Short-term Outcomes of Day-Case Stoma Closure: A Prospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Elective stoma closure is a common, standardized procedure in digestive surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of day-case surgery for elective stoma closure. DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, nonrandomized study of consecutive patients undergoing day-case elective stoma closure. SETTING: This study was performed at a French tertiary hospital between January 2016 and June 2018. PATIENTS: Elective stoma closure was performed by local incision with an ASA score of I, II, or stabilized III. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the day-case surgery success rate in the overall population (all patients having undergone elective stoma closure) and in the per protocol population (patients not fulfilling any of the preoperative or perioperative exclusion criteria). The secondary end points (in the per protocol population) were the overall morbidity rate (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification), the major morbidity rate (Clavien score ≥3), and day-case surgery quality criteria (unplanned consultation, unplanned hospitalization, and unplanned reoperation). RESULTS: Between January 2016 and June 2018, 236 patients (the overall population; mean ± SD age: 54 ± 17; 120 men (51%)) underwent elective stoma closure. Fifty of these patients (21%) met all the inclusion criteria and constituted the per protocol population. The day-case surgery success rate was 17% (40 of 236 patients) in the overall population and 80% (40 of 50 patients) in the per protocol population. In the per protocol population, the overall morbidity rate was 30% and the major morbidity rate was 6%. Of the 40 patients with successful day-case surgery, the unplanned consultation rate and the unplanned hospitalization rate were both 32.5%. There were no unplanned reoperations. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, day-case surgery for elective stoma closure is feasible and has acceptable complication and readmission rates. Day-case elective stoma closure can therefore be legitimately offered to selected patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B583. RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DEL CIERRE DE ESTOMA AMBULATORIO UN ESTUDIO OBSERVACIONAL Y PROSPECTIVO: ANTECEDENTES:El cierre electivo de un estoma es un procedimiento común y estandarizado en cirugía digestiva.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la viabilidad de la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre electivo de estomas.DISEÑO:Un estudio prospectivo, unicéntrico, no aleatorizado de pacientes consecutivos sometidos a cierre de estoma electivo ambulatorio.ESCENARIO:Un hospital terciario francés entre enero de 2016 y junio de 2018.PACIENTES:Cierre electivo de estoma realizado por incisión local con una puntuación de la American Society of Anesthesiologists de I, II o III estabilizado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal fue la tasa de éxito de la cirugía ambulatoria en la población general (todos los pacientes habiendo sido sometidos a cierre de estoma electivo) y en la población por protocolo (pacientes que no cumplían con ninguno de los criterios de exclusión preoperatorios o perioperatorios). Los resultados secundarios (en la población por protocolo) fueron la tasa de morbilidad general (según la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo), la tasa de morbilidad mayor (puntuación de Clavien ≥ 3) y los criterios de calidad de la cirugía ambulatoria (consulta no planificada, hospitalización no planificada y reoperación no planificada).RESULTADOS:Entre enero de 2016 y junio de 2018, 236 pacientes (la población general; edad media ± desviación estándar: 54 ± 17; 120 hombres (51%)) se sometieron al cierre electivo del estoma. Cincuenta de estos pacientes (21%) cumplieron todos los criterios de inclusión y constituyeron la población por protocolo. La tasa de éxito de la cirugía ambulatoria fue del 17% (40 de 236 pacientes) en la población general y del 80% (40 de 50 pacientes) en la población por protocolo. En la población por protocolo, la tasa de morbilidad general fue del 30% y la tasa de morbilidad mayor fue del 6%. De los 40 pacientes con cirugía ambulatoria exitosa, la tasa de consultas no planificadas y la tasa de hospitalización no planificada fueron ambas del 32.5%. No hubo reoperaciones no planificadas.LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio de un solo centro.CONCLUSIÓN:En pacientes seleccionados, la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre electivo de estoma es factible y tiene tasas aceptables de complicaciones y reingreso. Por lo tanto, se puede ofrecer legítimamente el cierre electivo ambulatorio de estoma a pacientes seleccionados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B583.

Gastric leak after sleeve gastrectomy: risk factors for poor evolution under conservative management.

BACKGROUND: Gastric leak (GL) is the most highly feared early postoperative complication after sleeve gastrectomy (SG), with an incidence of 1% to 2%. This complication may require further surgery/endoscopy, with a risk of management failure that may require additional surgery, including total gastrectomy, leading to a risk of mortality of 0% to 9%. OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of factors that may lead to a poorer evolution of GL. SETTING: University Hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study of a group of patients managed for GL after SG between November 2004 and January 2019 (n = 166). Forty-three patients were excluded. The population study was divided into 2 groups: patients with easy closing of the GL (n = 73) and patients with difficult closing of the GL or failure to heal (n = 50). Patients were allocated to 1 of 2 groups depending on the time to heal (median time of 84 days). The study's primary efficacy endpoint was to determine the risk factors for a poorer evolution of GL. RESULTS: Among 123 patients included in this study, 103 patients had undergone primary SG (83.7%). The mean time to the appearance of GL was 15.1 days (range, 1-156 d). Seventy-four patients underwent a reoperation (60%). The mean number of endoscopies per patient was 2.7 (range, 2-7 endoscopies). The mean time to healing was 89.5 days (range, 18-386 d). There were 8 cases of healing failure (6.5%). Multivariate analysis identified body mass index (>47 kg/m2), time to referral (>2 d), and serum prealbumin level (<.1 g/dL) to be independent risk factors for a poorer evolution of GL. CONCLUSION: Improvement of nutritional status before SG and early referral for GL could reduce the risk of delayed closure or the need for further surgery.

Comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failure of gastric banding: a two-center study with a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few studies on series comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after failure of gastric banding (GB) are available. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of SG and RYGB after GB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2017, patients undergoing SG (n = 186) or RYGB (n = 107) for failure of primary GB were included in this two-center study. Propensity-score matching was performed based on preoperative factors with a 2:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was the weight loss at 2 years between the SG and RYGB groups. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, reoperation, correction of comorbidities and the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up. RESULTS: In our propensity score matching analysis, operative time was significantly less in the SG group (95 min vs. 179 min; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were lower in the SG group (9.5% vs. 35.4%; p = 0.003). At 2 years follow-up, the mean EWL was similar as same as comorbidities. There was a significant difference in favor of SG concerning the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Revision of GB by SG or RYGB is feasible, with a higher rate of early post-operative complications for RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years follow-up is similar; however, RYGB appears to result in a higher rate of adverse events than SG.

Sleeve gastrectomy as a rescue of failed gastric banding: comparison of 1- and 2-step approaches.

BACKGROUND: Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available. OBJECTIVES: Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure. SETTING: University Hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission). RESULTS: In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m2 (27.0-69.0), while in the 2-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index was 43.5 kg/m2 (31.5-61.7). Mean operating time was 109 minutes (50-240) in the 1-step group and 78.7 minutes (40-175) in the 2-step group (P = .22). In the 1-step group, 6 conversions to laparotomy occurred, while in the 2-step group, 2 conversions to laparotomy occurred (P = .75). One death (.2%, in the 2-step group) and 39 complications (30 in the 1-step group [11.1%] and 9 in the 2-step group [10.2%]) also occurred. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.2 days in the 1-step group and 4.1 days in the 2-step group. At 2-year follow-up, mean body mass index was 32.4 kg/m2 in the 1-step group and 33.2 kg/m2 in the 2-step group (P = .15), representing excess weight losses of 61.9 and 50.1 (P = .05), respectively. The rates of revisional surgery were .7% and 2.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach.

Short-term outcomes of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become a frequent bariatric procedure. Single-port sleeve gastrectomy (SPSG) could reduce parietal aggression however its development has been restrained due to fear of a complex procedure leading to increased morbidity and suboptimal sleeve construction. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of SPSG versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) with regards to morbidity, weight loss, and co-morbidity resolution. METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, data from all consecutive patients that underwent SPSG and CLSG in two institutions performing exclusively one or the other approach were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score adjustment was performed on the factors known to influence the choice of approach. RESULTS: During the study period, 1122 patients underwent SG in both institutions (610 SPSG and 512 CLSG). From each group, 314 patients were successfully matched. A 15-min increase in operative time was observed during SPSG (P < 0.001). Postoperative morbidity was similar with a minor increase after SPSG (8.6 vs. 6.7%, P = 0.453). No differences in incisional hernia rates were observed (1.6 (SPSG) vs. 0.3% (CLSG), P = 0.216). Percentage of total weight loss was 31.1% and 28.2% in the CLSG and SPSG 12 months after surgery, respectively (P = 0.321). Co-morbidities resolution 12 months following the procedure was similar. CONCLUSIONS: SPSG can be performed safely with similar intraoperative and postoperative morbidity compared to CLSG. Weight loss and co-morbidities resolution at 1 year are equivalent. A 15-min longer operative time was the only negative side of SPSG.

Comparison of Repeat Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Case of Weight Loss Failure After Sleeve Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Few series are available on the results of repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) performed to manage the failure of primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG and RYGB after SG. MATERIAL & METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2017, patients undergoing re-SG (n = 61) and RYGB (n = 83) for failure of primary SG were included in this study. Revisional surgery was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL ≤ 50%) or weight regain. The primary endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the re-SG group and the RYGB group at the 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, specific morbidity, length of stay, weight loss, and correction of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean interval between SG and re-SG was 41.5 vs. 43.2 months between SG and RYGB (p = 0.32). The mean operative time was 103 min (re-SG group) vs. 129.4 min (RYGB group). One death (1.7%; re-SG group) and 25 complications (17.4%; 9 in the re-SG group, 16 in the RYGB group) were observed. At the 1 year, mean body mass index was 31.6 in the re-SG group and 32.5 in the RYGB group (p = 0.61) and excess weight loss was 69.5 vs. 61.2, respectively (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Re-SG and RYGB as revisional surgery for SG are feasible with acceptable outcomes and similar results on weight loss on the first postoperative year.

Impact of Routine 12 mm Epigastric Trocar Site Closure on Incisional Hernia After Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Prospective Before/After Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported trocar site hernia (TSH) rates after bariatric surgery ranging from 0 to 45.2% based on imaging assessment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the TSH rate after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) comprising routine 12 mm epigastric trocar site closure (TSC). MATERIAL: Prospective observational study with retrospective control cohort of a group of patients undergoing primary SG with routine 12 mm epigastric TSC. The "before" group (control group) was a previously published group of patients without 12 mm epigastric TSC and the "after" group (closure group) concerned patients with routine 12 mm epigastric TSC. Primary endpoint was the TSH rate after routine epigastric TSC. Secondary endpoints were comparison of the TSH rate, TSC feasibility and causes of failure, TSC-related morbidity, evaluation of TSC time and its course, and identification of risk factors for TSH. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were analyzed during the study period. Feasibility of epigastric TSC was 97.3% without related morbidity. Mean epigastric TSC time was 44.2 s (18-150). Epigastric TSC time was always less than 60 s after 10-15 procedures. At 1 year, 10 patients presented TSH (8.1%): epigastric in 6.5% (n = 8) cases and after open laparoscopy in 1.6% (n = 2) cases. Comparison of the two groups revealed a lower TSH rate in the closure group (8.1% vs. 17.0%; p = 0.02), due to a lower epigastric TSH rate (6.5% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.02). Routine epigastric TSC was a protective factor for TSH (p = 0.03; relative risk of 0.43). CONCLUSION: Routine epigastric TSC during SG is rapid and provides effective prevention of TSH.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as day-case surgery: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Few series have demonstrated the feasibility of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as day-case surgery (DCS). OBJECTIVE: Compare the outcomes and healthcare costs of SG performed as DCS or as an inpatient procedure. SETTING: University Hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: This was a prospective, nonrandomized study of 250 consecutive patients undergoing day-case SG from May 2011 to June 2017. Each patient in the DCS group (n = 250) was manually paired by sex, age, body mass index, preoperative co-morbidities, and year of surgery with 1 patient undergoing SG as an inpatient procedure (SG control group, n = 250). Patients in the SG control group were excluded from DCS on the basis of DCS criteria. The primary endpoint of this study was the clinical and economic impact of performing SG as DCS compared with inpatient management. The secondary endpoints were related to DCS, DCS satisfaction rate, comparison of outcomes and costs between DCS and inpatient procedures, and the changing modalities of SG as DCS in our institution (by comparing the first 100 patients to the last 150 patients). RESULTS: A total of 1573 patients underwent SG during the period, 250 patients underwent SG as DCS (15.9%) and 554 patients were excluded on the basis of DCS criteria. No postoperative deaths, 19 overnight admissions (7.6%), 16 unscheduled consultations (6.4%), and 12 unscheduled hospitalizations (4.8%) were observed in the DCS group. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications. Readmission was higher in the DCS group (5.6% versus 4%; P < .001), while the length of rehospitalization was shorter in the DCS group (5.8 versus 10.8 d; P < .001). Overall cost and cost per patient were significantly lower in the DCS group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Day-case SG on selected patients was not associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates and was cost-effective due to the low cost of management of postoperative complications.

Effectiveness of Fibrin Sealant Application on the Development of Staple Line Complications After Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effectiveness of the use of fibrin sealant (FS) for preventing the development of staple line complications (SLCs) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the best means of preventing SLCs after SG. METHODS: This was a prospective, intention-to-treat, randomized, 2 center study of a group of 586 patients undergoing primary SG (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01613664) between March 2014 and June 2017. The 1:1 randomization was stratified by center, age, sex, gender, and body mass index, giving 293 patients in the FS group and 293 in the control group (without FS). The primary endpoint (composite criteria) was the incidence of SLCs in each of the 2 groups. The secondary criteria were the mortality rate, morbidity rate, reoperation rate, length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and risk factors for SLC. RESULTS: There were no intergroup differences in demographic variables. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the incidence of SLCs was similar in the FS and control groups (1.3% vs 2%, respectively; P = 0.52). All secondary endpoints were similar: complication rate (5.4% vs 5.1%, respectively; P = 0.85), mortality rate (0.3% vs 0%, respectively; P = 0.99), GL rate (0.3% vs 1.3%, respectively; P = 0.18), postoperative hemorrhage/hematoma rate (1% vs 0.7%, respectively; P = 0.68), reoperation rate (1% vs 0.3%, respectively; P = 0.32). Length of stay was 1 day in both groups (P = 0.89), and the readmission rate was similar (5.1% vs 3.4%, respectively; P = 0.32). No risk factors for SLCs were found. CONCLUSION: The incidence of postoperative SLCs did not appear to depend on the presence or absence of FS.

Repeat sleeve gastrectomy: optimization of outcomes by modifying the indications and technique.

BACKGROUND: Few series are available concerning repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG), and series have reported contradictory results concerning morbidity rates, with limited data concerning weight loss. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG. SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: Between June 2007 and March 2016, all patients undergoing re-SG (n = 46 patients) were included. Re-SG was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL) (≤50%) or renewed weight gain with excessively high residual gastric volume (>250 mL and/or large gastric pouch). The primary efficacy endpoint was the overall complication rate of re-SG. The secondary efficacy endpoints were operative data, evaluation of weight loss, and correction of co-morbidities, risk factors for gastric leak (GL), by comparing 2 periods (period 1, January 2004-December 2013: blue/green or purple staplers without reinforcement; period 2, after December 2013: black staplers with reinforcement) and comparison of weight loss according to the indication for re-SG. RESULTS: The re-SG group consisted of 46 patients (35 women, mean age: 47.5 yr). The mean body mass index (BMI) before SG was 47.2 kg/m² (35-63.6). The mean time interval between SG and re-SG was 73 months (11-106). The BMI before re-SG was 41.2 kg/m² (29-54.7). Indications for surgery were insufficient weight loss in 25 patients (54.3%) and weight regain in 21 patients (45.7%). A large gastric pouch was visible in 4 patients (8.6%). The mean operating time was 97.6 minutes (45-220). One death (2.1%) and 7 complications (15.2%) were observed. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.6 days (1-30). At last follow-up, mean BMI was 32.1 kg/m2 (20.3-41.3) and mean EWL was 62.3% (18-127.2). When analyzing risk factors for GL, residual gastric volume between 250 and 350 mL was associated with a higher GL rate compared with a volume ≥350 mL, and re-SG performed during period 1 was associated with a higher GL rate than re-SG performed during period 2 (17.4% versus 0%; P = .13). Re-SG performed for weight regain was associated with a significantly higher additional weight loss compared with re-SG performed for insufficient weight loss (mean additional EWL of 45.9%; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Re-SG is feasible, but it requires adaptation of the surgical procedure to decrease complications. Results on weight loss are acceptable, but the best indications for re-SG were a gastric volume>350 mL and in the case of weight regain with the exception of technical failure of the primary SG.

