Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31485930›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

Magnetic sphincter augmentation: a viable rescue therapy for symptomatic reflux following bariatric surgery.

Ryan C Broderick, C Daniel Smith, Joslin N Cheverie, Pablo Omelanczuk, Arielle M Lee, Rebeca Dominguez-Profeta, Robert Cubas, Garth R Jacobsen, Bryan J Sandler, Karl-Hermann Fuchs and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gastroesophageal Reflux After Sleeve Gastrectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ryan C BroderickDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
C Daniel SmithEsophageal Institute of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Joslin N CheverieDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Pablo OmelanczukDivision of Esophago-gastric and Bariatric Surgery, Hospital Italiano de Mendoza, Mendoza, Argentina.
Arielle M LeeDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA. aml133@ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4475-7673
Rebeca Dominguez-ProfetaDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Robert CubasDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Garth R JacobsenDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Bryan J SandlerDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Karl-Hermann FuchsDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Santiago HorganDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California of San Diego, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Institute for the Future · USUniversity of Atlanta · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Mendoza · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are commonly performed bariatric procedures in obesity management. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in this population has reported rates of 23-100%. GERD after LSG has been noted with recent studies demonstrating de novo reflux or symptom exacerbation despite weight loss. Fundoplication is not an option, and medically refractory GERD after LSG is usually treated with conversion to RYGB. GERD post-RYGB is a unique entity, and management poses a clinical and technical challenge. We evaluate safety and effectiveness of magnetic sphincter augmentation after bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed identifying patients that underwent LINX placement for refractory GERD after LSG, LRYGB, or duodenal switch across three institutions. Outcomes included complications, length of stay, PPI use, GERD-HRQL scores, and patient overall satisfaction.

resultsFrom March 2014 through June 2018, 13 identified patients underwent LINX placement after bariatric surgery: 8 LSG, 4 LRYGB, and 1 duodenal switch. The patients were 77% female, with mean age 43 and average BMI 30.1. Average pre-operative DeMeester score was 24.8. Pre-operatively, 5 patients were on daily PPI, 6 on BID PPI, and 1 on PPI + H2 blocker. We noted decreased medication usage post-operatively, with 4 patients taking daily PPI, and 9 off medication completely. A GERD-HRQL score was obtained pre- and post-operatively in 6 patients with average reduction from 25 to 8.5 (p value 0.002). Two patients experienced complications requiring endoscopic dilation after LINX placement. 100% of patients reported overall satisfaction post procedure.

conclusionLINX placement is a safe, effective treatment option for surgical management of refractory GERD after bariatric surgery. It can relieve symptoms and obviate the requirement of high-dose medical management. Magnetic lower esophageal sphincter augmentation should be another tool in the surgeon's toolbox for managing reflux after bariatric surgery in select patients.

Indexed as

MagnetsAdultEsophageal Sphincter, LowerFemaleGastric BypassGastroesophageal RefluxHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSphincterotomyTreatment OutcomeAnti-reflux surgeryBariatricsMagnetic sphincter augmentationRevision procedure

Identifiers

PMID31485930
OpenAlexW2972112014

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.