Removing the magnetic sphincter augmentation device: operative management and outcomes.

Autor: Tatum JM; Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University Of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo StreetHealthcare Consultation Center 4Suite 6200, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA., Alicuben E; Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University Of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo StreetHealthcare Consultation Center 4Suite 6200, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA., Bildzukewicz N; Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University Of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo StreetHealthcare Consultation Center 4Suite 6200, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA., Samakar K; Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University Of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo StreetHealthcare Consultation Center 4Suite 6200, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA., Houghton CC; Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University Of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo StreetHealthcare Consultation Center 4Suite 6200, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA., Lipham JC; Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of University Of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo St. Suite 510, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. John.Lipham@med.usc.edu.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Surgical endoscopy [Surg Endosc] 2019 Aug; Vol. 33 (8), pp. 2663-2669. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Nov 01.
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6544-y
Abstrakt: Background: Recurrent or persistent symptoms of reflux, dysphagia, or device erosion can lead to removal of the magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA aka Linx) device. Device removal has been previously reported, and outcomes of various surgical management strategies at the time of removal have not been well described.
Methods: This is a retrospective review of patients undergoing MSA removal from March 2009 to September 2017 in a single institution. Reason for removal, operative management, and short-term outcomes are reported.
Results: During the study, 435 MSA devices were implanted, 24 of which required removal (5.5%). Removal was due to refractory dysphagia in 1.8% (8/435), for recurrent or persistent GERD in 2.9% (13/435), and secondary to erosion in 0.5% (2/435). Mean time from implant to removal was 863 days (range 119-1762 days). The most common reasons for removal were recurrent GERD (54%), dysphagia (38%), or erosion (8%). Significant operative findings included recurrent or progressive hiatal hernia (38%), erosion (8%), and normal anatomy (46%). Hiatal hernia was found and repaired at the time of device removal in 38% of patients (9/24). The MSA device was removed through laparotomy (4%), laparoscopically (88%), or through a combination of endoscopy and laparoscopy (8%). After removal patients underwent repeat MSA (33%), fundoplication (21%), gastrectomy (4%), or no additional procedure (42%). Symptoms prompting removal of the MSA device had resolved in 52% of patients and improved in an additional 35% at last contact. Of the 10 patients having no anti-reflux procedure after removal, 9 were available for follow-up at a mean of 97 (106) days of whom 22.2% (2/9) had symptoms of GERD or required any anti-reflux medication. No major complications occurred after removal.
Conclusion: MSA removal when necessary can be accomplished through minimally invasive means. Repeat Linx or fundoplication can be performed after removal, however may not be necessary in patients with removal for dysphagia.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: