ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Removing the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: operative management and outcomes.
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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic sphincter augmentation in the management of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Five-year clinical outcomes of RefluxStop surgery in the treatment of acid reflux: a prospective multicenter trial of safety and effectiveness.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- No added risk: national outcomes of magnetic sphincter explant with hiatal hernia repair and fundoplication.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A Tough Pill to Swallow: Demonstration of Esophageal Physiologic Events Explaining Severe Dysphagia Captured on EndoFLIP After LINX Procedure.ACG case reports journal · 2026Article
- Reflections on surgery for hiatal hernia.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- The failure pattern for the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: a single-institution case series with literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- The Cost Effectiveness of Adjunctive Treatments for Proton Pump Inhibitor-Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Clinical drug investigation · 2024Article
- Removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: an assessment of etiology, clinical presentation, and management.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Safety profile of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Magnetic challenge against gastroesophageal reflux.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Evolution of a novel technology for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a safety perspective of magnetic sphincter augmentation.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2021Article
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
backgroundRecurrent or persistent symptoms of reflux, dysphagia, or device erosion can lead to removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA aka Linx) device. Device removal has been previously reported, and outcomes of various surgical management strategies at the time of removal have not been well described.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of patients undergoing MSA removal from March 2009 to September 2017 in a single institution. Reason for removal, operative management, and short-term outcomes are reported.
resultsDuring the study, 435 MSA devices were implanted, 24 of which required removal (5.5%). Removal was due to refractory dysphagia in 1.8% (8/435), for recurrent or persistent GERD in 2.9% (13/435), and secondary to erosion in 0.5% (2/435). Mean time from implant to removal was 863 days (range 119-1762 days). The most common reasons for removal were recurrent GERD (54%), dysphagia (38%), or erosion (8%). Significant operative findings included recurrent or progressive hiatal hernia (38%), erosion (8%), and normal anatomy (46%). Hiatal hernia was found and repaired at the time of device removal in 38% of patients (9/24). The MSA device was removed through laparotomy (4%), laparoscopically (88%), or through a combination of endoscopy and laparoscopy (8%). After removal patients underwent repeat MSA (33%), fundoplication (21%), gastrectomy (4%), or no additional procedure (42%). Symptoms prompting removal of the MSA device had resolved in 52% of patients and improved in an additional 35% at last contact. Of the 10 patients having no anti-reflux procedure after removal, 9 were available for follow-up at a mean of 97 (106) days of whom 22.2% (2/9) had symptoms of GERD or required any anti-reflux medication. No major complications occurred after removal.
conclusionMSA removal when necessary can be accomplished through minimally invasive means. Repeat Linx or fundoplication can be performed after removal, however may not be necessary in patients with removal for dysphagia.
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.