ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Minimal versus obligatory dissection of the diaphragmatic hiatus during magnetic sphincter augmentation surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- MAGNETIC SPHINCTER AUGMENTATION DEVICE FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: EFFECTIVE, BUT POSTOPERATIVE DYSPHAGIA AND RISK OF EROSION SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review of the introduction and evaluation of magnetic augmentation of the lower oesophageal sphincter for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.The British journal of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes of magnetic sphincter augmentation in sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients: a comprehensive analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Safety profile of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Outcomes in Severe Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- The role of preoperative workup in predicting dysphagia, dilation, or explantation after magnetic sphincter augmentation.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Magnetic sphincter augmentation: a viable rescue therapy for symptomatic reflux following bariatric surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Does Treatment of the Hiatus Influence the Outcomes of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Chronic GERD?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device was initially implanted with minimal hiatal dissection (MHD) at the diaphragmatic hiatus. Due to concern of possible MSA device dysfunction if herniated into an occult or small hiatal hernia, and increased understanding to the role of defective crura in reflux disease, the operative procedure was changed to planned obligatory dissection (OD) of the hiatus at the time of all implantations.
methodsBetween December 2012 and September 2016, 182 patients underwent MSA implant at a single medical center and have complete records available for review through September 2017. The MHD dissection period extended from December 2012 to September 2015, from September 2015 to 2016 all patients underwent OD.
resultsMHD occurred 53% (96/182) versus OD in 47% (86/182), mean follow-up time in days for MHD and OD was 554 (SD 427) versus 374 (298) days. Intraoperative measurement of hernia size for the MHD versus OD was 0.77 (1.1) versus 3.95 (2.4) cm, p < 0.001. At first visit follow-up, there was no difference in any dysphagia (p = 0.11). Recurrent GERD (defined as resumption of PPI after successful initial post-operative wean) was less frequent after OD than after MHD, 3.6 versus 16.3%, p = 0.006. Delayed onset dysphagia was 1.2% in the OD group versus 8.6% in the MHD group, p = 0.04. Recurrent hiatal hernia of 2 cm or greater occurred in 0.0% of the OD and 11.5% of the MHD, p = 0.03. Repeat surgery for hiatal hernia repair has occurred in 0% of the OD and 6.6% of the MHD, p = 0.02.
conclusionOD of the hiatus with crural closure resulted in less recurrence of reflux symptoms and hiatal hernia, despite an increased proportion of patients with larger hiatal hernia and more complex anatomic disease at the time of operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.