Page 33 - Read Online
P. 33

Page 6 of 9  Kitamura et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2022;6:44  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2022.27



 Table 2. Summary of systemic reviews and meta-analyses comparing MSA vs. LF

 Included   Follow-up   GERD-  PPI   Endoscopic                         MSA         MSA
 References  Year  MSA/LF  Dysphagia  Belching   Vomiting  Gas bloat Reoperation
 studies  (months)  HRQL  cessation  dilation                           erosion     removal
 [26]
 Chen et al.  2017 4  299/325 6-12  -  ND  ND  ND  ND  ND  RR: 0.71    ND  -        -
                                              95%CI:
                                              0.54-0.94
                                              P = 0.02

 Skubleny   2017 3  415/273  7-16  -  ND  ND  ND  95.2 MSA    93.5% vs.   ND  -  -  -
 [29]
 et al.             65.9% LF     49.5%
                    P < 0.00001  P < 0.0001
 [2]
 Aiolfi et al.  2018 7  686/525 6-12  ND  ND  -  ND  OR: 5.53   OR: 10.10    OR: 0.39    ND  -  -
                    95%CI: 3.73- 95%CI: 5.33- 95%CI:
                    8.19         19.15        0.25-0.61
                    P < 0.001    P < 0.001    P < 0.001

 Guidozzi   2019 19*  632/467 6-44  ND  ND  ND  -  OR: 12.34   -  OR: 0.34    ND  0.30%  3.30%
 [19]
 et al.             95%CI: 6.43-              95CI: 0.16-
                    23.7                      0.71

 *This study pooled data from 6 comparative studies and 13 single-cohort studies. P-values are listed when reported for significant differences in reported symptoms. LF: Laparoscopic fundoplication; GERD-HRQL:
 gastroesophageal reflux disease-health-related quality of life; PPI: proton-pump inhibitor; MSA: magnetic sphincter augmentation; ND: no difference; OR: odd’s ratio; RR: relative risk.



 Dysphagia, device explantation, and erosion
 There is data to support the safety and efficacy of MSA with acceptable risk. Intraoperative complications are 0.1%, explantation of 1.1 to 6.7%, and erosion of

 0.1 to 1.2%. There are no reported deaths .
 [18]


 The most common adverse effect is dysphagia in the immediate postoperative period, which is 43% to 83%. Persistent dysphagia may occur in up to 19% of
 patients, but the majority will resolve within three months, while few will require endoscopic dilation [28,29] .



 Endoscopic dilation is effective in 67% to 76.9% of patients with persistent dysphagia . This may be due to non-standardization of whether the crural repair is
       [18]
 performed, which may vary between reported studies. One would expect, with newer studies incorporating larger hiatal hernias and complicated reflux cases,
 rates of postoperative dysphagia may rise [20,30] . When reoperation was necessary, a crural closure was noted to be the culprit in one case and symptoms resolved
 when the crural repair was redone . Richards and McRae laparoscopically explored two patients and found the MSA device was encapsulated in scar tissue,
 [23]
 preventing expansion . Capsulotomy was performed and the dysphagia subsequently resolved.
 [13]


 Device explantation has been reported rarely in patients with persistent GERD or dysphagia. In those instances, device removal has been uncomplicated and
 completed in a single stage. Conversion to fundoplication is done successfully and authors feel relatively easy given the limited dissection needed for MSA [13,23] .
   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38