22 patients had a third dilation and 7 patients underwent 4 or more dilations. In total, 17 devices (11.8%) were eventually explanted. The majority of dilations were performed with a balloon dilator (81%). The median dilator size was 18 mm and 73.4% were done with a dilator larger than 15 mm. There was no association between dilator size and need for subsequent dilation. Fluoroscopy was used in 28% of cases. There were no perforations or device erosions related to dilation. DISCUSSION: There is no clinical credence to the manufacturer's recommendation for the use of fluoroscopy and limitation to 15 mm when dilating a patient for dysphagia after MSA implantation. Use of a larger size dilator was not associated with perforation or device erosion, but also did not reduce the need for repeat dilation. Given this, we would recommend that the initial dilation for any size MSA device be done using a 15 mm through-the-scope balloon dilator. Dysphagia prompting dilation after MSA implantation is associated with nearly a 12% risk of device explantation.

Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Novel Procedure for Gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has recently been considered for the surgical management of refractory gastroparesis. Our study aims to determine the efficacy of LSG as a new treatment modality for gastroparesis. METHODS: A multi-surgeon single institution retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LSG for refractory gastroparesis from September 2016-December 2017. Pre- and postoperative Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptoms Severity Index and/or Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) questionnaires were reviewed. A telephone survey was conducted. Statistical analysis consisted of two-sample t test and utilized SAS v9.4. A P-value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were 10 patients included and 80% were women with an average age of 43 years (24-63). Mean Body Mass Index was 24.5 (16.8-39.6), and median gastric emptying at 4 hours was 50% (30-85). Etiology of gastroparesis was 50% idiopathic, 40% diabetic, and 10% postsurgical. 80% of patients had previously undergone gastric electrical stimulator implantation, 20% pyloric botox injections, and 1 patient jejunostomy tube placement. One patient required conversion from laparoscopic to open secondary to adhesions. Median length of stay was 5 days (2-13), and median follow-up was 13.3 months. 90% of patients were tolerating a regular diet at longest follow-up with significant improvement in self-reported symptoms. GCSI scores were 33.6 preoperatively and 14.9 postoperatively (P = .01). DISCUSSION: Our study adds to the literature examining the role of LSG in the treatment of gastroparesis. LSG has favorable outcomes at short-term follow-up for patients with refractory gastroparesis.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation with hiatal hernia repair: long term outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a safe and effective treatment for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). MSA was initially indicated for patients with GERD and concomitant hiatal hernias < 3 cm. However, excellent short- and intermediate-term outcomes following MSA and hiatal hernia repair in patients with hiatal hernias ≥ 3 cm have been reported. The purpose of this study is to assess long-term outcomes for this patient population. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective review was performed of patients with GERD and hiatal hernias ≥ 3 cm who underwent MSA and hiatal hernia repair. Patients were treated at two tertiary medical centers between May 2009 and December 2016. Follow up included annual video esophagram, upper endoscopy, or both. Outcomes included pre- and post-operative GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) scores, length and regression of Barrett's esophagus, resolution of esophagitis, need for endoscopic dilations or implant removal, and clinically significant hiatal hernia recurrence (> 2 cm) on videoesophagram or endoscopy. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (53% female) with a median age of 65.56 (58.42-69.80) years were included. Median follow up was 2.98 (interquartile range 1.90-3.32) years. Median DeMeester scores decreased from 42.45 (29.12-60.73) to 9.10 (3.05-24.30) (p < 0.001). Severity of esophagitis (e.g. LA class C to class B) significantly improved (p < 0.01). Forty percent of patients with Barrett's esophagus experienced regression (p < 0.01). Median GERD-HRQL scores improved from 21 to 2. Five (6.3%) hiatal hernia recurrences occurred, and 1 required re-operation. Age, body mass index, size of the initial hiatal hernia, and sex had no significant effect on whether a patient developed a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic sphincter augmentation in conjunction with large hiatal hernia repairs for patients with GERD achieves excellent long-term radiographic and clinical results, and a low overall need for reoperation, without the need for mesh.

Regression of Barrett's esophagus after magnetic sphincter augmentation: intermediate-term results.

