Current trends and outcomes for unilateral groin hernia repairs in the United States using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database: A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different unilateral groin hernia repair approaches have been developed in the last 2 decades. The most commonly done approaches are open inguinal hernia repair by the Lichenstein technique, laparoscopic approach by either total extraperitoneal or transabdominal preperitoneal, and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach. Hence, this study aimed to compare early and late postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent unilateral robotic transabdominal preperitoneal, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and open groin hernia repair using a United States national hernia database, the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was retrospectively reviewed, including all adult patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair from 2015 to 2022, with a 1:1 propensity score match analysis conducted for balanced groups. The univariate analysis compared the groups across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. RESULTS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database identified 14,320 patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair and had documented 30 days of follow-up. Propensity score matching stratified 1,598 patients to each group (total of 6,392). The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 53-74) for open groin hernia repair, whereas 60 (interquartile range 47-69) for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, 62 (interquartile range 48-70) for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and 60 (interquartile range 47-70) for robotic transabdominal preperitoneal were noted. Open groin hernia repair had more American Society of Anesthesiologists score 4 (52, 3%) patients (P < .001). A painful bulge was the most common indication (>85%). Operating room time >2 hours was more significant in the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group (123, 8%; P < .001). Seroma rate was higher in the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (134, 8%; P < .001). A 1-year analysis had 1,103 patients. Hematoma, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperation, and hernia recurrence at 30 days or 1 year did not differ, with an overall recurrence rate of 6% (n = 67) at 1 year (P = .33). In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, the robotic approach had lower rates of surgical site occurrence (n = 12, 4%; P = .002) and seroma (n = 5, 2%; P < .001) compared with the other groups. When evaluating recurrence 1 year after surgery, the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group had 10% versus 18% open groin hernia repair, 11% laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and 18% laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, but it was not statistically significant (P = .53). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in readmission, reoperation, and surgical site infection among the surgical techniques at 30 days. However, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal was associated with more seromas. Hernia recurrence at 1 year was similar across groups; the robotic approach had the lowest recurrence rate among all 3 repairs but did not reach statistical significance. The robotic approach performed better in patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 for surgical site occurrence and seroma than in other surgical techniques.

Minimally Invasive Paraesophageal Hernia Repair in the Elderly: Is Age Really Just a Number?

Introduction: Paraesophageal hernias readily affect the elderly with a median age of presentation between 65 and 75 years. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) is a technically challenging operation with potential for dire complications. Advanced age and medical comorbidities may heighten perioperative risk and limit surgical candidacy, potentially refusing patients an opportunity toward symptom resolution. Given the increased prevalence in the elderly and associated surgical risks, we aim to assess age as an independent risk factor for perioperative morbidity and mortality after PEHR. Methods: A retrospective analysis using a prospectively maintained database assessed patients undergoing PEHR from 2007 to 2018. Patients were stratified by age: Group A (age <65 years), Group B (65≤ age <80 years), and Group C (age ≥80 years). Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, postoperative outcomes, and mortality rate were analyzed. Barium esophagram was performed on symptomatic postsurgical patients. Recurrence was confirmed radiologically. Results: In total, 143 patients underwent laparoscopic (94.4%) or robotic-assisted (5.6%) PEHR. Average age per group was Group A (n = 49) 55.4 years (standard deviation [SD] ±8.91), Group B (n = 76) 71.4 years (SD ±4.40), and Group C (n = 17) 84.1 (years) (SD ±3.37). Group C had significantly higher rates of nonelective surgery (P = .018), preoperative weight loss (P = .014), hypertension (P = .031), ischemic heart disease (P = .001), and cancer (P = .039); preoperative body mass index was significantly lower (P = .048). Charlson comorbidity index differences between groups were significant (2.00 versus 3.61 versus 5.28, P < .001). Median follow-up was 426 days (6-3199). Symptom improvement was seen in 78.3% of patients. Recurrence and reoperation rates were not significantly different between groups. No differences were seen in mortality, length of stay, or postoperative complications between groups. Conclusions: PEHR in elderly patients proved to be safe and effective. Avoidance of emergent intervention may be achieved through a judicious elective approach to this anatomic problem. Symptom resolution and quality-of-life improvement can be safely achieved with surgical repair in this patient population, demonstrating that age is truly just a number for PEHR.

