Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 252:857–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:2944–2949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):305–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):671–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 98:498–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ganz RA, Peters JH, Horgan S et al (2013) Esophageal sphincter device for gastroesophageal reflux disease. N Engl J Med 368:719–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahrilas PJ, Lee TJ (2005) Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Thorac Surg Clin 15(3):323–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–G630

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin S, Brassseur J, Pouderoux P et al (1995) The phrenic ampulla: distal esophagus or potential hiatal hernia? Am J Physiol 268:130–135

    Google Scholar 

  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):1365–1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):159–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):907–911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dodds WJ, Dent J, Hogan WJ et al (1982) Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with reflux esophagitis. N Engl J Med 307:1547–1552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):236–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):182–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):405–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Upper GI and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo Street, Healthcare Consultation Center 4, Suite 6200, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    James M. Tatum, Evan Alicuben, Nikolai Bildzukewicz, Kamran Samakar, Caitlin C. Houghton & John C. Lipham

Authors
  1. James M. Tatum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan Alicuben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikolai Bildzukewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kamran Samakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caitlin C. Houghton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John C. Lipham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John C. Lipham.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tatum, J.M., Alicuben, E., Bildzukewicz, N. et al. Minimal versus obligatory dissection of the diaphragmatic hiatus during magnetic sphincter augmentation surgery. Surg Endosc 33, 782–788 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6343-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6343-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation