Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Volume 2015, Article ID 762972, 9 pages
Review Article

Gastric Electrical Stimulation with the Enterra System: A Systematic Review

1School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GE, UK
2Aintree University Hospital, Lower Lane, Fazakerley, Liverpool L9 7AL, UK

Received 23 March 2015; Revised 7 June 2015; Accepted 15 June 2015

Academic Editor: Paul Enck

Copyright © 2015 Nikhil Lal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a surgically implanted treatment option for refractory gastroparesis. Aim. To systematically appraise the current evidence for the use of gastric electrical stimulation and suggest a method of standardisation of assessment and follow-up in these patients. Methods. A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, DISCOVER, and Cochrane Library was conducted using the keywords including gastric electrical stimulation, gastroparesis, nausea, and vomiting and neuromodulation, stomach, central nervous system, gastric pacing, electrical stimulation, and gastrointestinal. Results. 1139 potentially relevant articles were identified, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria and were included. The quality of studies was variable. There was a variation in outcome measures and follow-up methodology. Included studies suggested significant reductions in symptom severity reporting over the study period, but improvements in gastric emptying time were variable and rarely correlated with symptom improvement. Conclusion. The evidence in support of gastric electrical stimulation is limited and heterogeneous in quality. While current evidence has shown a degree of efficacy in these patients, high-quality, large clinical trials are needed to establish the efficacy of this therapy and to identify the patients for whom this therapy is inappropriate. A consensus view on essential preoperative assessment and postoperative measurement is needed.