BACKGROUND: Untreated gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can lead to Barrett's esophagus and an increased risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of GERD. Preliminary research on short-term outcomes after MSA demonstrated significant regression of Barrett's. Further investigation is required to evaluate the long-term effect of this treatment. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients was conducted with biopsy-proven Barrett's esophagus who underwent MSA between 2007 and 2019. As a part of their preoperative evaluation, patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsies of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction including any abnormal-appearing segments, pH testing, and a videoesophagram. Patients were categorized according to the length of Barrett's identified (ultrashort < 1 cm, short 1-3 cm, long > 3 cm). Improvement was defined as a decrease in length (e.g. long to short). RESULTS: There were 87 patients identified for study inclusion. 55 patients were male. The median body mass index was 26.95. The median age was 61.81 (49.79-68.29). Mean follow-up time was 2.35 ± (1.57) years. 7 (8.0%) of these patients began with long segment Barrett's, 58 (66.7%) began with short segment disease, and 22 (25.3%) began with an ultrashort segment. Within this cohort, 74 (85.06%) had undergone postoperative biopsy. 7 out of 74 patients (9.46%) showed improvement in their intestinal metaplasia and 45/74 (60.81%) showed complete regression. Fisher's exact test showed a significant decrease in Barrett's length following MSA (p = 0.002). No patients progressed to dysplasia or neoplasia. There was a statistically significant decrease in the median Demeester score from 34.00 to 13.70 after surgery (p < .001). CONCLUSION: MSA reduces esophageal acid exposure and can lead to reduction or resolution of Barrett's esophagus. MSA is also effective at preventing progression of metaplasia to dysplasia or neoplasia. This effect remains consistent even after 2 years of follow-up.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation versus fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: pros and cons.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) year in review article is to provide a clear understanding for the current state of MSA literature in 2019, and contrast MSA outcomes with traditional fundoplication. RECENT FINDINGS: Continued work was performed in 2019 to expand patient populations eligible for MSA including those with hiatal hernia, post-bariatric patients, patients necessitating a thoracic approach, and patients with esophageal intestinal metaplasia. Additionally, a large systematic review reinforced earlier findings comparing laparoscopic fundoplication to MSA. This study demonstrated equivalency over many different operative outcomes, with MSA patients having less bloating while also retaining the ability to belch and vomit. Furthermore, independent research teams found a modest cost savings for MSA over laparoscopic fundoplication with budget analysis. SUMMARY: MSA is a safe and efficacious procedure originally approved for patients with medically refractory, uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease. The accumulating body of evidence suggests patients with intestinal metaplasia or hiatal hernias can safely and effectively undergo MSA, whereas further research will be required before MSA is widely used for post-bariatric patients or for patients requiring a transthoracic surgical approach. MSA is equivalent or superior to laparoscopic fundoplication in all surgical outcomes measured thus far.

Surgical and endoscopic management options for patients with GERD based on proton pump inhibitor symptom response: recommendations from an expert U.S. panel.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The objective of this study was to examine expert opinion and agreement on the treatment of distinct GERD profiles from surgical and therapeutic endoscopy perspectives. METHODS: We used the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method over 6 months (July 2018 to January 2019) to assess the appropriateness of antireflux interventions among foregut surgeons and therapeutic gastroenterologists. Patients with primary atypical or extraesophageal symptoms were not considered. Patient scenarios were grouped according to their symptom response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. The primary outcome was appropriateness of an intervention. RESULTS: Antireflux surgery with laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) were ranked as appropriate for all complete and partial PPI responder scenarios. Transoral incisionless fundoplication was ranked as appropriate in complete and partial PPI responders without a hiatal hernia. Radiofrequency energy was not ranked as appropriate for complete or partial responders. There was lack of agreement between surgery and interventional gastroenterology groups on the appropriateness of LF and MSA for PPI nonresponders. Rankings for PPI nonresponders were similar when results from impedance-pH testing on PPI therapy were available, except that LF and MSA were not ranked as appropriate for PPI nonresponders if the impedance-pH study was negative. CONCLUSIONS: This work highlights areas of agreement for invasive therapeutic approaches for GERD and provides impetus for further interdisciplinary collaboration and trials to compare and generate novel and effective treatment approaches and care pathways, including the role of impedance-pH testing in PPI nonresponders.

Clinical outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in patients with GERD and PPI refractory heartburn.

Typical reflux symptoms that respond well to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy are key factors predictive of an excellent outcome with antireflux surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Our aim was to evaluate whether poor preoperative heartburn (HB) relief with PPIs was associated with a worse outcome after Nissen fundoplication. Patients with a main symptom of HB and a positive pH-test who had a laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication between January 2008 and December 2014 were included. Prior to surgery, patients graded how effectively their HB symptoms were relieved by PPIs. Three groups were defined: good response (76-100% relief), partial response (26-75% relief) and poor response (0-25% relief). Outcomes and satisfaction were assessed at a minimum of 1 year after fundoplication. There were 129 patients who met inclusion criteria and 75 agreed to participate. The median follow-up was 48 months. Prior to Nissen fundoplication 13 patients had a good HB response to PPI-therapy, 36 had a partial response and 26 had a poor response. All patients were satisfied with their HB relief after fundoplication (mean satisfaction score: 9.5/10) and there was no difference in satisfaction score or heartburn relief between groups. Heartburn symptoms that respond poorly to PPI therapy are reliably relieved with a Nissen fundoplication in patients with objectively confirmed GERD. Patient satisfaction after Nissen fundoplication was excellent and was similar in patients with poor versus excellent HB relief with preoperative PPI therapy. Therefore, antireflux surgery is an option for patients with HB and confirmed GERD regardless of the degree of relief of HB symptoms provided by PPI medications.