Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33128078›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

More beads, more peristaltic reserve, better outcomes: factors predicting postoperative dysphagia after magnetic sphincter augmentation.

Rebeca Dominguez-Profeta, Joslin N Cheverie, Rachel R Blitzer, Arielle M Lee, Lauren McClain, Ryan C Broderick, Bryan J Sandler, Garth R Jacobsen, Santiago Horgan, David C Kunkel

Abstract read
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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The role of magnetic sphincter augmentation in the gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment pathway: the gastroenterology perspective.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Rebeca Dominguez-ProfetaDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Joslin N CheverieDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Rachel R BlitzerDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. rrblitzer@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0896-8724
Arielle M LeeDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Lauren McClainDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Ryan C BroderickDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Bryan J SandlerDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Garth R JacobsenDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Santiago HorganDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Center for the Future of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
David C KunkelDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMagnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) offers a minimally invasive anti-reflux alternative to fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. The most common side effect of MSA is dysphagia, which may require dilation or even device removal. The incidence of dysphagia may be reduced by MSA sizing and preoperative motility studies. Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative maneuver during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) that assesses peristaltic reserve. We evaluated factors predicting development of dysphagia following MSA. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients undergoing MSA. Preoperative work-up included barium swallow, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and esophageal manometry. Peristaltic augmentation was defined as a ratio > 1 of the distal contractile integral (DCI) following MRS and the mean DCI of the 10 baseline wet swallows during manometry. Demographics, MSA implant size, and postoperative symptom data were gathered on all patients.

resultsSixty-eight patients underwent MSA. Mean age was 51.7 years, average BMI was 25.8 kg/m

conclusionAdequate peristaltic reserve and larger device size correlate with decreased incidence of dysphagia following MSA implantation without compromising the anti-reflux barrier. Routine assessment of peristaltic reserve during preoperative HRM should be considered prior to MSA placement.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersEsophageal Sphincter, LowerFundoplicationHumansMagnetic PhenomenaManometryMiddle AgedPeristalsisRetrospective StudiesDysphagiaGastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)High-resolution manometryMagnetic sphincter augmentation

Identifiers

PMID33128078

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.