Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. RESULTS: We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.

Multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. CONCLUSION: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

A phase Ib feasibility trial of response adapted neoadjuvant therapy in gastric cancer (RANT-GC).

Current guidelines recommend neoadjuvant (NAC) and/or adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancers (LAGCs). However, the choice and duration of NAC regimen is standardized, rather than personalized to biologic response, despite the availability of several different classes of agents for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). The current trial will use a tumor-informed ctDNA assay (Signatera™) and monitor response to NAC. Based on ctDNA kinetics, the treatment regimen is modified. This is a prospective single center, single-arm, open-label study in clinical stage IB-III GC. ctDNA is measured at baseline and repeated every 8 weeks. Imaging is performed at the same intervals. The primary end point is the feasibility of this approach, defined as percentage of patients completing gastrectomy.

The effect of transparency on the gender-based compensation gap in surgical disciplines within a large academic healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Female representation in surgery and surgical subspecialties has increased over the last decade. Studies have shown a discrepancy in compensation in the field of surgery, and several groups have advocated for increasing transparency as a primary solution to decrease this gender salary gap in surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in compensation between genders in surgical specialties within a large academic healthcare system. METHODS: Using a public compensation database from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, this retrospective observational study analyzed salaries of full-time faculty surgeons within a large multi-institutional academic healthcare system. Surgeons included those who were employed for the entirety of 2016 and were full-time faculty who were then stratified according to surgical specialty and rank. The median base and median total salaries were compared between male and female surgeons with adjustment for rank and surgical specialty. RESULTS: There were 170 surgeons from eight surgical subspecialties included in the study with 29% being female (n = 50). Overall, unadjusted and adjusted median total salaries were significantly lower for female compared to male surgeons by $121,578 and $45,904, respectively. The three subspecialties with the highest compensation had a median total salary of $558,998 and had a high male to female ratio (3.7 male to 1 female), whereas the three subspecialties with the lowest compensation had a median total salary of $376,174 and had a male to female ratio of 1.5 male to 1 female. CONCLUSIONS: In a large academic healthcare system with transparent and publicly accessible salaries, the gender compensation gap in surgery persists. In conjunction with transparency, future academic institutions should consider a value-based, objective compensation plan with personal and systemic introspection of traditional gender biases, in efforts to circumvent the impact of gender on salary.

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques. METHODS: Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

Venous thromboembolism risk for the contemporary bariatric surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality after bariatric surgery. Although several studies have examined VTE, few have examined risk factors separately for DVT and PE after contemporary bariatric surgery, including laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Our objective was to define risk factors for DVT and PE independently for both LSG and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) patients using the largest validated bariatric surgery database. METHODS: The metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program (MBSAQIP) database was queried to identify patients who underwent LSG or LRYGB between January 2015 and December 2017. Perioperative data were compared using bivariate analysis. Risk of DVT and PE after LSG or LRYGB was determined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 369,032 bariatric cases (72% LSG, 28% LRYGB) were performed. The incidence of DVT was similar between LSG and LRYGB (0.2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.96), while the incidence of PE was decreased for LSG compared to LRYGB (0.1% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001). Operative length was associated with increased risk of postoperative DVT (OR 1.1, CI 1.01-1.30, p = 0.04) and postoperative PE (OR 1.4, CI 1.16-1.64, p < 0.001) after surgery. The largest independent risk factors for DVT were history of DVT (OR 6.2, CI 4.44-8.45, p < 0.001) and transfusion (OR 4.2, CI 2.48-6.63, p < 0.001). The largest independent risk factors for PE were transfusion (OR 5.0, CI 2.69-8.36, p < 0.001) and history of DVT (OR 2.8, CI 1.67-4.58, p < 0.001). LSG was associated with a decreased risk of PE compared to LRYGB (OR 0.7 CI 0.55-0.91, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged operative length is associated with a higher risk of DVT and PE after either LSG or LRYGB. Transfusion and history of DVT are the largest risk factors for developing DVT and PE. There is a decreased risk of PE after LSG compared to LRYGB.

