Journal of digestive diseases · 2021
Magnetic sphincter augmentation in treating refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhuang Qian Jun, Tan Nian Di, Chen Song Feng, Zhang Meng Yu, Xiao Ying Lian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) in the management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (rGERD).
METHODS: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ClincalTrials.gov for single-arm studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of MSA in rGERD or comparative studies with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) serving as the control published until April 2020. Primary outcome was the rate of postoperative PPI use, and secondary outcomes included postoperative GERD-health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL), normalization of acid exposure time (AET) and incidence of procedure-related adverse events (AE).
RESULTS: Ten single-arm studies, one randomized controlled trial and three cohort studies involving 1138 participants were included. Post-MSA PPI withdrawal, significant GERD-HRQL improvement and AET normalization were achieved in 87.0%, 88.0% and 75.0% of the patients, respectively. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia was 29% and endoscopic dilation was required in 7.4% of patients undergoing MSA. MSA showed a better efficacy in symptom control than PPI (PPI cessation: 91% vs 0%; GERD-HRQL improvement: 81% vs 8%) and similar effectiveness but a lower risk of gas-bloat syndrome (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.93, P = 0.01) and better reserved ability to belch (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.76-2.86, P = 0.25) compared with LNF.
CONCLUSIONS: MSA was an effective and safe therapy for rGERD. Well-designed randomized trials that compare the efficacy of MSA with other therapies are needed.
METHODS: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ClincalTrials.gov for single-arm studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of MSA in rGERD or comparative studies with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) serving as the control published until April 2020. Primary outcome was the rate of postoperative PPI use, and secondary outcomes included postoperative GERD-health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL), normalization of acid exposure time (AET) and incidence of procedure-related adverse events (AE).
RESULTS: Ten single-arm studies, one randomized controlled trial and three cohort studies involving 1138 participants were included. Post-MSA PPI withdrawal, significant GERD-HRQL improvement and AET normalization were achieved in 87.0%, 88.0% and 75.0% of the patients, respectively. The incidence of postoperative dysphagia was 29% and endoscopic dilation was required in 7.4% of patients undergoing MSA. MSA showed a better efficacy in symptom control than PPI (PPI cessation: 91% vs 0%; GERD-HRQL improvement: 81% vs 8%) and similar effectiveness but a lower risk of gas-bloat syndrome (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.93, P = 0.01) and better reserved ability to belch (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.76-2.86, P = 0.25) compared with LNF.
CONCLUSIONS: MSA was an effective and safe therapy for rGERD. Well-designed randomized trials that compare the efficacy of MSA with other therapies are needed.