ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
The role of preoperative workup in predicting dysphagia, dilation, or explantation after magnetic sphincter augmentation.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The failure pattern for the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: a single-institution case series with literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Clinical outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilation for dysphagia after anti-gastroesophageal reflux surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease using a ring of titanium beads to improve the function of the lower esophageal sphincter. Prior to implantation, a comprehensive preoperative esophageal workup is required to determine patient candidacy in an effort to reduce the dysphagia, dilation, and explantation rate of the device. This study was designed to assess the best predictors for these endpoints.
methodsA prospectively maintained IRB-approved database was retrospectively reviewed for patients undergoing MSA implantation. Patients were divided into 3 groups, those that needed no intervention, those that needed medical intervention with oral steroids for reported dysphagia, and surgical intervention, which included endoscopic dilation and/or surgical explantation. Primary endpoints included preoperative objective and subjective testing from a comprehensive esophageal workup including intraoperative notation of number of beads on the device.
resultsThere were 99 patients eligible for the study with a mean age of 52 and mean follow-up of 10.2 months. Mean BMI was 27 and 59% were female. The no-intervention group had 59 patients, medical intervention group had 25 patients, and surgical intervention group had 15 patients. Preoperative esophageal manometry findings, pH testing off medications, endoscopic and radiologic evaluation showed no difference between the 3 groups. No differences were seen in preoperative subjective evaluations based on GERD-HRQL or RSI scores. There was no difference in average number of beads on the device between the 3 groups.
conclusionA comprehensive esophageal workup is important to confirm the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and rule out other esophageal pathology. However, this study shows that a preoperative comprehensive esophageal workup does not predict which patients will develop dysphagia or require either medical or surgical interventions following MSA implantation.
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.