Outcomes of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair based on surgical specialty: thoracic versus general surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal Hernia Repairs (HHR) are performed by both general surgeons (GS) and thoracic surgeons (TS). However, there are limited literature with respect to outcomes of HHR based on specialty training. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for HHR performed by GS versus TS. METHODS: The Vizient database was used to identify patients who underwent elective laparoscopic HHR between October 2014 and June 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgeon's specialty (GS vs. TS). Patient demographics and outcomes including in-hospital mortality were compared between groups. RESULTS: During the study period 13,764 patients underwent HHR by either GS or TS. GS performed 9930 (72%) cases while TS performed 3834 (28%) cases. There was no significant difference between GS versus TS with regard to serious morbidity (1.28% vs. 1.30%, p = 0.97) or mortality (0.10% vs. 0.21%, p = 0.19). The mortality index was 0.24 for GS versus 0.45 for TS. Compared to TS, laparoscopic HHR performed by GS was associated with a shorter LOS (2.57 days vs. 2.72 days, p < 0.001) and lower mean hospital costs ($7139 vs. $8032, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of academic centers, laparoscopic HHRs are mostly performed by GS with comparable outcome between general versus thoracic surgeons.

Evolving changes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Initial adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) began in the late 1990s but its surgical technique, perioperative management, and outcome continues to evolve. METHODS: The aim of this study was to examine the evolving changes in the technique, outcome, and new strategies in management of postoperative leaks after MIE was performed at a single institution over a two-decade period. A retrospective chart review of 75 MIE operations was performed between November 2011 and September 2018 and this was compared to the initial series of 104 MIE operations performed by the same group between 1998 and 2007. Operative technique, outcomes, and management strategies of leaks were compared. RESULTS: There were 65 males (86.7%) with an average age of 61 years. The laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy became the preferred MIE approach (49% of cases in the initial vs. 95% in the current series). Compared to the initial case series, there was no significant difference in median length of stay (8 vs. 8 days), major complications (12.5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.68), incidence of leak (9.6% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.82), anastomotic stricture (26% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.38), or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.47). Management of esophageal leaks has changed from primarily thoracotomy ± diversion initially (50% of leak cases) to endoscopic stenting ± laparoscopy/thoracoscopy currently (87.5% of leak cases). CONCLUSION: In a single-institutional series of MIE over two decades, there was a shift toward a preference for the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis approach with similar outcomes. The management of postoperative leaks drastically changed with predilection toward minimally invasive option with endoscopic drainage and stenting.

Current practices in biliary surgery: Do we practice what we teach?

INTRODUCTION: Since the widespread adoption of laparoscopic techniques in biliary surgery, the incidence of bile duct injures (BDI) has not significantly declined despite increased operative experience and recognition of the critical view of safety (CVS) method for anatomic identification. We hypothesized that operative approaches in clinical practice may vary from well-described technical recommendations. The objective of this study was to access how practicing surgeons commonly identify anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: We performed a cohort study assessing practices in biliary surgery among current practicing surgeons. Surgeons belonging to the Midwest Surgical Association and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons were surveyed. Items surveyed include preferred methods for cystic duct identification, recognition of the CVS, and use of intraoperative imaging. RESULTS: In total, 374 of 849 surgeons responded. The CVS was not correctly identified by 75 % of surgeons descriptively and by 21 % of surgeons visually. 56 % of surgeons practiced the infundibular method for identification of the cystic duct; 27 % practiced the CVS method. Intraoperative cholangiography was used by 16 % and laparoscopic ultrasound by <1 %. CONCLUSION: A majority of surgeons preferably do not use the CVS method of identification during LC. A large percentage of practicing surgeons are unable to describe or visually identify the CVS. These results suggest an urgent need to reexamine the tenets of how LC is being taught and disseminated and present a clear target for improvement to reduce BDI.

The impact of visiting student electives on surgical Match outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Residency applicants commonly complete visiting student electives (VSEs) hoping to increase their odds of matching at host institutions. Existing evidence on Match outcomes for applicants who complete VSEs is limited. As VSEs involve monetary and opportunity costs to students and administrators, data on their utility are vital for student well-being, preparedness for residency, and, ultimately, success in the Match. We investigated the utilization and impact of VSEs for all applicants. We hypothesized that completion of VSEs would increase the likelihood of matching at a host institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of academic records and National Resident Matching Program outcomes for the graduates of one institution and visiting students to that institution over the course of 7 y. RESULTS: Utilization of VSEs varied significantly among specialties. Across all specialties and in general surgery, applicants were more likely to match into host programs than others. The size of the effect of VSEs on outcomes varied by specialty. Host programs were applicants' top choice for residency in 48% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Completion of VSEs may give surgical applicants increased control over Match outcomes. Our findings may assist future students in strategic decision making when determining whether and where to use VSEs.

