Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25012804›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2015

A comparative trial of laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation and Nissen fundoplication.

Eric G Sheu, Peter Nau, Barbara Nath, Braden Kuo, David W Rattner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. LINXSurgical endoscopy · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Magnetic challenge against gastroesophageal reflux.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. LINXWorld journal of clinical cases · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric G SheuDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, esheu@partners.org.
Peter Nau
Barbara Nath
Braden Kuo
David W Rattner
Massachusetts General Hospital · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) with the LINX device is a promising new therapy for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Initial studies have demonstrated MSA to be safe and effective. However, no direct comparison between MSA and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF), the gold standard surgical therapy for GERD, has been performed.

methodsA single institution, case-control study was conducted of MSA performed from 2012 to 2013 and a cohort of LNF matched for age, gender, and hiatal hernia size.

resultsMSA and LNF were both effective treatments for reflux with 75 and 83 % of patients, respectively, reporting resolution of GERD at short-term follow-up. Dysphagia was common following both MSA and LNF, but severe dysphagia requiring endoscopic dilation was more frequent after MSA (50 vs. 0 %, p = 0.01). Need for dilation did not correlate with size of the LINX device or any other examined patient factors. A trend toward decreased adverse GI symptoms of bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea was seen after MSA compared to LNF (0 vs. 33 %). MSA had a shorter operative time (64 vs. 90 min, p < 0.01) but other peri-operative outcomes, including pain, morbidity, and re-admissions were equivalent to LNF. MSA patients were more likely to be self-referred (58 vs. 0 %, p < 0.001).

conclusionsMSA and LNF are both effective and safe treatments for GERD; however, severe dysphagia requiring endoscopic intervention is more common with MSA. Other adverse GI side effects may be less frequent after MSA. Consideration should be paid to these distinct post-operative symptom profiles when selecting a surgical therapy for reflux disease.

Indexed as

MagnetsAdultFemaleFundoplicationGastroesophageal RefluxHernia, HiatalHumansLaparoscopyMaleRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25012804
OpenAlexW2016642153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.