More beads, more peristaltic reserve, better outcomes: factors predicting postoperative dysphagia after magnetic sphincter augmentation.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) offers a minimally invasive anti-reflux alternative to fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. The most common side effect of MSA is dysphagia, which may require dilation or even device removal. The incidence of dysphagia may be reduced by MSA sizing and preoperative motility studies. Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative maneuver during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) that assesses peristaltic reserve. We evaluated factors predicting development of dysphagia following MSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients undergoing MSA. Preoperative work-up included barium swallow, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and esophageal manometry. Peristaltic augmentation was defined as a ratio > 1 of the distal contractile integral (DCI) following MRS and the mean DCI of the 10 baseline wet swallows during manometry. Demographics, MSA implant size, and postoperative symptom data were gathered on all patients. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients underwent MSA. Mean age was 51.7 years, average BMI was 25.8 kg/m2. 15 (22.1%) of patients had severe dysphagia requiring endoscopic dilation. Peristaltic augmentation with MRS was significantly higher in patients without dysphagia (46.1% vs 6.3% p = 0.026). 33.3% of patients requiring dilatation exhibited complete absence of smooth muscle contraction following MRS (DCI = 0). The ratio of the DCI of MRS/wet swallows predicting dysphagia following MSA was 0.56. Patients with a small (12-14 beads) versus a larger MSA implant (15-17 beads) had a significantly higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (58.5% vs 30.0% p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Adequate peristaltic reserve and larger device size correlate with decreased incidence of dysphagia following MSA implantation without compromising the anti-reflux barrier. Routine assessment of peristaltic reserve during preoperative HRM should be considered prior to MSA placement.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for giant gastric lipoma in morbid obese patient.

ANTECEDENTES: Los lipomas gástricos corresponden al 5% de los lipomas gastrointestinales. Muchos de ellos son solitarios, pequeños y asintomáticos, pero también pueden ocasionar síntomas obstructivos y sangrados. El tratamiento estándar es quirúrgico. CASO CLÍNICO: Mujer de 50 años con antecedente de obesidad mórbida, índice de masa corporal de 47.4 kg/m2, que se presenta con síntomas de epigastralgia y anemia. Se diagnostica un lipoma gástrico de 6.3 cm mediante tomografía y se confirma por biopsia endoscópica. DISCUSIÓN: La paciente fue exitosamente tratada a través de gastrectomía laparoscópica en manga. CONCLUSIÓN: La gastrectomía laparoscópica en manga es el procedimiento de elección para el tratamiento de los lipomas gástricos gigantes en los pacientes con obesidad mórbida cuando la anatomía lo permite. BACKGROUND: Gastric lipomas account for 5% of all gastrointestinal lipomas. Most of them are solitary, small and asymptomatic, however, they can cause severe symptoms such as obstruction, bleeding and intussusception. The standard treatment is surgical resection. CASE REPORT: 50 years old female with history of morbid obesity with a body mass index (BMI) of 47.4 Kg/m2, who presented with symptoms of epigastric pain and anemia. CT scan of the abdomen revealed a 6.3 cm gastric lipoma, confirmed by endoscopic biopsy. DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is the procedure of choice for the excision of giant gastric lipomas in the morbidly obese, when anatomically feasible.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation: a viable rescue therapy for symptomatic reflux following bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are commonly performed bariatric procedures in obesity management. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in this population has reported rates of 23-100%. GERD after LSG has been noted with recent studies demonstrating de novo reflux or symptom exacerbation despite weight loss. Fundoplication is not an option, and medically refractory GERD after LSG is usually treated with conversion to RYGB. GERD post-RYGB is a unique entity, and management poses a clinical and technical challenge. We evaluate safety and effectiveness of magnetic sphincter augmentation after bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed identifying patients that underwent LINX placement for refractory GERD after LSG, LRYGB, or duodenal switch across three institutions. Outcomes included complications, length of stay, PPI use, GERD-HRQL scores, and patient overall satisfaction. RESULTS: From March 2014 through June 2018, 13 identified patients underwent LINX placement after bariatric surgery: 8 LSG, 4 LRYGB, and 1 duodenal switch. The patients were 77% female, with mean age 43 and average BMI 30.1. Average pre-operative DeMeester score was 24.8. Pre-operatively, 5 patients were on daily PPI, 6 on BID PPI, and 1 on PPI + H2 blocker. We noted decreased medication usage post-operatively, with 4 patients taking daily PPI, and 9 off medication completely. A GERD-HRQL score was obtained pre- and post-operatively in 6 patients with average reduction from 25 to 8.5 (p value 0.002). Two patients experienced complications requiring endoscopic dilation after LINX placement. 100% of patients reported overall satisfaction post procedure. CONCLUSION: LINX placement is a safe, effective treatment option for surgical management of refractory GERD after bariatric surgery. It can relieve symptoms and obviate the requirement of high-dose medical management. Magnetic lower esophageal sphincter augmentation should be another tool in the surgeon's toolbox for managing reflux after bariatric surgery in select patients.