• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
    • Why Should You Support SAGES?
    • SAGES Swag
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Annual Meeting
      • 2027 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2027 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Lead Up Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • Innovative Surgical Trends
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Advanced Laparoscopy and Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
    • Foregut Video Atlas
  • Opportunities
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs
  • Learning Hub
You are here: Home / Abstracts / A comparative trial of LINX versus Lap Nissen: caveats for patient selection

A comparative trial of LINX versus Lap Nissen: caveats for patient selection

Eric G Sheu, MD, DPhil, Peter Nau, MD, Barbara Nath, MD, Braden Kuo, MD, David W Rattner, MD. Massachusetts General Hospital.

Background: The LINX procedure, magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA), is a promising new therapy for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While initial clinical trials have shown MSA to be safe and effective, MSA has not been directly compared to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF).
 

Methods: A single institution, case matched-control study was conducted of MSA (n=12) performed from 2012-2013 and a cohort of LNF (n=12) matched for age, gender, symptoms, and hiatal hernia size. Exclusion criteria for MSA included prior anti-reflux surgery and hiatal hernia > 2 cm. Intra-operatively, the LINX device was sized according to manufacturer’s instructions with a manufacturer representative present. The median size of the implanted MSA devices was 13 mm. No crural repair sutures were placed in MSA patients. LNF were performed with a floppy wrap constructed over a 56 Fr dilator. A procedure specific post op pathway was used in all patients. The indication for esophageal dilation was inability to tolerate a soft diet >6 weeks post op with ongoing weight loss.
 

Results: Significant post-operative dysphagia occurred in the majority of MSA patients with the usual onset of symptoms 5-10 days post op. 50% of MSA patients required endoscopic dilation (mean time to dilation, 130 days) for ongoing dysphagia with weight loss, while no LNF patients required dilation (50% vs. 0%, p=0.01). Need for dilation did not correlate with the size of LINX device, presence of hiatal hernia, sex, BMI, or pre-operative manometry. 33% of LNF patients developed mild abdominal bloating or hyperflatulence; no MSA patients reported these symptoms. Both operations effectively treated reflux symptoms, with 75% of MSA and 83% of LNF patients reporting resolution of symptoms at a mean follow-up of 7 months. Compared to LNF, MSA patients had a shorter operative time (64 vs. 90 min, p < 0.001), were more likely to be self-referred (58% vs. 0%, p < 0.01), and had a non-significant trend towards decreased post-op narcotic usage. Hospital length of stay was equivalent in both groups (1 vs. 1.1 days). There were no 30-day re-admissions, re-operations, or any other serious complications in either group.
 

Conclusions: Laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation is a safe and effective therapy for GERD. While MSA is easier and faster to perform than LNF, in our initial experience, more post operative care was required for MSA patients. Dysphagia occurs frequently and requires intervention more often with MSA; however, fewer MSA patients develop “the windy symptoms” post op than with LNF. Consideration should be paid to these distinct post-operative symptom profiles when selecting MSA vs. LNF as a treatment for GERD.

 

Related



Hours & Info

15821 Ventura Blvd Ste 400
Encino, CA 91436

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals

Refine Search