Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38451590›Full record

SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery2024

MAGNETIC SPHINCTER AUGMENTATION DEVICE FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: EFFECTIVE, BUT POSTOPERATIVE DYSPHAGIA AND RISK OF EROSION SHOULD NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

Agustin Cesar Valinoti, Cristian Agustin Angeramo, Nicolas Dreifuss, Fernando Augusto Mardiros Herbella, Francisco Schlottmann

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Agustin Cesar ValinotiHospital Aleman de Buenos Aires, Esophagus and Stomach Surgical Unit - Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1098-7366
Cristian Agustin AngeramoHospital Aleman de Buenos Aires, Esophagus and Stomach Surgical Unit - Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7833-9416
Nicolas DreifussHospital Aleman de Buenos Aires, Esophagus and Stomach Surgical Unit - Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8411-1960
Fernando Augusto Mardiros HerbellaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Surgery - São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3594-5744
Francisco SchlottmannHospital Aleman de Buenos Aires, Esophagus and Stomach Surgical Unit - Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3565-0559
Hospital Alemán · ARUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic ring (MSA) implantation in the esophagus is an alternative surgical procedure to fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

aimsThe aim of this study was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

methodsA systematic literature review of articles on MSA was performed using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline) database between 2008 and 2021, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effect model was used to generate a pooled proportion with 95% confidence interval (CI) across all studies.

resultsA total of 22 studies comprising 4,663 patients with MSA were analysed. Mean follow-up was 27.3 (7-108) months. The weighted pooled proportion of symptom improvement and patient satisfaction were 93% (95%CI 83-98%) and 85% (95%CI 78-90%), respectively. The mean DeMeester score (pre-MSA: 34.6 vs. post-MSA: 8.9, p=0.03) and GERD-HRQL score (pre-MSA: 25.8 vs. post-MSA: 4.4, p<0.0001) improved significantly after MSA. The proportion of patients taking proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) decreased from 92.8 to 12.4% (p<0.0001). The weighted pooled proportions of dysphagia, endoscopic dilatation and gas-related symptoms were 18, 13, and 3%, respectively. Esophageal erosion occurred in 1% of patients, but its risk significantly increased for every year of MSA use (odds ratio - OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.11-1.77, p=0.004). Device removal was needed in 4% of patients.

conclusionsAlthough MSA is a very effective treatment modality for GERD, postoperative dysphagia is common and the risk of esophageal erosion increases over time. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term safety of MSA placement in patients with GERD.

Indexed as

Deglutition DisordersGastroesophageal RefluxFundoplicationHumansMagnetic Phenomena

Identifiers

PMID38451590
PMCPMC10911679
OpenAlexW4392485774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.