The utilization of laparoscopy in ventral hernia repair: an update of outcomes analysis using ACS-NSQIP data.

BACKGROUND: Numerous prospective studies and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated shorter length of stay, lower morbidity rates, and similar recurrence rates with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (VHR) when compared to open VHR. Despite these promising results, previous data showed low utilization of laparoscopic VHR. The aim of our study was to evaluate the utilization of laparoscopic VHR using the most updated information from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) dataset. The secondary aim was to evaluate the outcomes from NSQIP for patients undergoing open versus laparoscopic VHR for the outcome of 30-day mortality and the peri-operative morbidities listed in the NSQIP dataset. METHODS: We performed this study using 2009-2012 data from the ACS-NSQIP database. The study population included patients who had undergone an open or laparoscopic ventral hernia repair as their primary procedure based on CPT codes. Demographic characteristics, overall morbidity, and complications were compared using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and two-sided t tests for continuous variables. Secondary outcomes (mortality and any complications) were further analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Utilization of laparoscopic VHR was 22%. While adjusted mortality was similar, overall morbidity was increased in the open VHR group (OR 1.63; CI 95% 1.38-1.92). The open group had a higher rate of return to the OR, pneumonia, re-intubation, ventilator requirement, renal failure/insufficiency, transfusion, DVT, sepsis, and superficial and deep incisional wound infections. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of laparoscopic VHR remained low from 2009 to 2012 and continued to lag behind the use of laparoscopy in other complex surgical procedures. The mortality rate between laparoscopic and open VHR was similar, but laparoscopic repair was associated with lower overall complication rates.

Laparoscopy has a superior diagnostic yield than percutaneous image-guided biopsy for suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: To date, no study has compared laparoscopy (LB) to percutaneous (PB) biopsy for the diagnosis of abdominal lymphoma. The objective of this study is to compare the success rate and safety profile of laparoscopic lymph node biopsy to the percutaneous approach in patients with intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy concerning for lymphoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multi-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing lymph node biopsy for suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma between 2005 and 2013. Our primary outcome was adequate tissue yield between the two techniques, both for histologic diagnosis and for ancillary studies such as flow cytometry. Secondary outcomes included 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission rates, the need for additional lymph node biopsy procedures, and length of stay. RESULTS: All 34 of the LB patients had adequate specimen for histologic diagnosis compared to 92.3% of patients with a PB (p = 0.18). Significantly more patients in the LB group had sufficient tissue for ancillary studies when needed than in the PB group, 95.5 and 68.2%, respectively (p = 0.04). A second biopsy was pursued in 23.1% of failed PB patients, 0% with success on second attempt. DISCUSSION: When index of suspicion is high or when biopsy is performed for patient previously diagnosed with lymphoma and recurrence/transformation is suspected, LB safely and consistently provides adequate tissue for initial diagnosis and for ancillary studies. In contrast, image-guided PB may be more appropriate for patients for whom ancillary studies are unlikely to add to planned treatments or when there is a high risk of complications from either general anesthesia or patient comorbidities.

Annual case volume has no impact on patient outcomes in laparoscopic partial colectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Surgeon case volume has been utilized in the credentialing process as a surrogate for surgeon skill. The purpose of this study was to compare objective outcome measures of laparoscopic partial colectomies performed by laparoscopically skilled surgeons with varying annual case census. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all patients (n = 255) undergoing elective laparoscopic partial colectomy. Patients were grouped according to surgeon's annual case volume as low annual case volume (LV; n = 48) and high annual case volume (HV; n = 207). HV is defined as performing >20 total cases and >25 cases per year. All demographic and clinical variables were evaluated with univariate logistic regression followed by a multivariate logistic regression model for variables approaching significance. RESULTS: Demographic variables were found to be similar between groups. Only median estimated blood loss (100 vs. 150 mL for HV; p = 0.040) was found to be significantly different between groups. However, this was clinically insignificant, as it did not lead to an increased rate of blood transfusions (0.0 vs. 3.9 % for HV surgeons; p = 0.184). All other variables were similar in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgeons with advanced laparoscopic training, the data suggest that LV surgeons are able to achieve similar outcomes as those who perform the operation routinely. Annual case volume should not be given undue emphasis when deciding whether to award privileges for laparoscopic partial colectomy.