Identifying Patients Eligible for a Short Hospital Stay After Stoma Closure.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of enhanced recovery programmes after elective colorectal surgery has dramatically reduced the length of stay. The objective of this study was to assess the selection of good candidates for short post-operative stay (GCSS) in the context of stoma closure. METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2014, 222 patients were included in the present retrospective, single-center study. The primary endpoint was the proportion of GCSS. We also identified factors associated with GCSS status and built a predictive score. RESULTS: The study population was predominantly male (n = 122, 55%). 60% of the patients had undergone ileostomy and 85% had undergone hand-sewn anastomosis. The postoperative ileus rate was 5% and the readmission rate was 3.5%. 41% (n = 92) of the study population were considered to be GCSS. In a multivariate analysis, age under 50 (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 2.8 [1.2-5.6], p = 0.008), the absence of vascular comorbidities (OR [95%CI] = 3.2 [1.3-12.3]; p = 0.006) and stapled anastomosis (OR: 4.2, 95%CI: 1.1-17.3, p = 0.03) were associated with GCSS status. Predictive scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were associated with GCSS rates of 20%, 18%, 44%, and 62%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the context of stoma closure, 41% of patients were GCSS.

Compliance with a multidisciplinary team meeting's decision prior to bariatric surgery protects against major postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: Good surgical practice guidelines in France state that patients eligible for bariatric surgery must always be discussed at a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. OBJECTIVE: Describe MDT meetings and assess their possible impact on the postoperative course. SETTING: University Hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: From April 2009 to March 2013, we included all patients reviewed in a MDT meeting before bariatric surgery. The primary endpoint was the case validation rate. The secondary endpoints were the number of MDT meetings, the number of submissions discussed or refused, outcomes in patients who underwent surgery in another center after refusal, or deferral in our MDT meeting. RESULTS: Forty-nine MDT meetings were held representing 1099 case files (816 patients) that were discussed. Of the case files, 84.5% concerned first-line surgery, 14% concerned second-line surgery, and 1.4% concerned third-line surgery. Overall, 776 (70.6%) of these submissions were approved, accounting for 95% of the patients. Further investigation before a decision was required in 13.3%. Surgery was definitively refused in 1% (n = 11). For the 776 patients having undergone surgery, the complication rate was 10.1%, the major complication rate was 6%, and the reoperation rate was 3.2%. For the 11 patients for whom bariatric surgery was refused, 7 patients underwent surgery in another center (without MDT meetings). There were 4 postoperative complications (57.1%; 3 major and 1 minor). CONCLUSION: The MDT meeting's decision is important for standardizing the management of obese patients before bariatric surgery. MDT meetings might help to reduce complication by optimizing patient selection and preoperative care.

Value of routine upper gastrointestinal swallow study after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Gastric leak (GL) is one of the main early-onset postoperative complications of sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Many institutions perform routine upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast studies within 24 hours of surgery, looking for GL or gastric stenosis and to determine the need for urgent re-exploration, but this examination delays oral feeding, can cause side effects and is responsible for systematic and probably unnecessary irradiation of the patient. OBJECTIVE: Determine the efficacy of routine UGI contrast studies to predict postoperative complications after SG in a large population. SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study consisted of retrospective review of a prospective database of a cohort of patients who underwent primary SG between January 2007 and August 2013 (n = 1137). Routine UGI contrast studies, performed on postoperative day 1, were independently reviewed by 2 radiologists. The primary endpoint of the study was the effect of routine UGI contrast study on detecting postoperative complications. The secondary endpoints were comparison of the findings of routine UGI contrast study and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan, sensitivity, and specificity of different imaging signs on abdominal CT scan in the presence of GL, evaluation of the SG learning curve based on the findings of routine UGI contrast studies. RESULTS: A total of 1137 patients underwent primary SG and 30 GL (2.6%) with a mean time to diagnosis of 23.4 days (1-245) and 15 cases of gastric stenosis (1.3%) were observed during the study period. Routine UGI study was performed in 1108 patients, whereas 29 patients were assessed by first-line CT scan. None of the 1108 UGI studies found a GL or gastric stenosis. In the 30 cases of GL, the most sensitive and specific sign was the presence of perigastric abscess without contrast material leak (sensitivity: 56.6%; specificity: 95%). The mean time interval between routine postoperative UGI contrast study and abdominal CT scan was 12.9 days (0-86). Uniform gastric shape was acquired after 30-32 SG procedures. CONCLUSION: Routine postoperative UGI on postoperative day 1 is of limited value after SG. Abdominal CT scan should be preferred in the presence of clinical suspicion of postoperative complications. Selective UGI contrast study remains indicated when gastric stenosis is suspected and at the beginning of the SG learning curve.

