RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device sizing protocols on postoperative outcomes and dysphagia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Among predictors of dysphagia after MSA, device size is the only factor that may be modified. Many centers have adopted protocols to increase device size. However, there is limited data on the impact of MSA device upsizing protocols on the surgical outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent MSA were implanted with 2 or 3-beads above the sizing device's pop-off point (POP). Clinical and objective outcomes >1-year after surgery were compared between patients implanted with POP+2-vs-POP+3 sizing protocols. Multiple subgroups were analyzed for benefit from upsizing. Pre- and postoperative characteristics were compared between size patients received, regardless of protocol. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients were implanted under POP+2 and 216 under POP+3. At a mean of 14.2(7.9) months pH normalization was 73.6% and 34.1% required dilation, 15.9% developed persistent dysphagia, and 4.0% required removal. Sizing protocol had no impact on persistent dysphagia ( P =0.908), pH normalization ( P =0.822), or need for dilation ( P =0.210) or removal ( P =0.191). Subgroup analysis found that upsizing reduced dysphagia in patients with <80 percent peristalsis (10.3-vs-31%, P =0.048) or DCI >5000 (0-vs-30.4%, P =0.034). Regardless of sizing protocol, as device size increased there was a stepwise increase in percent male sex ( P <0.0001), BMI>30 ( P <0.0001), and preoperative hiatal hernia>3 cm ( P <0.0001), LA grade C/D esophagitis ( P <0.0001), and DeMeester score ( P <0.0001). Increased size was associated with decreased pH-normalization ( P <0.0001) and need for dilation ( P =0.043) or removal ( P =0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Upsizing from POP+2 to POP+3 does not reduce dysphagia or affect other MSA outcomes; however, patients with poor peristalsis or hypercontractile esophagus do benefit. Regardless of sizing protocol, preoperative clinical characteristics varied among device sizes, suggesting size is not a modifiable factor, but a surrogate for esophageal circumference.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Conservative management of advanced complicated appendicitis in children is becoming more common. Formation of an appendiceal mass or abscess may mitigate against urgent appendectomy during the acute stage, and conservative treatment followed by interval appendectomy has been advocated. We present our experience of interval laparoscopic appendectomy in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All children who were offered interval laparoscopic appendectomy between January 2000 and December 2004 were included. Retrospective case note analysis was performed and data collected included demographics, duration of symptoms, method of diagnosis, days of antibiotics, length of interval, operative time, length of hospital stay (conservative treatment and interval laparoscopic appendectomy), analgesia requirements, complications, and histology. RESULTS: Thirty-six children, median age 8 years (range, 1-15 years) diagnosed with appendiceal mass or abscess were offered interval laparoscopic appendectomy by two surgeons in our institution: one patient declined interval laparoscopic appendectomy. Median antibiotic treatment was 10 days (range, 3-23 days). Median length of stay for conservative treatment was 6 days (range, 1-27 days). Five children required percutaneous drainage. For the 35 children who had interval laparoscopic appendectomy, the median interval was 93 days (range, 34-156 days) and median operative time was 55 minutes (range, 25-120 minutes). Median length of stay for interval laparoscopic appendectomy was 1 day (range, 1-3 days). There were no complications following interval laparoscopic appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Interval laparoscopic appendectomy can be safely performed in children, is associated with a short hospital stay and minimal morbidity, analgesia, and scarring following conservative management of appendiceal mass or abscess. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy eliminates the risk of recurrent appendicitis and serves to excise undiagnosed carcinoid tumors. In future it may be possible to perform interval laparoscopic appendectomy as a day-case procedure in selected patients.
