10.1586/EGH.12.47 1ISSN 1747-4124© 2012 Expert Reviews Ltdwww.expert-reviews.com

Device profile

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disorder of the alimentary tract, in which the barrier function of the lower esopha-geal sphincter (LES) fails and gastric juice is allowed to reflux into the esophagus. GERD is typically characterized by symptoms of heart-burn and regurgitation, and can progress to the complications of erosive esophagitis, Barrett’s esophagus and adenocarcinoma.

Chronic GERD is prevalent in at least 10% of the western population [1]. It is the lead-ing physician diagnosis in outpatient clinics and creates a correspondingly high burden on healthcare systems and payers, with over US$9 billion in annual direct costs in the USA alone; the highest cost of any digestive disorder [2,3]. GERD is cited as a significant contributor to absenteeism and reduced productivity. This

impact will probably become greater as changes in diet and increasing obesity contribute to a rising incidence of GERD.

There are two primary treatment options for GERD patients: either life-long acid sup-pression therapy or surgical alteration of the gastric anatomy, most commonly referred to as fundoplication.

Life-long acid suppression therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is an effective first-line therapy for many reflux sufferers, but in up to 40% of patients, GERD-related symptoms per-sist despite daily PPI use [4–6]. Moreover, patients with a mechanically defective LES are difficult to maintain symptom free with medical ther-apy. These patients often have nocturnal acid breakthrough, nonacid reflux and may progress to complications of the disease, such as volume

Luigi Bonavina*1, Tom R DeMeester2 and Robert A Ganz3

1Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milano Medical School, Division of General Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30 20097, San Donato Milanese (Milano), Italy2University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA3University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA *Author for correspondence: Tel.: +39 025 277 4621 luigi.bonavina@unimi.it

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), commonly manifested by heartburn or regurgitation, is a chronic, progressive condition in which failed sphincter function allows the contents of the stomach to reflux into the esophagus, the airways and the mouth. Chronic GERD affects 10% of western society. The majority of patients receive adequate relief from proton pump inhibitors, but up to 40% have incomplete relief of symptoms that cannot be addressed by increasing the dose of medications. The laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is the surgical gold standard; however, the level of technical difficulty and its side effects have limited its use to less than 1% of the GERD population. These factors have contributed to the propensity of patients to persist with medical therapy, even when inadequate to control symptoms and complications of the disease. Consequently, a significant gap in the treatment continuum for GERD remains evident in current clinical practice. The LINX™ Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) is designed to provide a permanent solution to GERD by augmenting the physiologic function of the sphincter barrier with a simple and reproducible laparoscopic procedure that does not alter gastric anatomy and can be easily reversed if necessary.

LINX™ Reflux Management System: magnetic sphincter augmentation in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux diseaseExpert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 6(6) 2012)

Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

© 2012 Expert Reviews Ltd

10.1586/EGH.12.47

1747-4124

1747-4132

Device profile

Keywords: adenocarcinoma • Barrett’s • fundoplication • esophagitis • gastroesophageal junction • gastroesophageal reflux disease • lower esophageal sphincter • magnetic sphincter augmentation • PPI • Nissen • LINX™ Reflux Management System • regurgitation

ISSN 1747-4124

Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 6(6), (2012)2

Device profile

regurgitation with aspiration and Barrett’s metaplasia, a precursor to adenocarcinoma [7–9]. Recent literature has also indicated that chronic acid suppression may inhibit absorption of certain medi-cations and critical nutrients [10,11], increase the risk of Clostridium difficile infection [12], and may be associated with an increased incidence of gastric cancer [13].

The Nissen fundoplication is the current surgical standard of care and a treatment option typically reserved for GERD patients who have failed medical therapy or desire to be free from dependence on medical therapy. It is an effective and durable surgical procedure if performed in specialized and high-volume centers [14–16].

Patients undergoing a Nissen fundoplication are at risk for potential side effects of the procedure such as the gas–bloat syndrome, the inability to belch and vomit, and the occurrence of chronic dysphagia. This is one of the reasons why gastroen-terologists tend to limit their referrals for fundoplication only to patients with severe disease. On the other hand, studies on the cost– effectiveness of Nissen fundoplication versus PPIs are largely inconclusive [17].

The limitations of medical therapy and fundoplication cre-ate a considerable ‘therapy gap’ in the patient care continuum (Figure 1), leaving many patients and clinicians to concede to either tolerating a life-time dependence on a medication even though they experience incomplete symptom relief, or risk a surgical procedure that permanently restructures their anatomy and may have considerable side effects. Eventually, fewer than 30,000 Nissen fundoplication procedures are performed annu-ally in the USA, corresponding to less than 1% of the GERD population [18]; this explains why there is a large proportion of patients with incomplete relief of symptoms who could benefit from a simple sphincter augmentation procedure rather than an anatomic altering fundoplication.

The LINX™ Ref lux Management System (LINX System; Torax Medical) was developed to address this ‘therapy gap’ through a simple laparoscopic procedure that preserves gastric anatomy, augments the physiologic barrier to reflux and can be reversed if necessary, thereby preserving the option of fundoplication or other therapies in the future. Importantly, the procedure is also designed to limit technical variability, and can be performed safely using standard laparoscopic techniques and instruments.

The LINX System uses magnetic force to augment the natural barrier function of the LES, thus, for reflux to occur, gastric pressures must overcome both the patient’s native LES pressure and the magnetic bonds of the device, by this means creat-ing a resistance to opening. Importantly, the device, while augmenting the LES, also allows for expansion to accommodate a swallowed bolus or the escape of elevated

gastric pressure associated with belching or vomiting, thus inhib-iting reflux without compromising the physiologic function of the LES (Figure 2) [19].

The LINX System device consists of a series of titanium beads with magnetic cores hermetically sealed inside. This series of beads is interlinked with independent titanium wires to form a flexible ring. The strength of the magnetic core contained in each bead is calibrated by mass to provide a resisting force that precisely augments the sphincter’s function. This attractive force between closed beads is approximately 40 g; this decreases expo-nentially with distance so the attractive force at full separation is approximately 7 g. The device is manufactured in different sizes from ten to 18 beads and is capable of nearly doubling its diameter when all beads are separated. The magnetic attraction force to

Figure 1. Depiction of the ‘therapy gap’ concept. A large proportion of patients with GERD receive incomplete relief of symptoms from PPIs; on the other hand, a fundoplication that significantly alter gastroesophageal anatomy may not be the ideal surgical procedure in individuals with early, uncomplicated disease. GERD: Gastroesophageal reflux disease; PPI: Proton pump inhibitor.

Low

Patients satisfiedwith PPI therapy

Patients electing to receiveNissen fundoplication

Therapy gap

Severity of symptoms and dissatisfaction High

GERD patientswith symptomsdespite PPI use

Figure 2. The LINX™ Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) device is implanted at the gastroesophageal junction. (A) The magnetic bonds of the device augment the resistance of the lower esophageal sphincter and impede reflux; (B) upon swallowing, the magnetic force between the beads is reduced to accommodate the bolus. Reproduced with permission from [21].

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

Bonavina, DeMeester & Ganz

3www.expert-reviews.com

Device profile

be counteracted to allow bead separation is independent of the number of beads contained in the device.

The LINX System device is implanted laparoscopically under general anesthesia, typically using five ports. Once access to the abdominal cavity is gained, dissection begins by dividing the peri-toneum on the anterior surface of the gastroesophageal junction below the insertion of the inferior leaf of the phreno esophageal ligament and above the junction of the hepatic branch to the anterior vagus nerve (Figure 3).

Dissection of the gastrohepatic ligament is made above and below the hepatic branch to facilitate retroesophageal dissection along the anterior border of the right crus just cephalad to the decussation of the crura. The same dissection is repeated along the left crus. If a hiatal hernia is present, it can be repaired at the discretion of the surgeon. The decision as to proceed with a posterior crural repair depends on the size of the hernia that is found intraoperatively: a sliding hernia up to 3 cm in size can be effectively repaired by approximating the crura with a few interrupted stitches and then the device can safely be implanted.

Gentle dissection from the right side opens a retroesophageal window and a tunnel is formed between the posterior esophageal wall and the posterior vagus nerve to accommodate the LINX System device.

A 6-mm Penrose drain is passed through the posterior tunnel and encircles the esophagus to maintain access and facilitate pas-sage of the LINX System. A special sizing tool is used to precisely measure the outer diameter of the esophagus and indicate the size of the LINX System device to be implanted. No bougie is required. The sizing tool is a laparoscopic instrument with a soft, circular, curved tip actuated by coaxial tubes through a handset. The handle set contains a numerical indicator that corresponds with the size range of the LINX System device. The sizing tool is brought into the surgical field through the right laparoscopic port; it is placed around the esophagus in the dissected space between the posterior esophageal wall and the posterior vagus nerve bundle.

Once the appropriate device has been selected, it is intro-duced through the posterior tunnel. The opposing ends are then brought to the anterior surface of the esophagus, approximated and secured; this completes the implant process (Figure 4).

Operative time is approximately 30 min. Patients are discharged on the day of surgery or or the first postoperative day under direc-tion to return to a normal diet as tolerated and discontinue use of acid suppression medication.

Patients typically return to normal physical activity in less than a week. The most common complaint following the LINX System procedure is mild dysphagia, which is easily tolerated and requires only temporary diet adjustments.

Clinical use of the LINX System device started in 2007 within the context of a feasibility multicenter trial. In Europe, use of the device continued within a registry for antireflux surgery after the trial ended. At the authors’ center in Milan, Italy, so far, a total of 117 patients have been implanted. Two prospective, multicenter, controlled clinical studies have been conducted under an US FDA investigational device exemption to evaluate the LINX System.

The first study evaluated 44 patients implanted with the LINX System between February 2007 and October 2008 [20]; the 2- and 4-year results of this study have been previously published and are presented below [21,22]. Data from the first study was submit-ted for CE mark approval and was determined to have a positive risk-to-benefit ratio.

The second study evaluated 100 patients implanted between January and September 2009. This data has not yet been pub-lished. No significant differences were seen between the studies in terms of effectiveness and safety. A registry of antireflux surgery is currently enroling patients in Europe to include treatment with the either the LINX System or fundoplication [23].

The LINX System has been recently reviewed by the Gastroenterology and Urology Advisory Panel of the FDA. This Panel voted unanimously that there was reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, and that the benefits of treatment

Figure 4. The LINX™ Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) device in situ.

Figure 3. The minimal surgical dissection required for the operation. A tunnel is created between the posterior vagus nerve and the esophageal wall to accommodate the LINX™ Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) device.

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

LINX™ Reflux Management System

Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 6(6), (2012)4

Device profile

outweighed the risks. This information is in the public domain and available on the FDA website.

Summary of published clinical experience with the LINX systemPatient populationBetween February 2007 and October 2008, 44 patients underwent implantation of the LINX system through a laparoscopic approach. The primary criteria for inclusion in the trial were: >18 and <85 years of age, typical reflux symptoms at least partially responsive to PPI therapy, abnormal esophageal acid exposure, and normal contractile amplitude and wave form in the esophageal body. The primary criteria for exclusion from the trial were: a history of dysphagia, previous upper abdominal surgery, previous endoluminal antireflux procedures, sliding hiatal hernia that are >3 cm in size, esophagitis that is >grade A, and/or the presence of histologically documented Barrett’s esophagus. Patients with abnormal manometric findings (distal esophageal motility less than 35 mmHg peristaltic amplitude on wet swallows or <70% propulsive peristaltic sequences) were also excluded from the study.

Preoperative assessmentPreoperative evaluation consisted of a symptom questionnaire, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, a barium swallow, esophageal manometry and 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. The GERD Health-Related Quality-of-Life (GERD-HRQL) validated ques-tionnaire [24] was administered prior to any diagnostic test and off PPI therapy. The questionnaire consists of six heartburn ques-tions, two swallowing questions, one gas–bloat question and one question about medication use. The responses to these questions are scored on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 5 (incapacitating symptoms) (Table 1).

The presence of esophagitis was assessed by an upper gastroin-testinal endoscopy using the Los Angeles or Savary–Miller clas-sification. The length of hiatal hernia, if present, was measured as the distance between the gastroesophageal junction, defined by the proximal limit of the gastric folds and the crural impression.

The LES resting pressure and length were measured by esophageal manometry using a station pull-through technique. The percentage of LES relaxation and the LES residual pres-sure were assessed with five wet swallows. The amplitude of esophageal contractions was measured by averaging ten wet

swallows of 5 ml each, taken 30 s apart. Abnormal motility was defined as a mean amplitude of less than 35 mmHg and/or a greater than 30% prevalence of simultaneous, dropped or interrupted waves.

Prolonged (24–48 h) esophageal pH monitoring was used to measure esophageal acid exposure off PPI therapy. The probe or Bravo capsule (Bravo™ pH Monitoring System, Given Imaging) was inserted 5 cm above the upper border of the LES as deter-mined by manometry or 6 cm above the Z line determined by endoscopy.

Postoperative assessmentThe initial position and function of the device were verified with a standard chest x-ray and a modified barium swallow study on post-operative day 1. The GERD-HRQL questionnaire, upper gastroin-testinal endoscopy, modified barium esophagram and 24-h esopha-geal pH monitoring were obtained at 3, 12 and 24 months after surgery. Esophageal manometry was obtained at 3 and 12 months.

Clinical outcomesAll devices were successfully implanted through a laparo-scopic approach. The median operative time was 40 min (range: 19–104). Patients were instructed to resume a regular diet on post operative day 1 after radiological assessment of the esophageal transit. No postoperative complications occurred. Most patients were discharged within 48 h.

Two patients were explanted; one at 8 months because of persis-tent dysphagia and the other at 18 months because of the need for a MRI study. Two patients withdrew consent, with a normal symptom profile at the time of withdrawal; one subject was lost to follow-up.

The mean GERD-HRQL score decreased by 90% at 2 years (p < .0001) (Figure 5). Changes in each component of the GERD-HRQL score are shown in Table 2. At 2 years of follow-up, 86% of the patients were feeling well and did no longer assume PPI therapy. A post hoc analysis showed that all patients were able to belch and that four patients were able to vomit when it occurred. In total, 43% of patients complained of mild dysphagia during the postoperative period; in all individuals the symptom resolved by 90 days without treatment.

Table 1. Symptom score for the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality-of-Life validated questionnaire.

Score Description

0 No symptoms

1 Symptoms noticeable, but not bothersome

2 Symptoms noticeable and bothersome, but not everyday

3 Symptoms bothersome everyday

4 Symptoms affect daily life

5 Symptoms are incapacitating – unable to do activities

Figure 5. Preoperative and postoperative mean total score from the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality-of-Life questionnaire (p < 0.0001). Reproduced with permission from [21].

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Tota

l GE

RD

-HR

QL

sco

re

Preimplant 3 months(n = 37)

12 months(n = 39)

24 months(n = 28)

Follow-up time point

25.7

4.6 3.8 2.4

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

Bonavina, DeMeester & Ganz

5www.expert-reviews.com

Device profile

EndoscopyThe impression of the device was observed at the level of the Z line in all patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endos-copy during the postoperative period. The passage of a stand-ard 9-mm endoscope through the gastroesophageal junction was smooth and no increased resistance was felt at the gastro-esophageal junction. No mucosal erosions of the device have been reported.

Esophageal pH monitoringThe esophageal acid exposure was normalized in 90% of the patients at 2 years (Figure 6). The mean percentage time pH was <4 decreased from a preoperative baseline of 11.9–2.4% at 2 years. All the other components of the 24-h pH test and the

DeMeester composite score were significantly reduced compared with baseline at 2 years (Table 3).

Esophageal manometryIn total, 32 patients had both baseline and 1-year postoperative manometric testing. The LES resting pressure increased from 6.5 to 14.6 mmHg (p < .005) in the nine patients with a hypotensive (less than 10 mmHg) LES pressure. No significant changes in pressure occurred in the 23 patients with normal LES pressure at baseline. There were no statistically significant changes in the length of the LES. Similarly, there were no statistically significant changes in the amplitude of esophageal contractions.

As mentioned earlier, the primary therapies available for GERD are still acid suppression therapy by PPIs and surgical alteration of the gastric anatomy by fundoplication. Table 4 shows a perspective on the benefits and limitations of these therapies. The LINX System has been introduced to select centers in the EU under CE certification and has been recently approved in the USA by the FDA.

Updated clinical resultsSafety and efficacy of the LINX System were confirmed at 4 years of follow-up [22]. The mean total GERD-HRQL score was 3.3 compared with the baseline score of 25.7 (p < 0.001); 87.5% of patients were satisfied with their present condition and 80% of them were free from daily PPI dependence. Normalization of the pH score was achieved in 80% of the patients.

Expert commentaryThe primary therapies available for GERD are still acid suppression therapy by PPIs and surgical alteration of the gastric anatomy by fundoplication. Table 4 shows a perspective on the benefits and limitations of these therapies.

Figure 6. Changes in the proportion of patients with normalized esophageal pH exposure at various time intervals. Reproduced with permission from [21].

76% 77%

90%

0

20

40

60

80

100

3 months(n = 38)

12 months(n = 39)

24 months(n = 20)

Follow-up time point

pH

no

rmal

izat

ion

(%

)

Table 2. Changes in each component of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality-of-Life score at various time intervals.

Questions Preimplant (n = 44) 3 months (n = 37) 1 year (n = 39) 2 years (n = 28)

How bad is your heartburn? 3.7 0.6 0.6 0.4

Heartburn when lying down? 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.3

Heartburn when standing up? 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.2

Heartburn after meals? 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.4

Does heartburn change your diet? 3.1 0.5 0.2 0.3

Does heartburn wake you from sleep? 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.1

Do you have difficulty swallowing? 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.3

Do you have bloating and gassy feelings? 2.9 0.8 0.5 0.5

Do you have pain with swallowing? 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0

If you take medication, does this affect your daily life?

2.0 0.2 0.2 0.1

How satisfied are you with your present condition?† 0% 84% 870.1% 86%

Mean preoperative and postoperative scores from Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Health-Related Quality-of-Life questionnaire. †Percentage of satisfied patients.Reproduced with permission from [21].

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

LINX™ Reflux Management System

Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 6(6), (2012)6

Device profile

The limitations of current therapies for GERD have left a signifi-cant segment of the reflux patient population in an equivocal posi-tion: either to continue with a life-time dependence on a medication that does not provide complete relief of symptoms, or have a surgical procedure that requires significant alteration of gastric anatomy, may deteriorate over time and may have significant side effects. Based upon the clinical experience to date, the LINX System represents a third option that addresses the limitations of existing therapies and provides patients with a permanent, easily reversible and more physi-ologic solution to their reflux. Importantly, the LINX System can be broadly adopted by the clinical community as it requires no new diagnostic techniques and can be implanted with surgical techniques currently used routinely by laparoscopic surgeons.

The LINX System has been introduced to select centers in the EU under CE certification and has been recently approved in the

USA by the FDA.The results of our feasibility trial have shown that magnetic augmentation of the gastroesophageal junction barrier is highly effective in reducing symptoms and esophageal acid expo-sure, and improves patients’ quality of life. Although the published data refer to a 4-year follow-up only, and are not randomized, the results appear quite similar to those reported for partial fundoplica-tion procedures in terms of less side effects, similar reflux control and fewer reoperation rate [25,26]. Two distinct advantages of the LINX System procedure are the simple and standardized technique for insertion and the easy reversibility in the absence of significant periesophageal fibrosis. The potential limitations of the new tech-nique are the lack of long-term results, the untested efficacy in the presence of sliding or paraesophageal herniation, short esophagus and Barrett’s esophagus, the current contraindication to undergo MRI, the patient’s acceptance, and long-term consequences of

the permanent insertion of a foreign body. Despite these limitations, the LINX System is a promising new technique that might overcome current GERD treatment limita-tions in the future. Until this is proven in large multi-institutional studies and ran-domized trials against the gold standard, the new technique should be dealt with caution in order to ensure patient safety. At the moment, laparoscopic fundoplication remains the gold-standard approach for surgical treatment and patients should be informed and consented accordingly.

Five-year viewThe publication of this review will coin-cide with the fifth anniversary of the pilot study. Since the first implants, a consist-ent performance of the LINX System was observed through use in multiple centers worldwide. The device has demonstrated a high level of efficacy and has met patient expectations, with few side effects or seri-ous adverse events.

Table 3. Parameters of esophageal acid exposure and the composite DeMeester score (mean values) at 1 and 2 years after the LINX™ Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) implant.

Parameters Baseline (n = 44) 1-year postimplantation (n = 39)

p-value 2-years or later postimplantation (n = 20)

p-value

Total % time <pH 4 11.9 3.1 <0.0001 2.4 <0.0001

Upright % time <pH 4 13.6 3.2 <0.0001 3.0 <0.0001

Supine % time <pH 4 8.3 2.8 0.0009 1.1 0.009

No. episodes 98.8 27.1 0.001 26.3 0.0004

No. episodes >5 min 6.3 2.2 <0.0001 1.2 0.0005

Longest episode, min 36.5 10.7 0.0002 8.9 0.0009

DeMeester score (composite of data above)

42.3 11.9 <0.0001 9.4 <0.0001

Reproduced with permission from [21].

Table 4. Comparison of benefits and limitations of current available treatments for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Surgery

Pros Cons

Effective at preventing reflux Requires anatomy to be altered

Effective at reducing esophagitis Is not physiologic (impacts ability to belch vomit)

Can help with ‘secondary symptoms’ Very technique dependent

High level of gas–bloat, distention, dysphagia

Can lose efficacy over time

Difficult to reverse few alternatives after failure

Pharmaceuticals

Pros Cons

Effective at suppressing acid Does not restore the sphincter barrier

Effective and healing esophagitis Cannot prevent regurgitation/respiration

Requires no intervention Efficacy can taper significantly over time

Can be taken ‘as needed’ Lifetime dependency

Absorption issues

May cause cancer

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

Bonavina, DeMeester & Ganz

7www.expert-reviews.com

Device profile

If this clinical performance is maintained over the course of the next 5 years, the LINX System will become a recognized and signifi-cant therapeutic advance in the GERD patient care continuum. The LINX device is intended to be used in patients with unsatisfactory response to medical therapy who would not usually be considered candidates for fundoplication procedures because they have early, uncomplicated disease. Considering the significant ‘therapy gap’ that is left between patients treated with medical and surgical ther-apy and the fact that less than 1% of the GERD population is treated by fundoplication, a less invasive surgical option seems desirable.

Importantly, the LINX System evaluated to date is first genera-tion technology. In the coming years, there will be further oppor-tunities to refine the device as well as the procedure. Specifically, the surgical technique required to implant the LINX System device lends itself to less invasive approaches including single inci-sion and natural orifice techniques. Considering the efficacy, side effects and safety profile of the LINX System, there will probably be a direct correlation between the level of invasiveness and the

number of patients who will choose this therapy as opposed to life-long pharmaceutical dependence or more invasive surgical alternatives.

In this time of constrained healthcare resources, the advance-ment and expanded use of the LINX System may have benefits well beyond clinical outcomes: providing an effective, minimally invasive and permanent solution for chronic GERD patients may help to significantly reduce the burden their treatment places on care providers and payers.

Financial & competing interests disclosureThe authors have received consulting fees from Torax Medical. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organi-zation or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Key issues

• Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) results when the lower esophageal sphincter fails and gastric juices reflux into the esophagus, airways and mouth.

• GERD is commonly manifested by symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation; however, it can progress beyond quality-of-life impairments to more serious conditions such as Barrett’s esophagus and adenocarcinoma.

• GERD places a significant resource and cost burden on the healthcare system and the general economy:

− GERD is the number one reason for a patient to visit an outpatient clinic;

− Over US$5 billion was spent in 2010 on esomeprazole;

− That same year, 53 million prescriptions were written for the generic omeprazole;

− Employees with GERD demonstrate significantly higher levels of absenteeism and significantly lower levels of productivity.

• Two primary treatment options exist for GERD:

− Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-line treatment;

− Nissen fundoplication, the surgical gold standard for care, is reserved for patients with more advanced disease or significant anatomic defects.

• Each of these treatment options have limitations:

− PPIs only suppress acid and do not prevent reflux. They require lifetime dependence, can become less effective with time and only achieve complete symptom relief in approximately 70% of patients;

− Fundoplication procedures are effective. However, wide variability in outcomes, as well as a significant side-effect profile, have limited adoption.

• The ‘therapy gap’ between partially effective PPIs and fundoplication, with its inherent sides effects, leaves a significant number of patients dissatisfied with their current treatment options.

• The LINX™ Reflux Management System (Torax Medical) was designed to provide a less invasive procedure that addresses this ‘gap’ by restoring normal physiologic function of the gastroesophageal junction.

• Two prospective, multicenter, controlled studies have demonstrated that patients receiving the LINX™ Reflux Management System device have significantly improved quality of life with normalization of reflux, low occurrence of significant adverse events and a dramatic reduction in PPI use.

ReferencesPapers of special note have been highlighted as:• of interest•• of considerable interest

1 Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA, Johansson S. Epidemiology of gastro-

oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 54(5), 710–717 (2005).

2 Sandler RS, Everhart JE, Donowitz M et al. The burden of selected digestive diseases in the United States. Gastroenterol-ogy 122(5), 1500–1511 (2002).

3 Shaheen NJ, Hansen RA, Morgan DR et al. The burden of gastrointestinal and

liver diseases, 2006. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 101(9), 2128–2138 (2006).

4 Dean BB, Gano AD Jr, Knight K, Ofman JJ, Fass R. Effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in nonerosive reflux disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2(8), 656–664 (2004).

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

LINX™ Reflux Management System

Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 6(6), (2012)8

Device profile

5 AGA Institute. GERD Patient Study – Patients and their Medications. Harris Interactive, NY, USA (2008).

6 Sharma N, Agrawal A, Freeman J, Vela MF, Castell D. An analysis of persistent symptoms in acid-suppressed patients undergoing impedance-pH monitoring. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 6(5), 521–524 (2008).

7 Lord RV, DeMeester SR, Peters JH et al. Hiatal hernia, lower esophageal sphincter incompetence, and effectiveness of Nissen fundoplication in the spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 13(4), 602–610 (2009).

8 Vela M, Camacho-Lobato L, Srinivasan R, Tutuian R, Katz P, Castell D. Simultaneous intraesophageal impedance and pH measurement of acid and non-acid gastroesophageal reflux: effect of omepra-zole. Gastroenterology 120, 1599–1606 (2001).

9 Peters J, DeMeester T, Crookes P, Oberg S, deVos Shoop M, Hagen J, Bremner C. The treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication: a prospective evaluation of 100 patients with ‘typical’ symptoms. Ann. Surg. 228, 40–50 (1998).

10 Marcuard SP, Albernaz L, Khazanie PG. Omeprazole therapy causes malabsorption of cyanocobalamin (vitamin B12). Ann. Intern. Med. 120(3), 211–215 (1994).

11 O’Connell MB, Madden DM, Murray AM, Heaney RP, Kerzner LJ. Effects of proton pump inhibitors on calcium carbonate absorption in women: a randomized crossover trial. Am. J. Med. 118(7), 778–781 (2005).

12 Dial S, Delaney JA, Barkun AN, Suissa S. Use of gastric acid-suppressive agents and the risk of community-acquired Clostridi-um difficile-associated disease. JAMA 294(23), 2989–2995 (2005).

13 Poulsen AH, Christensen S, McLaughlin JK et al. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of gastric cancer: a population-based cohort study. Br. J. Cancer 100(9), 1503–1507 (2009).

14 Hunter JG, Smith CD, Branum GD et al. Laparoscopic fundoplication failures: patterns of failure and response to fundoplication revision. Ann. Surg. 230(4), 595–604; discussion 604 (1999).

15 Vakil N, Shaw M, Kirby R. Clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic fundoplication in a U.S. community. Am. J. Med. 114(1), 1–5 (2003).

16 Richter JE, Dempsey DT. Laparoscopic antireflux surgery: key to success in the community setting. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 103(2), 289–291 (2008).

17 Thijssen AS, Broeders IA, de Wit GA, Draaisma WA. Cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for patients with gastroe-sophageal reflux disease: a systematic review of the literature. Surg. Endosc. 25(10), 3127–3134 (2011).

18 Finks JF, Wei Y, Birkmeyer JD. The rise and fall of antireflux surgery in the United States. Surg. Endosc. 20(11), 1698–1701 (2006).

19 Ganz RA, Gostout CJ, Grudem J, Swanson W, Berg T, DeMeester TR. Use of a magnetic sphincter for the treatment of GERD: a feasibility study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 67(2), 287–294 (2008).

20 Bonavina L, Saino GI, Bona D et al. Magnetic augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter: results of a feasibility clinical trial. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 12(12), 2133–2140 (2008).

21 Bonavina L, DeMeester T, Fockens P et al. Laparoscopic sphincter augmentation device eliminates reflux symptoms and normalizes esophageal acid exposure: one- and 2-year results of a feasibility trial. Ann. Surg. 252(5), 857–862 (2010).

22 Lipham JC, DeMeester TR, Ganz RA et al. The LINX reflux management system: confirmed safety and efficacy now at 4 years. Surg. Endosc. 26, 2944–2949 (2012).

23 Migliore A, Corio M, Paone S, Jefferson T, Cerbo M. Horizon Scanning Report No. 9. Implantable Device for Patients with Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease. Agenas, Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali, Rome, Italy (2012).

24 Velanovich V. The development of the GERD-HRQL symptom severity instrument. Dis. Esophagus 20(2), 130–134 (2007).

25 Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Kohn GP, Reardon PR, Richardson WS, Fanelli RD; SAGES Guidelines Committee. Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg. Endosc. 24(11), 2647–2669 (2010).

26 Broeders JA, Roks DJ, Jamieson GG, Devitt PG, Baigrie RJ, Watson DI. Five-year outcome after laparoscopic anterior partial versus Nissen fundoplica-tion: four randomized trials. Ann. Surg. 255(4), 637–642 (2012).

doi:10.1586/EGH.12.47

Bonavina, DeMeester & Ganz