Establishment and initial implementation of the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are common pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). Owing to significant adverse events associated with mesh-related pelvic floor procedures (PFPs) in a proportion of the surgically treated population, and deficits in collection and reporting of these events, the Australian Government identified an urgent need for a tracking mechanism to improve safety and quality of care. The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) was recently established following the 2018 Senate Committee Inquiry with the aim of tracking outcomes of PFP involving the use of devices and/or prostheses, with the objective of improving the health outcomes of women who undergo these procedures. This paper will describe the APFPR's aims, development, implementation and possible challenges on the way to its establishment. METHODS: The APFPR has been developed and implemented in accordance with the national operating principles of clinical quality registries (CQRs). The minimum datasets (MDS) for the registry's database have been developed using a modified Delphi process, and data are primarily being collected from participating surgeons. Patient recruitment is based on an opt-out approach or a waiver of consent. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) providing additional health and outcome information will be obtained from participating women to support safety monitoring of mesh-related adverse events. RESULTS: Currently in the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) there are 32 sites from various jurisdictions across Australia, that have obtained relevant ethics and governance approvals to start patient recruitment and data collection as of January 2023. Additionally, there are two sites that are awaiting governance review and five sites that are having documentation compiled for submission. Seventeen sites have commenced patient registration and have entered data into the database. Thus far, we have 308 patients registered in the APFPR database. The registry also published its first status report and a consumer-friendly public report in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The registry will act as a systematic tracking mechanism by collecting outcomes on PFP, especially those involving devices and/or prostheses to improve safety and quality of care.

Modified One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Following Sleeve Gastrectomy for Severe Reflux and Delayed Gastric Emptying: A Prospective Trial with Clinical and Physiological Outcome Measures.

BACKGROUND: Gastro-esophageal reflux (GORD) following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a central challenge, and precise indications for revisional surgery or the physiology have not been precisely defined. We aimed to determine whether OAGB performed for reflux post-SG (1) accelerates gastric emptying half-time, (2) reduces the frequency and severity of reflux events, and (3) improves reflux symptoms. METHODS: We undertook a prospective trial (ACTRN12616001089426). There were 22 participants who underwent measurement before and after revisional surgery with 29 optimal SG (patients with optimal outcome from their primary surgery) as controls. All participants underwent a protocolized nuclear scintigraphy, 24-h pH monitoring, and gastroscopy and completed objective questionnaires. RESULTS: Trial patients were 90.9% female, age 44.4 years. Conversion from SG to OAGB was at a median of 45.2 ± 19.6 months. Scintigraphy showed an increased rate of gastric emptying post-OAGB 34 (IQR 14) vs 24 (IQR 10.3) min, p-value 0.008, with decreased number of reflux events post-prandially (39 (IQR 13) vs 26 (IQR 7), p-value 0.001). This data correlated with the pH analysis; total acid events substantially reduced post-OAGB 58.5 (IQR 88) vs 12 (IQR 9.4) events, p-value 0.017. Endoscopic findings indicated a reduction in incidence of bile stasis 72.7% vs 40.9% post-OAGB, p-value < 0.00010. Post-OAGB, patients experienced less frequent regurgitation (12 ± 4.1 vs. 5.5 ± 3, p-value 0.012) and reflux (37.1 ± 15.7 vs. 16.8 ± 12.6, p-value 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: We found OAGB is an effective treatment for reflux associated with delayed gastric emptying post-SG. The likely mechanisms is by, an increase in the rate of gastric clearance and reduced reflux events and overall esophageal acid exposure. This suggests that some forms of post-SG reflux are driven by slower emptying of the residual stomach and are amenable to treatment with drainage above the incisura.

Changes in Oesophageal Transit, Macro-Reflux Events, and Gastric Emptying Correlate with Improvements in Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms and Food Tolerance Early Post Sleeve Gastrectomy.

PURPOSE: There are significant alterations in gastro-intestinal function, food tolerance, and symptoms following sleeve gastrectomy (SG). These substantially change over the first year, but it is unclear what the underlying physiological basis for these changes is. We examined changes in oesophageal transit and gastric emptying and how these correlate with changes in gastro-intestinal symptoms and food tolerance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Post-SG patients undertook protocolised nuclear scintigraphy imaging along with a clinical questionnaire at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were studied: mean age (44.8 ± 8.5 years), 76.9% females, pre-operative BMI (46.9 ± 6.7 kg/m2). Post-operative %TWL was 11.9 ± 5.1% (6 weeks) and 32.2 ± 10.1% (12 months), p-value < 0.0001. There was a substantial increase of meal within the proximal stomach; 22.3% (IQR 12%) (6 weeks) vs. 34.2% (IQR 19.7%) (12 months), p = 0.038. Hyper-accelerated transit into the small bowel decreased from 6 weeks 49.6% (IQR 10.8%) to 42.7% (IQR 20.5%) 12 months, p = 0.022. Gastric emptying half-time increased from 6 weeks 19 (IQR 8.5) to 12 months 27 (IQR 11.5) min, p = 0.027. The incidence of deglutitive reflux of semi-solids decreased over time; 46.2% (6 weeks) vs. 18.2% (12 months), p-value < 0.0001. Reflux score of 10.6 ± 7.6 at 6 weeks vs. 3.5 ± 4.4 at 12 months, (p = 0.049) and regurgitation score of 9.9 ± 3.3 at 6 weeks vs. 6.5 ± 1.7, p = 0.021 significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that there is an increase in the capacity of the proximal gastric sleeve to accommodate substrate over the first year. Gastric emptying remains rapid but reduce over time, correlating with improved food tolerance and reduced reflux symptoms. This is likely the physiological basis for the changes in symptoms and food tolerance observed early post-SG.