Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England logoLink to Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
. 1990 May;72(3):185–187.

The Angelchik antireflux device: a 5-year experience.

A G Timoney 1, J M Kelly 1, M R Welfare 1
PMCID: PMC2499170  PMID: 2357036

Abstract

A total of 44 patients had an Angelchik antireflux prosthesis inserted over a 5-year period. Of these, 41 were available for review and were assessed by interview using a modified Visick grading. Of the 23 patients followed up for a minimum of 3 years 74% had an excellent or satisfactory outcome; 92% of patients with symptoms of reflux obtained relief, but less than 50% of those patients presenting with dysphagia had a satisfactory outcome. The incidence of mild postoperative dysphagia increased the longer the period of follow-up. The main cause of a Visick 3 or 4 result was prosthesis migration. We have modified our technique of insertion to reduce these complications, and in a more recent series have achieved a Visick Grade 1 or 2 in up to 92% of patients. We conclude that dysphagia is a relative contraindication to the insertion of the Angelchik prosthesis. Our recent results encourage the use of the prosthesis provided steps are taken to reduce the incidence of migration and pericapsular fibrous tissue formation.

Full text

PDF
185

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Angelchik J. P., Cohen R. A new surgical procedure for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux and hiatal hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1979 Feb;148(2):246–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. DeMeester T. R., Bonavina L., Albertucci M. Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Evaluation of primary repair in 100 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 1986 Jul;204(1):9–20. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198607000-00002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Durrans D., Armstrong C. P., Taylor T. V. The Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis--some reservations. Br J Surg. 1985 Jul;72(7):525–527. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800720707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Garstin W. I., Johnston G. W., Kennedy T. L., Spencer E. F. Nissen fundoplication: the unhappy 15%. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1986 Aug;31(4):207–209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gear M. W., Gillison E. W., Dowling B. L. Randomized prospective trial of the Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis. Br J Surg. 1984 Sep;71(9):681–683. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800710911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldberg J. A., Bell G., Morrice J. J., Davidson P. M. The Angelchik prosthesis: experience with the anti-reflux device. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1987 Aug;32(4):205–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Morris D. L., Jones J., Evans D. F., Foster G., Smart H., Gregson R., Amar S., Doran J., Hardcastle J. D. Reflux versus dysphagia: an objective evaluation of the Angelchik prosthesis. Br J Surg. 1985 Dec;72(12):1017–1020. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800721227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. NISSEN R. Gastropexy and "fundoplication" in surgical treatment of hiatal hernia. Am J Dig Dis. 1961 Oct;6:954–961. doi: 10.1007/BF02231426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Negre J. B. Post-fundoplication symptoms. Do they restrict the success of Nissen fundoplication? Ann Surg. 1983 Dec;198(6):698–700. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198312000-00005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sapala J. A., Sapala M. A. A quantitative assessment of results with the Angelchik prosthesis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1986 May;68(3):172–172. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sillin L. F., Condon R. E., Wilson S. D., Worman L. W. Effective surgical therapy of esophagitis. Experience with Belsey, Hill, and Nissen operations. Arch Surg. 1979 Apr;114(4):536–541. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1979.01370280190032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Skinner D. B., Belsey R. H. Surgical management of esophageal reflux and hiatus hernia. Long-term results with 1,030 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1967 Jan;53(1):33–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Starling J. R., Hamilton J. W., Reichelderfer M., Yamato D. T., Pellet J. R., Belzer F. O. Assessment of the Angelchik prosthesis for treatment of symptomatic esophageal reflux. World J Surg. 1987 Jun;11(3):350–355. doi: 10.1007/BF01658114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ubhi C., Morris D. L. New complications associated with the Angelchik prosthesis. Thorax. 1986 Aug;41(8):655–656. doi: 10.1136/thx.41.8.655-b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wale R. J., Royston C. M., Bennett J. R., Buckton G. K. Prospective study of the Angelchik anti-reflux prosthesis. Br J Surg. 1985 Jul;72(7):520–524. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800720706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wyllie J. H., Edwards D. A. A quantitative assessment of results with the Angelchik prosthesis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1985 Jul;67(4):216–221. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are provided here courtesy of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

RESOURCES