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

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • 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
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 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
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • 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
      • 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
  • Opportunities
    • 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 and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Factors Influencing the Outcome of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Chronic Gerd

Factors Influencing the Outcome of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Chronic Gerd

Heather F Warren, MD1, Lisa M Brown, MD2, Matias Mihura, MD3, Alexander S Farivar, MD3, Ralph W Aye, MD3, Brian E Louie, MD3. 1Dignity Health Medical Group, 2UC Davis Medical Center, 3Swedish Cancer Institute and Medical Center

OBJECTIVES: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical treatment option for patients with GERD. The criteria used to select patients were based on limited data and with the goal of augmenting a relatively normal sphincter in patients with early GERD. In most patients, MSA results in substantial improvement in quality of life, freedom from PPIs and a low rate of esophagitis. However, 15-24% of patients resume PPIs, 11-12% have esophagitis and up to 3-4% will undergo device removal. We sought to identify factors predicting favorable outcomes after MSA placement with the aim of refining selection criteria.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical, endoscopic, manometric, pH data and intra-operative factors from two databases: Pivotal Trial (N=100) and our prospectively maintained esophageal database (N=98). We defined apriori outcomes as excellent (GERD-HRQL<5, no PPI, no esophagitis); good (GERD-HRQL 6-15, no PPI, grade A esophagitis); Fair (GERD-HRQL 16 to 25, PPI use, grade B esophagitis); and, poor (GERD-HRQL>25, PPI use, grade C or D esophagitis). Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to predict which patients had either an excellent or good outcome.

RESULTS: A total of 198 patients underwent MSA with median age 52 years, 104 (53%) male and median BMI=27 (IQR=25-30).

At baseline, 186 (94%) patients experienced typical symptoms, 138 (70%) also reported atypical symptoms. PPI use led to complete relief in 83 (42%) and partial relief in 85 (43%). DeMeester score was 36.2 (IQR 26.8-51.7) with a structurally intact sphincter in 88 (44%). Esophagitis of any grade occurred in 88 (36%).

Operative time was 52 minutes (IQR:29-71). The hiatus was closed in 81 (41%) patients and a 14 bead device (N=89, 45%) was most common.

At 16 months after MSA, excellent outcomes were achieved in 81 (41%), good in 49 (25%), fair in 36 (18%) and poor in 8 (4.0%) (missing=24, 12%). Median DeMeester score was 14.7 (IQR=5.3-25.7), esophagitis detected in 31 (30%) and daily PPI use in 28 (14%).

At univariate analysis, excellent/good outcomes were adversely impacted by increasing BMI (OR=0.91, p=0.03), hiatal closure (OR=0.51, p=0.05), a structurally defective sphincter (OR=0.51, p=0.07) but positively impacted by longer LES length (OR=1.32, p=0.08). At multivariate analysis, BMI, defective LES and hiatal closure remained key factors.

CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic sphincter augmentation results in excellent/good outcomes in the majority of patients. Patients with a higher BMI and a structurally defective sphincter along with hiatal closure during implantation are less likely to have a favorable outcome after MSA.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 79946

Program Number: S141

Presentation Session: Plenary 2

Presentation Type: Podium

40

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals