Gastric Injury at Laparoscopy for Gynecologic Indications: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify causes of increased risk for and location and mechanism of gastric injury at laparoscopy for gynecologic indications and determine optimal management. DATA SOURCES: A prospectively registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021237999) was undertaken and performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases searched included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar from 1960 to 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: All study types were included involving female patients of any age with gastric injury at laparoscopy for gynecologic indication. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A total of 6294 articles were screened, from which 67 studies were selected for a full-text review. Twenty-eight articles were included, which contained 42 cases drawn from 7 observational studies, 4 case series, and 17 case reports. Of these, 93% (39/42) were at the time of laparoscopic entry, with Veress entry technique used in 79% of these cases (31/39). Eighteen cases reported an entry point, with 77% (14/18) occurring at the periumbilical entry point and 11% (2/18) occurring at Palmer's point. Of the cases with reported etiology for gastric distention or displacement, 64% (9/14) were owing to anesthetic cause. The most common sites of gastric injury were on the anterior stomach wall (n = 8) and the greater curvature (n = 5). Among patients with reported management (32/42), a similar proportion were managed conservatively (11) when compared with repair through laparotomy (13) or laparoscopy (8). All injuries were detected intraoperatively with no reported short-term sequelae. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of the literature reveals that gastric injury at laparoscopy for gynecologic indications is a rare complication predominantly occurring during laparoscopic entry, most commonly at the periumbilical entry point. When detected intraoperatively, conservative management, laparoscopic, or open repair in the appropriate patient has been performed with no short-term sequelae. The limitations of this review include paucity of cases, detail, and timeline of publications.

Necrotising soft tissue infection in western Sydney: An 8-year experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the risk factors, management, imaging validity, Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotising infection (LRINEC) score and outcomes of necrotising soft tissue infection (NSTI) at a western Sydney tertiary hospital. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients with NSTI from 2012 to 2019 at our institution. Patient characteristics, imaging, microbiology and site, LRINEC score, surgical management and outcomes/disposition were collected. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria with mean age of 52 years and body mass index of 38.1; 55.6% were male, 48% of Polynesian descent and 55.6% were diabetic. The most frequent sites of NSTI were perineal (30.6%), lower limb (30.6%), perianal (19.3%) and trunk (11.1%). A total of 64% of patients underwent computed tomography radiological imaging with diagnostic accuracy of 50%. The mean LRINEC score was 7 (1-20). A total of 52.8% were transferred from another facility or non-surgical teams which delayed surgical review by 11.4 h (P < 0.03) and operating time by 12.4 h (P < 0.04) compared with direct emergency department referrals to the on-call surgical team. There was no statistical difference in outcomes in both groups. The overall average time to surgical debridement was 16.2 h (standard deviation 19.6, range 3.4-105.1). The mean hospital length of stay was 20.9 days; 44.4% of patients were transferred for rehabilitation or plastic reconstruction with a single mortality from multi-organ failure. CONCLUSION: The optimal management of NSTI requires a high index of suspicion and LRINEC score is a useful adjunct in aiding a clinician's decision. Early surgical debridement within 24 h of diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach is associated with a lower mortality rate.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty with Comparison to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) has grown in popularity as a potential minimally invasive bariatric procedure with acceptable short- and medium-term outcomes. This review aims to assess the safety and weight loss outcomes of ESG and compare it with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and World Wide Web was conducted. RESULTS: Five studies were reviewed, three ESG cohort studies and two case-matched cohort studies comparing ESG with LSG. Total unique ESG and LSG patients were 1451 and 203, respectively. All papers demonstrated a modest short-term total body weight loss (TBWL%) at 6 months ranging from 13.7 to 15.2% for ESG. Comparably, the two LSG papers demonstrated a superior TBWL% of 23.5 and 23.6% at 6 months, with one paper reporting a 12-month TBWL% of 29.3%. Two ESG papers reported medium-term results at 18 and 24 months of 14.8% and 18.6%, respectively. Excluding Clavien-Dindo 1 complications, ESG had a complication rate between 2.0 and 2.7%, while comparatively, LSG had a complication rate between 9.2 and 16.9% (current literature reported as 8.7%). In both procedures, there were no grade IV or V complications. CONCLUSION: ESG when compared with LSG has lower short-term weight loss outcomes with fewer complications. Weight loss results for ESG appear to plateau after the 1-year mark. The future and uptake of ESG as a minimally invasive bariatric procedure will be determined by its long-term data on potential weight loss sustainability.

Interhospital transfer delays emergency abdominal surgery and prolongs stay.

BACKGROUND: Interhospital transfer of patients requiring emergency surgery is common practice. It has the potential to delay surgical intervention, increase rate of complications and thus length of hospital stay. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of adult patients who underwent emergency surgery for abdominal pain at a large metropolitan hospital in New South Wales (Hospital A) in 2013. The impact of interhospital transfer on time to surgical intervention, post-operative length of stay and overall length of stay was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 910 adult patients who underwent emergency surgery for abdominal pain at Hospital A in 2013, 31.9% (n = 290) were transferred by road ambulance from a local district hospital (Hospital B). The leading surgical procedures performed were appendicectomy (n = 299, 32.9%), cholecystectomy (n = 174, 19.1%), gastrointestinal endoscopy (n = 95, 10.4%), cystoscopy (n = 86, 9.5%), hernia repair (n = 45, 4.9%), salpingectomy (n = 19, 2.1%) and oversewing of perforated peptic ulcer (n = 13, 1.4%). Overall, interhospital transfer (n = 290, 31.9%) was associated with increases in mean time to surgical intervention (14.2 h, P < 0.001), post-operative length of stay (1.1 days, P = 0.001) and overall length of stay (1.6 days, P < 0.001). Delayed surgical intervention was observed across all procedure types except surgery for perforated peptic ulcer, where transferred patients underwent surgery within a comparable timeframe to direct admissions. CONCLUSION: Interhospital transfer delays surgical intervention and increases length of hospital stay. This mandates attention due to the implications for patient outcomes and added burden to the healthcare system. The system did, however, show capability to appropriately expedite surgery for acutely life-threatening cases.