The first year is the hardest: a comparison of early versus late experience after the introduction of robotic hiatal hernia repair.

While the majority of the literature written concerning minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair involves laparoscopy, little has been written concerning the transition to a robotic technique. We present our experience, with a transparent analysis of data, with regard to the introduction of robotic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. We reviewed our first 30 consecutive patients who underwent robotic PEH over a 2-year period after the introduction of robotic surgery at our institution. Patients were divided into two groups: the early experience group (procedures performed within the first year of introduction of robotic technique, n = 13) and a late experience group (procedures performed in the second year, n = 17). All procedures were performed by a single experienced foregut surgeon. The mean operative time for the early group was significantly greater than for the late group, 184 min versus 142 min, respectively (p < 0.01). Four patients in the early group required conversion to open, while zero patients in the late group required conversion (p = 0.03). Patient demographics and complications did not differ significantly between the two patient populations. The early robotic hiatal hernia repair experience can be more difficult than expected, even in the hands of an experienced laparoscopic team. We identify several areas of improvement including patient positioning, operating room team training, and technical experience. This data can help other surgeons prepare for the transition to robotic foregut surgery.

Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the use of robotic surgery continues to increase, little is known about robotic oncologic outcomes compared with traditional methods in esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE for malignant disease over a 3-year period were identified in a retrospective database. Eighteen patients underwent robotic-assisted THE with cervical anastomosis, and 18 patients underwent laparoscopic THE. All procedures were performed by a single foregut and thoracic surgeon. RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups with no significant differences. Lymph node yields for both laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE were similar at 13.9 and 14.3, respectively (P = .90). Ninety-four percent of each group underwent R0 margins, but only 1 patient from each modality had microscopic positive margins. All of the robot-assisted patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, whereas 83.3% underwent neoadjuvant therapy in the laparoscopy group (P = .23). Clinical and pathologic stagings were similar in each group. There was 1 death after laparoscopic surgery in a cirrhotic patient and no mortalities among the robot-assisted THE patients (P = .99). One patient from each group experienced an anastomotic leak, but neither patient required further intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robot-assisted THEs yield similar perioperative oncologic results including lymph node yield and margin status. In the transition from laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery should be considered oncologically noninferior compared with laparoscopy.

Endoluminal Therapies for Esophageal Perforations and Leaks.

Esophageal perforation has historically been a devastating condition resulting in high morbidity and mortality. The use of endoluminal therapies to treat esophageal leaks and perforations has grown exponentially over the last decade and offers many advantages over traditional surgical intervention in the appropriate circumstances. New interventional endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic clips, covered metal stents, and endoluminal vacuum therapy, have been developed over the last several years to manage esophageal perforation in an attempt to decrease the related morbidity and mortality.

Perception versus reality: elucidating motivation and expectations of current fellowship council minimally invasive surgery fellows.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study is to determine minimally invasive trainee motivation and expectations for their respective fellowship. Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) is one of the largest non-ACGME post-residency training pathways though little is known concerning the process of residents choosing MIS as a fellowship focus. As general surgery evolves, it is important to understand resident motivation in order to better prepare them for a surgical career. METHODS: A survey invitation was sent to current trainees in the Minimally Invasive and related pathways through the Fellowship Council. The participants were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire detailing demographics, experiences preparing for fellowship, motivation in choosing an MIS fellowship, and expectations for surgical practice after fellowship. RESULTS: Sixty-seven MIS trainees responded to the survey out of 151 invitations (44%). The Fellowship Council website, mentors, and other fellows were cited as the most helpful source of information when applying for fellowship. Trainees were active in surgical societies as residents, with 78% having membership in the ACS and 60% in SAGES. When deciding to pursue MIS as a fellowship, the desire to increase laparoscopic training was the most important factor. The least important reasons cited were lack of laparoendoscopic training in residency and desire to learn robotic surgery. The majority of trainees believed their laparoscopic skill set was above that of their residency cohort (81%). The most desired post-fellowship employment model is hospital employee (46%) followed by private practice (27%). Most fellows plan on marketing themselves as MIS surgeons (90%) or General Surgeons (78%) when in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Residents who choose MIS as a fellowship have a strong exposure to laparoscopy and want to become specialists in their field. Mentors and surgical societies including ACS and SAGES play a vital role in preparing residents for fellowship and practice.

