Evidence Hub

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

A. Valinoti, C. A. Angeramo, N. Dreifuss, F. Herbella, F. Schlottmann

Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery, 2024

4,663 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Magnetic ring (MSA) implantation in the esophagus is an alternative surgical procedure to fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: A 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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,663 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free