Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32671521›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Safety and efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation dilation.

Reid Fletcher, Christy M Dunst, Walaa F Abdelmoaty, Evan T Alicuben, Ealaf Shemmeri, Brett Parker, Dolores Müller, Ahmed M Sharata, Kevin M Reavis, Daniel Davila Bradley and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2021
    Article
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

14 authors.

Reid FletcherProvidence Portland Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Christy M DunstThe Oregon Clinic: Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, 4805 NE Glisan Ave, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Walaa F AbdelmoatyProvidence Portland Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Evan T AlicubenUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ealaf ShemmeriSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brett ParkerProvidence Portland Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Dolores MüllerThe Oregon Clinic: Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, 4805 NE Glisan Ave, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Ahmed M SharataProvidence Portland Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Kevin M ReavisThe Oregon Clinic: Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, 4805 NE Glisan Ave, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Daniel Davila BradleyThe Oregon Clinic: Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, 4805 NE Glisan Ave, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Nikolai A BildzukewiczUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Brian E LouieSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
John C LiphamUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Steven R DeMeesterThe Oregon Clinic: Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery Division, 4805 NE Glisan Ave, Portland, OR, 97213, USA. sdemeester@orclinic.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe magnetic sphincter augmentation device (MSA) provides effective relief of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Dysphagia after MSA implantation sometimes prompts endoscopic dilation. The manufacturer's instructions are that it be performed 6 or more weeks after implantation under fluoroscopic guidance to not more than 15 mm keeping 3 or more beads closed. The purpose of this study was to assess adherence to these recommendations and explore the techniques used and outcomes after MSA dilation. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We conducted a multicenter retrospective review of patients undergoing dilation for dysphagia after MSA placement from 2012 to 2018.

resultsA total of 144 patients underwent 245 dilations. The median size of MSA placed was 14 beads (range 12-17) and the median time to dilation was 175 days. A second dilation was performed in 67 patients, 22 patients had a third dilation and 7 patients underwent 4 or more dilations. In total, 17 devices (11.8%) were eventually explanted. The majority of dilations were performed with a balloon dilator (81%). The median dilator size was 18 mm and 73.4% were done with a dilator larger than 15 mm. There was no association between dilator size and need for subsequent dilation. Fluoroscopy was used in 28% of cases. There were no perforations or device erosions related to dilation. DISCUSSION: There is no clinical credence to the manufacturer's recommendation for the use of fluoroscopy and limitation to 15 mm when dilating a patient for dysphagia after MSA implantation. Use of a larger size dilator was not associated with perforation or device erosion, but also did not reduce the need for repeat dilation. Given this, we would recommend that the initial dilation for any size MSA device be done using a 15 mm through-the-scope balloon dilator. Dysphagia prompting dilation after MSA implantation is associated with nearly a 12% risk of device explantation.

Indexed as

Esophageal Sphincter, LowerGastroesophageal RefluxDilatationHumansMagnetic PhenomenaRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDilationDysphagiaGERDLINXMagnetic sphincter augmentation

Identifiers

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.