Eliminating routine upper gastrointestinal contrast studies after sleeve gastrectomy decreases length of stay and hospitalization costs.

BACKGROUND: Recent series have shown the lack of value of routine upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast studies on postoperative day 1 or 2 for the detection of gastric leak (GL) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Despite this finding, many centers still perform routine early UGI contrast studies after SG. No series has evaluated the impact of eliminating this examination on the overall management of patients undergoing SG. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of UGI contrast studies on SG management. SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: This study was an ambispective study of a cohort of patients who underwent primary SG between January 2014 and December 2014 (n = 267). Two consecutive groups were compared: patients with routine UGI contrast studies on postoperative day 1 (UGI+group, n = 154) and patients without routine UGI contrast studies (UGI-group, n = 113). The efficacy endpoint of the study was the overall impact of not performing routine UGI contrast studies (length of hospital stay, radiological data, rehospitalization data, and economic assessment). RESULTS: The overall complication rate was 9.3% and no deaths were observed. The GL rate was 1.5%. The mean hospital stay was 1.8 days (2.1 days versus 1.5 days; P = .57). Routine UGI contrast studies did not detect any cases of GL or gastric stenosis. After UGI contrast studies, 56 patients complained of events related to UGI contrast studies (36.4%). A total of 27 computed tomography scans were performed during the first 3 postoperative months (16 in the UGI+group (10.4%) versus 11 in the UGI-group (9.7%); P = .52). Twelve patients were rehospitalized (7 and 5; P = .6). The median length of rehospitalization was 7 days (7 and 5 days; P = .6). Overall cost per patient during SG hospitalization was $5,219 in the UGI+group and $3,678 in the UGI-group (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Eliminating routine UGI contrast studies was associated with decreased length of hospital stay and cost of SG procedures. Larger series are required to show that not performing routine UGI contrast studies has no impact on the postoperative complication rate and the management of these complications.

Gastropancreatic ligament: Description, incidence, and involvement during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

During laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), adhesions between the stomach and the pancreas are sometimes found, forming a "gastropancreatic ligament" (GPL). However, the GPL has only been described once in the literature, in 1985. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of the GPL during LSG, describe this structure and assess its effect on the surgical technique. All patients undergoing primary LSG in our institution (n = 240) and patients referred for gastric fistula (GF) after primary LSG (n = 18) between January 2015 and December 2015 were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a GPL during primary LSG. The secondary endpoints were the postoperative complication rate, the postoperative GF rate, and the presence of this ligament during reoperation for GF. Among the 240 patients, a GPL was visible in 49 cases (20.4%) and was described as thin in 34 of these (69.4%). Twelve postoperative complications (5%) were observed, including seven major (2.9%). The GF rate was 2% (n = 5), not requiring reoperation. The gastric stenosis rate was 0.4% (n = 1). The GPL had been previously sectioned in one of the five patients (20%) with postoperative GF. During the study period, 18 patients were referred for GF and 14 were reoperated. A non-sectioned GPL, not described in the operating report, was observed in four patients (28.5%). A GPL was identified in 20.4% of cases. Identification of a GPL could be important in the context of LSG, as section of the ligament allows tension-free stapling to be performed and can therefore possibly reduce the risk of postoperative complications, particularly GF. Clin. Anat. 30:336-341, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Outpatient laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: first 100 cases.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The development of outpatient surgery was one of the major goals of public health policy in 2010. The purpose of this observational prospective study was to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in an ambulatory setting. DESIGN: Study design was a prospective prospective observational, nonrandomized study, registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01513005), with institutional review board approval and written informed consent. SETTING: Amiens University Medical Center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing SG who were preselected by inclusion ambulatory criteria. INTERVENTIONS: All patients operated on for obesity by laparoscopic SG, from May 2011 through July 2013. MEASUREMENTS: We collected outcomes data on 100 patients including incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, maximum and average pain scores, and the overall satisfaction rate. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 100 obese patients, 93% were women. The mean age was 36 years (22-55 years). The mean preoperative body mass index was 42.4 kg/m(2). The mean operating time was 60 minutes (range, 30-95 minutes). The overall satisfaction rate was 93% (n = 93). When leaving the postoperative care unit, 94% of patients felt no or mild pain. Eighty-two percent had no postoperative postoperative nausea and vomiting, and 7 patients needed treatment using ondasetron. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic SG in an ambulatory setting is feasible with a dedicated anesthesiological approach and an expert surgical team. Appropriate patient selection is important for ensuring safety and quality of care within the outpatient program.

New endoscopic technique for the treatment of large gastric fistula or gastric stenosis associated with gastric leaks after sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Covered stent (CS) is required when gastric leak (GL) after sleeve gastrectomy is combined with gastric stenosis (GS) or when a large (>2 cm in diameter) gastric fistula is present (increasing the likelihood of double pigtail stent [DPS] migration). OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of our previous endoscopic management of large GL or GS associated with GL (using CS only) with those of our new endoscopic treatment (using combined CS and DPS). SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 2009 and June 2015, all patients treated for large GL or GS associated with GL after sleeve gastrectomy (n = 20 patients) were included. Our previous endoscopic management required CS placement (CS group), whereas our new endoscopic treatment required combined CS and DPS placement (CS+DPS group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the treatment duration after CS placement until closure of the GL. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the number of endoscopic procedures, the stent migration rate, and the failure rate. RESULTS: Nine patients were treated by CS only (CS group), whereas 11 patients were treated by both CS and DPS (CS+DPS group). The median time to GL closure after CS placement was 84 days (33-130) in the CS group and 32 days (26-89) in the CS+DPS group (P≤.05). The median number of endoscopic procedures at the time of CS placement was 2 (1-3) in the CS group and 1 (1-2) in the CS+DPS group (P≤.05). The stent migration rate after CS placement was 33.3% in the CS group and 0% in the CS+DPS group (P = .21), and the failure rate was 11% and 0% (P = .36). CONCLUSION: The combination of CS and DPS constitutes an effective treatment for large GL or GS associated with GL, allowing significantly fewer endoscopic procedures and a shorter treatment duration.

Does sleeve gastrectomy improve the gait parameters of obese patients?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effect of bariatric surgery on gait parameters, which constitute an important aspect of quality of life. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effects of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) on kinematic gait parameters 6 months after surgery. SETTING: University Hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted in patients undergoing SG between January 2013 and December 2013. The primary endpoint was the difference in functional parameters of the patient's 6-minute walk test (6 MWT) before and 6 months after SG. Secondary outcomes were surgical data, weight loss, and quality of life score. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included. Mean preoperative body mass index was 46.3±7.1 kg/m2 (35.2-71.0). On the preoperative 6 MWT, the mean distance traveled was 467 m (267-606) at an average speed of 4.6 km/hr (2.67-6.06). Three patients were unable to complete the 6 MWT. At 6 months postoperatively, mean body mass index was 34.4±6.0 kg/m2 (24.8-53.8). On the 6-month postoperative 6 MWT, the mean distance traveled was 515 m (280-652) at an average speed of 5 km/hr (2.82-6.50; P<.01). All patients completed the test. A decrease in muscle and joint pain and an increased range of motion of the joints were observed (P<.01). All domains of the Short Form 36 questionnaire were significantly improved (P< .01). CONCLUSION: SG significantly improves walking as well as range of motion of the joints. It also allows reduction of pain, facilitating the mobilization of obese patients that may be responsible for more marked weight loss after bariatric surgery. Quality of life improves and weight loss occurs after the SG.