Page 13 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

WJOLS

LINX Magnetic Esophageal Sphincter Augmentation vs Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication for GERD
the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus while and four cases were subjected to a revision surgery due
maintaining a physiological LES tone, allowing the to hiatal hernia recurrence. 12,13 The MSA group mor-
9
passage of the food bolus. Magnetic sphincter augmen- bidity included one pleural injury, two incidences of
13
tation serves the surgeon and the patient with a faster, intra operative bleeding, one pneumothorax, and one gas-
12
simpler, and less invasive tool to effectively treat GERD. troesophageal obstruction. Two patients had their device
On comparison, the LNF is a difficult procedure with removed, one had treatment failure, and the other patient
the outcomes based on the skill and experience of the had dysphagia secondary to device erosion 18 months after
9
surgeon. It eliminates the need for extensive dissection the surgery. No mortalities were reported.
of esophagus and mobilization of gastric fundus, which
is the hallmark of the LNF procedure. The long-term CONCLUSION
complications of MSA reversibility are still unclear, as Magnetic sphincter augmentation appears to be an
in cases where the device may be removed using the effective treatment for GERD, with short-term outcomes
10
minimally invasive technique. The device is currently comparable to the more technically challenging and time-
compatible with 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. consuming LNF. It has a favorable side-effect profile for
Magnetic sphincter augmentation is not indicated in the majority of the morbidities associated with GERD
patients with large paraesophageal hernias, esophageal surgery. In order to further understand the efficacy of
dysmotility, and hence considered less versatile than LNF. MSA, a long-term comparative outcome data past 1 year
The notable drawback associated with MSA is dysphagia are needed.
reported as more severe and lasts longer than LNF-
associated dysphagia. However, a graduated modified REFERENCES
diet and endoscopic balloon dilation have alleviated the
dysphagia features in patients. 1. El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J. Update on
the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a
systematic review. Gut 2014 Jun;63(6):871-880.
LIMITATION 2. Toghanian S, Johnson DA, Stålhammar NO, Zerbib F. Burden

This study was basically done with case series and there of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in patients with persis-
were no randomized controlled trials. Moreover, there tent and intense symptoms despite proton pump inhibitor
therapy. Clin Drug Investig 2011 Oct;31(10):703-715.
were only a few studies comparing MSA and LNF with 3. Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, Vakil NB, Johnson DA,
regard to the outcome on long-term basis. Zuckerman S, Skammer W, Levine JG. Esomeprazole (40 mg)
compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of
RESULTS erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002 Mar;97(3):
575-583.
There were two retrospective case–control studies 11,12 and 4. Labenz J, Malfertheiner P. Treatment of uncomplicated reflux
13
a prospective control study taken into consideration for disease. World J Gastroenterol 2005 Jul;11(28):4291-4299.
the review. A total of 688 patients were identified, and 5. Kinoshita Y, Ishihara S. Causes of, and therapeutic approaches
273 patients had undergone LNF; 415 patients went for for, proton pump inhibitor-resistant gastroesophageal reflux
LINX MSA. The mean duration of follow-up was almost disease in Asia. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2008 Nov;1(3):
191-199.
the same term ranging from 8 to 18 months for both MSA 6. Kawamura O, Hosaka H, Shimoyama Y, Kawada A,
and LNF groups. Kuribayashi S, Kusano M, Yamada M. Evaluation of proton
Males accounted for 46% of LNF and 57% of MSA. pump inhibitor-resistant nonerosive reflux disease by
Mean age was 50 and 58 years for LNF and MSA respec- esophageal manometry and 24-hour esophageal impedance
tively. Both groups had similar duration of reflux disease. and pH monitoring. Digestion 2015 Jan;91(1):19-25.
Hiatal hernia was present in 70% of the LNF group of 7. Patti MG. An evidence-based approach to the treatment
patients and in 68% of MSA group. of gastroesophageal reflux disease. JAMA Surg 2016
Jan;151(1):73-78.
Magnetic sphincter augmentation was superior to 8. Yates RB, Oelschlager BK. Surgical treatment of gastro-
LNF in preserving the patient’s ability to belch and to esophageal reflux disease. Surg Clin N Am 2015 Jun;95(3):
emesis, but there was no significant difference between 527-553.
MSA and LNF with regard to the postoperative problems, 9. Bonavina L, DeMeester TR, Ganz RA. LINX TM reflux
such as bloating, dysphagia, and also in discontinuing manage ment system: magnetic sphincter augmentation in
PPI drug therapy. the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Expert Rev
Six patients of the MSA group were in need of endo- Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;6:667-674. ®
scopic balloon dilation, whereas LNF group required 10. Bonavina L, Saino G, Lipham JC, DeMeester TR. LINX reflux
management system in chronic gastroesophageal reflux: a
none. Major morbidity of LNF included intraoperative novel effective technology for restoring the natural barrier
13
12
pleural injury, formation of retropharyngeal abscesses, to reflux. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2013 Jul;6(4):261-268.
World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, May-August 2017;10(2):54-56 55