Advertisement

Minimal versus obligatory dissection of the diaphragmatic hiatus during magnetic sphincter augmentation surgery

  • James M. Tatum
  • Evan Alicuben
  • Nikolai Bildzukewicz
  • Kamran Samakar
  • Caitlin C. Houghton
  • John C. Lipham
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device was initially implanted with minimal hiatal dissection (MHD) at the diaphragmatic hiatus. Due to concern of possible MSA device dysfunction if herniated into an occult or small hiatal hernia, and increased understanding to the role of defective crura in reflux disease, the operative procedure was changed to planned obligatory dissection (OD) of the hiatus at the time of all implantations.

Methods

Between December 2012 and September 2016, 182 patients underwent MSA implant at a single medical center and have complete records available for review through September 2017. The MHD dissection period extended from December 2012 to September 2015, from September 2015 to 2016 all patients underwent OD.

Results

MHD occurred 53% (96/182) versus OD in 47% (86/182), mean follow-up time in days for MHD and OD was 554 (SD 427) versus 374 (298) days. Intraoperative measurement of hernia size for the MHD versus OD was 0.77 (1.1) versus 3.95 (2.4) cm, p < 0.001. At first visit follow-up, there was no difference in any dysphagia (p = 0.11). Recurrent GERD (defined as resumption of PPI after successful initial post-operative wean) was less frequent after OD than after MHD, 3.6 versus 16.3%, p = 0.006. Delayed onset dysphagia was 1.2% in the OD group versus 8.6% in the MHD group, p = 0.04. Recurrent hiatal hernia of 2 cm or greater occurred in 0.0% of the OD and 11.5% of the MHD, p = 0.03. Repeat surgery for hiatal hernia repair has occurred in 0% of the OD and 6.6% of the MHD, p = 0.02.

Conclusion

OD of the hiatus with crural closure resulted in less recurrence of reflux symptoms and hiatal hernia, despite an increased proportion of patients with larger hiatal hernia and more complex anatomic disease at the time of operation.

Keywords

GERD LINX MSA Magnetic sphincter augmentation Hiatal hernia 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Nikolai Bildzukewicz and John C. Lipham are both paid consultants for Johnson and Johnson Inc. James M. Tatum, Evan Alicuben, Kamran Samakar and Caitlin C. Houghton have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bonavina L, DeMeester T, Fockens P et al (2010) Laparoscopic sphincter augmentation device eliminates reflux symptoms and normalizes esophageal acid exposure: one- and 2-year results of a feasibility trial. Ann Surg 252:857–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipham JC, DeMeester TR, Ganz RA et al (2012) The LINX® reflux management system: confirmed safety and efficacy now at 4 years. Surg Endosc 26:2944–2949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lipham JC, Taiganides PA, Louie BE et al (2015) Safety analysis of first 1000 patients treated with magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dis Esophagus 28(4):305–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganz RA, Edmundowicz SA, Taiganides PA et al (2016) Long-term outcomes of patients receiving a magnetic sphincter augmentation device for gastroesophageal reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(5):671–677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Louie BE, Farivar AS, Schultz D et al (2014) Short-term outcomes using magnetic sphincter augmentation versus Nissen fundoplication for medically resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease. Ann Thorac Surg 98:498–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganz RA, Peters JH, Horgan S et al (2013) Esophageal sphincter device for gastroesophageal reflux disease. N Engl J Med 368:719–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rona KA, Reynolds J, Schwameis K et al (2016) Efficacy of magnetic sphincter augmentation in patients with large hiatal hernias. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5204-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rona KA, Tatum JM, Zehetner J et al (2018) Hiatal hernia recurrence following magnetic sphincter augmentation and posterior cruroplasty: Intermediate-term outcomes. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6059-6 (Epub ahead of print)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahrilas PJ, Lee TJ (2005) Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Thorac Surg Clin 15(3):323–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shafik A, Shafik I, El Sibai O et al (2006) The effect of esophageal and gastric distension on the crural diaphragm. World J Surg 30(2):199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mittal RK, Fisher MJ, McCallum RW et al (1990) Human lower esophageal sphincter pressure response increased intra-abdominal pressure. Am J Physiol 258:G624–G630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin S, Brassseur J, Pouderoux P et al (1995) The phrenic ampulla: distal esophagus or potential hiatal hernia? Am J Physiol 268:130–135Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Souza M, Nobre R, Bezerra P et al (2017) Anatomical functional deficiencies of the crural diaphragm in patients with esophagitis. Neurogastroenterol Motil 29(1):1365–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fei L, del Genio G, Rossetti G et al (2009) Hiatal hernia recurrence: surgical complication or disease? Electron microscope findings of the diaphragmatic pillars. J Gastrointest Surg 13(3):159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fei L, de Genio G, Brusciano L et al (2007) Crura ultrastructural alterations in patients with hiatl hernia: a pilot study. Surg Endosc 21(6):907–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodds WJ, Dent J, Hogan WJ et al (1982) Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with reflux esophagitis. N Engl J Med 307:1547–1552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Louie BE, Kapur S, Blitz M et al (2013) Length and pressure of the reconstructed lower esophageal sphincter is determined by both crural closure and Nissen fundoplication. J Gastrointest Surg 17(2):236–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patti MG, Goldberg HI, Arcerito M et al (1996) Hiatal hernia size affects lower esophageal sphincter function, esophageal acid exposure and the degree of mucosal injury. Am J Surg 171(1):182–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fein M, Ritter MP, DeMeester TR et al (1999) Role of the lower esophageal sphincter and hiatal hernia in the pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastrointest Surg 3(4):405–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buckley FP, Bell RCW, Freeman K et al (2017) Favorable results from a prospective evaluation of 200 patients with large hiatal hernias undergoing LINX magnetic sphincter augmentation. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5859-4 (Epub ahead of print)PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James M. Tatum
    • 1
  • Evan Alicuben
    • 1
  • Nikolai Bildzukewicz
    • 1
  • Kamran Samakar
    • 1
  • Caitlin C. Houghton
    • 1
  • John C. Lipham
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of SurgeryKeck School of Medicine of the University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations