Prospective study of the Angelchik anti‐reflux prosthesis

Fifty patients with medically refractory gastro‐oesophageal reflux were treated by the insertion of an Angelchik anti‐reflux prosthesis. All patients had a pre‐operative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, 32 were investigated with 15 h overnight oesophageal pH studies combined with oesophageal bile sampling and 20 underwent oesophageal manometric studies. At pre‐operative endoscopy 45 patients had evidence of oesophagitis and the 5 who did not had pathological reflux demonstrated on overnight pH testing. Postoperatively the main clinical problem was dysphagia which appeared to settle with time but left one‐third of patients with mild dysphagia at the end of 12 months. A further 12 per cent had residual moderate to severe dysphagia which required the removal of the prosthesis in five patients (10 per cent). In only one patient was the dysphagia due to prosthetic migration and this was the first patient in the series. Subsequently, we have had no problems with prosthetic migration, disruption, or erosion into the oesophagus. The overnight pH studies confirmed the efficacy of the prosthesis in preventing reflux which correlated with symptomatic improvement. We conclude that, while the Angelchik anti‐reflux prosthesis is an effective device, it has a disturbingly high incidence of postoperative dysphagia though this appears to settle with time, leaving around 10 per cent of patients with severe dysphagia which will necessitate removal of the prosthesis and one‐third with mild dysphagia which may settle with the further passage of time.

[1]  T. Taylor,et al.  The Angelchik anti‐reflux prosthesis — some reservations , 1985, The British journal of surgery.

[2]  M. Gear,et al.  Randomized prospective trial of the Angelchik anti‐reflux prosthesis , 1984, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  D. Castell,et al.  Complications of the Angelchik antireflux prosthesis. , 1984, Annals of internal medicine.

[4]  Aronson Jm When can revascularization be limited to the isolated popliteal artery , 1984 .

[5]  T. Taylor,et al.  A simple operative prosthetic treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux. , 1984, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

[6]  P. McKeown,et al.  Disastrous complication of the Angelchik prosthesis. , 1983, The American surgeon.

[7]  J. A. Sapala,et al.  The Angelchik prosthesis and gastroesophageal reflux. , 1983, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  Condon Re More misadventures with the esophageal collar. , 1983 .

[9]  J. Pickleman Disruption and migration of an Angelchik esophageal antireflux prosthesis. , 1983, Surgery.

[10]  J. Siewert,et al.  A New Concept in the Surgical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux , 1983, Annals of surgery.

[11]  R. Kozarek,et al.  An anti-reflux prosthesis in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux. , 1983, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  D. Castell,et al.  The Angelchik Antireflux Prosthesis Effects on the Lower Esophageal Sphincter of Primates , 1983, Annals of surgery.

[13]  R. D. Henderson,et al.  Total fundoplication gastroplasty. Long-term follow-up in 500 patients. , 1983, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[14]  M. Reichelderfer,et al.  Treatment of Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Using the Angelchik™ Prosthesis , 1982, Annals of surgery.

[15]  F. Ellis Controversies regarding the management of hiatus hernia. , 1980, American journal of surgery.

[16]  S. V. Singh Surgery for oesophageal reflux and hiatus hernia. Long-term results in 250 patients. , 1980, Scandinavian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[17]  L. T. R. DEMEESTER,et al.  Evaluation of Current Operations for the Prevention of Gastroesophageal Reflux , 1974, Annals of surgery.