Evidence Hub

Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation versus fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and pooled analysis

Nadia Guidozzi, T. Wiggins, A. Ahmed, G. Hanna, S. Markar

Diseases of the esophagus, 2019

51 citations

Abstract

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been proposed as a less invasive, more appealing alternative intervention to fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes following MSA for GERD control in comparison with laparoscopic fundoplication. A systematic electronic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for single-arm cohort studies or comparative studies (with fundoplication) evaluating the use of MSA. A random-effects meta-analysis for postoperative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, GERD-health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQOL), gas bloating, ability to belch, dysphagia, and reoperation was performed. The systematic review identified 6 comparative studies of MSA versus fundoplication and 13 single-cohort studies. Following MSA, only 13.2% required postoperative PPI therapy, 7.8% dilatation, 3.3% device removal or reoperation, and esophageal erosion was seen in 0.3%. There was no significant difference between the groups in requirement for postoperative PPI therapy (pooled odds ratio, POR = 1.08; 95%CI 0.40-2.95), GERD-HRQOL score (weighted mean difference, WMD = 0.34; 95%CI -0.70-1.37), dysphagia (POR = 0.94; 95%CI 0.57-1.55), and reoperation (POR = 1.23; 95%CI 0.26-5.8). However, when compared to fundoplication MSA was associated with significantly less gas bloating (POR = 0.34; 95%CI 0.16-0.71) and a greater ability to belch (POR =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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.

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