ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
A comparative study of magnetic sphincter augmentation and Nissen fundoplication in the management of GERD.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetic sphincter augmentation versus fundoplication for GERD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Critical Insights on Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for GERD During Sleeve Gastrectomy: Analyzing Limitations and Future Directions.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- A comparative study of magnetic sphincter augmentation and Nissen fundoplication in the management of GERD. Author's reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Comment to: A comparative study of magnetic sphincter augmentation and Nissen fundoplication in the management of GERD.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMagnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a novel surgical technique investigated at many clinical institutes worldwide. In 2012, it received approval for treating Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) because of its superior benefits compared to drug therapies. This study aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of MSA compared with Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) for GERD treatment.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 patients who received preoperative matching features of MSA and LNF. The surgical details and one-year postoperative outcomes were analyzed and reported.
resultsSignificant improvement in GERD symptoms was observed in both MSA and LNF patients over the one-year surgical follow-up. Dysphagia was a common postoperative complication observed in both procedures, but no cases required endoscopic dilation. MSA had a significantly shorter operative time compared to LNF (112 vs.175 min, P < 0.001), with faster postoperative dietary recovery [1(0.5,1.5) vs. 3(1.63,5.38) month(s), P < 0.001] and more preservation of hiccup ability (87.5% vs. 45.83%, P = 0.01). No significant disparities were observed between the two groups regarding hospital duration, recovery of physical strength, and upper gastrointestinal complaints.
conclusionIn conclusion, both LNF and MSA are safe and successful surgical therapies for GERD. The benefits of MSA include reduced surgical time, quicker nutritional recovery following surgery, and preservation of hiccup capacity. However, with both surgeries, postoperative dysphagia is a prevalent problem that emphasizes the significance of improving preoperative communication. When selecting between two surgical techniques, it is crucial to consider the postoperative symptoms associated with each procedure.
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.