ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Need for frequent dilations after magnetic sphincter augmentation: an assessment of associated factors and outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large-caliber endoscopic balloon dilation in patients with persistent dysphagia after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is safe and may reduce the need for subsequent dilations and device removal.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDysphagia is the most common complaint after magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA), with nearly one-third of patients requiring at least one dilation following MSA. A subset of patients require frequent dilations, but there is a paucity of data on the characteristics of this population. This study aimed to identify predictors of the need for frequent dilations within the first year after implant and to assess these patients' outcomes.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA over an 8-year period. Frequent dilations were defined as 2 or more dilations within 1 year of surgery. Patients completed baseline and 1-year postoperative GERD-HRQL questionnaires and objective physiology testing. Baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, and objective testing data were compared between patients who did and did not require frequent dilations.
resultsA total of 697 (62.7% female) patients underwent MSA, with 62 (8.9%) patients requiring frequent dilation. At a mean (SD) of 12.3 (3.4) months follow-up, the frequent dilation group had higher median GERD-HRQL total scores (21.0 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001), PPI use (20.8% vs.10.1%, p = 0.023), dissatisfaction (46.7% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001), and device removal (25.8% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) rates. Acid normalization was comparable (p = 0.997). Independent predictors of frequent dilation included preoperative odynophagia (OR 2.85; p = 0.001), IRP > 15 mmHg (OR 2.88; p = 0.006), and > 30% incomplete bolus clearance (OR 1.94; p = 0.004). At a mean (SD) of 15.7 (10.7) months, 28 (45.1%) patients underwent device removal after frequent dilation. Independent predictors of device removal after frequent dilation within 5 years of surgery were preoperative odynophagia (OR 7.18; p = 0.042), LES resting pressure > 45 mmHg (OR 28.5; p = 0.005), and ≥ 10% failed swallows (OR 23.5; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe need for frequent dilations after MSA is a marker for poor symptom control, dissatisfaction, and device removal. Patients with preoperative odynophagia, high LES pressures, and poor esophageal motility should be counseled of their risk for these poor outcomes.
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.