Does Treatment of the Hiatus Influence the Outcomes of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Chronic GERD?
Antireflux surgery
Diaphragm
GERD
Hiatal hernia
Magnetic sphincter
Surgical outcomes
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
ISSN: 1873-4626
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9706084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
18
06
2018
accepted:
22
02
2019
pubmed:
17
3
2019
medline:
5
8
2020
entrez:
17
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hiatal dissection, restoration of esophageal intra-abdominal length, and crural closure are key components of successful antireflux surgery. The necessity of addressing these components prior to magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been questioned. We aimed to compare outcomes of MSA between groups with differing hiatal dissection and closure. We retrospectively reviewed 259 patients who underwent MSA from 2009 to 2017. Patients were categorized based on hiatal treatment: minimal dissection (MD), crural closure (CC), formal crural repair (FC), and extensive dissection without closure (ED). The primary outcome was normalization of postoperative DeMeester score (≤ 14.72). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess which preoperative predictors achieved normalization. Of the 197 patients, MD was used in 81 (41%); FC in 42 (22%); CC in 40 (20%); and ED in 34 (17%). Normalization occurred in 104 (53%) patients, with MD achieving normalization in 45/81 (56%); FC in 25/42 (60%); CC in 21/40 (53%); and ED 13/34 (38%). After regression, FC was most likely to normalize acid exposure. The presence of a hiatal hernia, defective LES, and higher preoperative DeMeester score were less likely to achieve normalization. Hiatal dissection with restoration of esophageal length and crural closure during MSA increases the likelihood of normalizing acid exposure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Hiatal dissection, restoration of esophageal intra-abdominal length, and crural closure are key components of successful antireflux surgery. The necessity of addressing these components prior to magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been questioned. We aimed to compare outcomes of MSA between groups with differing hiatal dissection and closure.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 259 patients who underwent MSA from 2009 to 2017. Patients were categorized based on hiatal treatment: minimal dissection (MD), crural closure (CC), formal crural repair (FC), and extensive dissection without closure (ED). The primary outcome was normalization of postoperative DeMeester score (≤ 14.72). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess which preoperative predictors achieved normalization.
RESULTS
Of the 197 patients, MD was used in 81 (41%); FC in 42 (22%); CC in 40 (20%); and ED in 34 (17%). Normalization occurred in 104 (53%) patients, with MD achieving normalization in 45/81 (56%); FC in 25/42 (60%); CC in 21/40 (53%); and ED 13/34 (38%). After regression, FC was most likely to normalize acid exposure. The presence of a hiatal hernia, defective LES, and higher preoperative DeMeester score were less likely to achieve normalization.
CONCLUSIONS
Hiatal dissection with restoration of esophageal length and crural closure during MSA increases the likelihood of normalizing acid exposure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30877608
doi: 10.1007/s11605-019-04180-6
pii: 10.1007/s11605-019-04180-6
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1104-1112Références
J Gastrointest Surg. 1999 May-Jun;3(3):292-300
pubmed: 10481122
Surgery. 2000 Feb;127(2):200-8
pubmed: 10686986
Dis Esophagus. 2007;20(2):130-4
pubmed: 17439596
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Dec;12(12):2133-40
pubmed: 18846406
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Apr;13(4):602-10
pubmed: 19050984
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Dec;13(12):2113-20
pubmed: 19779945
J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Feb;17(2):236-43
pubmed: 23188217
N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 21;368(8):719-27
pubmed: 23425164
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Oct;217(4):577-85
pubmed: 23856355
Ann Surg. 2017 Jul;266(1):99-104
pubmed: 27464617
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Jun;27(6):586-591
pubmed: 28430558
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jan;32(1):405-412
pubmed: 28664433
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1762-1768
pubmed: 28936790
Ann Surg. 2018 Apr 24;:null
pubmed: 29697454
Sci Rep. 2018 May 9;8(1):7319
pubmed: 29743599
Surg Endosc. 2019 Mar;33(3):782-788
pubmed: 30006845