Laparoscopic Hill repair: 25-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The open Hill repair for gastroesophageal reflux disease and hiatal hernia is remarkably durable, with a median 10-year reoperation rate of only 3% and satisfaction of 93%. No long-term data exist for the laparoscopic Hill repair (LHR). METHODS: Patients who underwent primary LHR at Swedish Medical Center for reflux and/or hiatal hernia at least 5 years earlier (1992-2010) were identified from an IRB-approved database. There were 727 patients who met inclusion criteria, including 648 undergoing repair for reflux and 79 for paraesophageal hernia. Two questionnaires were administered via mail to evaluate long-term quality of life using validated GERD-HRQL, Swallowing score, and global satisfaction score. Outcomes were defined by GERD-HRQL score, Swallowing score, resumption of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, need for reoperation, and global satisfaction with overall results. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-two patients completed and returned the survey (226 lost to follow-up, 90 deceased, 3 denied undergoing LHR, 166 non-responders), of which 52% were male. The average age at the time of surgery was 49.5 years. Median follow-up was 18.5 years (range 6.2-24.7). The average GERD-HRQL score (7.1) and the average Swallowing score (39.9) both indicated excellent symptomatic outcomes. 30% of patients are using daily PPIs. 24 patients (9.9%) required reoperation for failure during the follow-up period, 21 in the reflux group and 3 in the paraesophageal hernia group. Overall, 85% reported good to excellent results, and 76% would recommend the operation. CONCLUSION: LHR shows excellent long-term durability and quality of life similar to the open Hill repair, with 85% good to excellent results at a median follow-up of 19 years and a reoperation rate under 10%. It is surmised that Hill suture fixation of the gastroesophageal junction to the preaortic fascia may confer unique structural integrity compared to other repairs.

Biologic Keyhole Mesh in Hiatal Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) is the new standard, but the use of mesh is still debated. Biologic mesh has shown great promise, but only the U-shaped onlay has been extensively studied. Postoperative dysphagia has historically been a concern with the use of synthetic keyhole mesh and subsequently slowed its adoption. The purpose of our study was to identify the incidence of postoperative dysphagia in a series of patients who underwent laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with novel placement of keyhole biologic mesh. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients who underwent hernia repair with primary suture cruroplasty and human acellular dermal matrix keyhole mesh reinforcement were reviewed over a 2-year period. All procedures were performed at a single institution. Postoperative symptoms were retrospectively identified. Any postoperative hernia on imaging was defined as radiographic recurrence. RESULTS: Of the 30 consecutive patients who underwent hernia repair, 3 (10%) had mild preoperative dysphagia. The number remained unchanged after LPEHR with keyhole mesh. Return of mild reflux symptoms occurred in 6 (20%) patients. Repeat imaging was performed in 11 patients (37%) at an average of 8 months with 2 slight recurrences. All hernias were classified on preoperative imaging as large hiatal hernias. There were no postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with biologic keyhole mesh reinforcement has a low recurrence rate and no increase in postoperative dysphagia. The traditional belief that keyhole mesh has a higher incidence of dysphagia was not evident in this series.

The found down patient: A Western Trauma Association multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Unconscious patients who present after being "found down" represent a unique triage challenge. These patients are selected for either trauma or medical evaluation based on limited information and have been shown in a single-center study to have significant occult injuries and/or missed medical diagnoses. We sought to further characterize this population in a multicenter study and to identify predictors of mistriage. METHODS: The Western Trauma Association Multicenter Trials Committee conducted a retrospective study of patients categorized as found down by emergency department triage diagnosis at seven major trauma centers. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were collected. Mistriage was defined as patients being admitted to a non-triage-activated service. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of specified outcomes. RESULTS: Of 661 patients, 33% were triaged to trauma evaluations, and 67% were triaged to medical evaluations; 56% of all patients had traumatic injuries. Trauma-triaged patients had significantly higher rates of combined injury and a medical diagnosis and underwent more computed tomographic imaging; they had lower rates of intoxication and homelessness. Among the 432 admitted patients, 17% of them were initially mistriaged. Even among properly triaged patients, 23% required cross-consultation from the non-triage-activated service after admission. Age was an independent predictor of mistriage, with a doubling of the rate for groups older than 70 years. Combined medical diagnosis and injury was also predictive of mistriage. Mistriaged patients had a trend toward increased late-identified injuries, but mistriage was not associated with increased length of stay or mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients who are found down experience significant rates of mistriage and triage discordance requiring cross-consultation. Although the majority of found down patients are triaged to nontrauma evaluation, more than half have traumatic injuries. Characteristics associated with increased rates of mistriage, including advanced age, may be used to improve resource use and minimize missed injury in this vulnerable patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

What's the hold up? Factors contributing to delays in discharge of trauma patients after medical clearance.

BACKGROUND: One area of potential savings in healthcare spending is the identification of nonmedical delays in discharge. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with discharge delays. METHODS: All patients admitted to our trauma center over a 1-year period with a social work consult were retrospectively evaluated to identify delays in discharge after medical clearance. RESULTS: Over half of our patients experienced a delay in discharge. Age was not associated with delay in discharge. Higher injury severity score, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay greater than 1 week were all associated with increased delays in discharge. Other factors such as disposition to a rehabilitation/nursing facility and mechanism of injury were also associated with a nonmedical delay. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified nonmedical factors associated with delays in discharge. Strategies using these data could be used to improve discharge planning and may help decrease healthcare costs.