Gastroparesis: an evidence-based review for the bariatric and foregut surgeon.

Gastroparesis is a gastric motility disorder characterized by delayed gastric emptying. It is a rare disease and difficult to treat effectively; management is a dilemma for gastroenterologists and surgeons alike. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate current diagnostic tools as well as treatment options. We describe key elements in the pathophysiology of the disease, in addition to current evidence on treatment alternatives, including nutritional considerations, medical and surgical options, and related outcomes.

Predictors of Anastomotic Leak After Esophagectomy for Cancer: Not All Leaks Increase Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The impact of preoperative chemotherapy/radiation on esophageal anastomotic leaks (ALs) and the correlation between AL severity and mortality risk have not been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that lower severity ALs have a similar risk of mortality compared to those without ALs, and preoperative chemotherapy/radiation increases AL risk. METHODS: The 2016-2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program's procedure-targeted esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing any esophagectomy for cancer. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for risk of ALs. RESULTS: From 2042 patients, 280 (13.7%) had ALs. AL patients requiring intervention had increased mortality risk including those requiring reoperation, interventional procedure, and medical therapy (P < .05). AL patients requiring no intervention had similar mortality risk compared to patients without ALs (P > .05). Preoperative chemotherapy/radiation was not predictive of ALs (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemotherapy/radiation does not contribute to risk for ALs after esophagectomy. There is a stepwise increased risk of 30-day mortality for ALs requiring increased invasiveness of treatment.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Novel Interdisciplinary Approach to GERD: Concomitant Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair with Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is an endoscopic alternative for the treatment of GERD. However, TIF does not address the hiatal hernia (HH). We present a novel approach with a laparoscopic HH repair followed by same-session TIF, coined concomitant transoral incisionless fundoplication (cTIF). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of cTIF in a collaborative approach between Gastroenterology and surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with confirmed GERD and >2 cm HH who underwent cTIF between 2018 and 2020 were included. Symptoms were assessed using the Reflux Disease Questionnaire, GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Index, and the Reflux Symptom Index pre and post cTIF. One-way ANOVA and paired samples t-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent cTIF (53% were men, mean age was 59.3 years) with 100% technical success. Mean ± SD HH measurement on endoscopy was 2.9 ± 1.5 cm. Scores on Reflux Disease Questionnaire for symptom frequency and symptom severity improved significantly from before to 6 months after cTIF (17.4 to 4.72; p < 0.01 and 16.7 to 4.56; p < 0.05, respectively). According to the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life Index, significant decreases were seen post cTIF in heartburn (23.26 to 7.37; p < 0.01) and regurgitation (14.26 to 0; p = 0.05). Reflux Symptom Index similarly decreased after cTIF (17.7 to 8.1 post cTIF; p < 0.01). Mean DeMeester score decreased from 43.7 to 4.9 and acid exposure time decreased from 12.7% to 1.28% post cTIF (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: We present a novel multidisciplinary approach to GERD using a combined endoscopic and surgical approach with close collaboration between Gastroenterology and surgery. Our results suggest that cTIF is safe and effective in reducing reflux symptoms in a large spectrum of GERD patients.

Assessment and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease following bariatric surgery.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common disease in patients with obesity. The incidence of de novo GERD and the effect of bariatric surgery on patients with pre-existing GERD remain controversial. Management of GERD following bariatric surgery is complicated and can range from medical therapy to non-invasive endoscopic options to invasive surgical options. To address these issues, we performed a systematic review of the literature on the incidence of GERD and the various modalities of managing GERD in patients following bariatric surgery. Given the increased number of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) procedures being performed and the high incidence of GERD following LSG, bariatric surgeons should be familiar with the options available to manage GERD following LSG as well as other bariatric procedures.

The Role of Endoscopic Stent in Management of Postesophagectomy Leaks.

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leak is a dreaded complication following esophagectomy. Conventional management for leaks includes invasive reoperation and even gastrointestinal diversion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine our contemporary outcome of using endoscopic esophageal stenting as primary therapy for management of anastomotic leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). METHODS: We reviewed data on 11 patients who developed an esophageal leak following 111 MIE between January 2011 and December 2019. Of the 11 anastomotic leaks, 10 patients had an anastomotic disruption and underwent endoscopic esophageal stenting as primary therapy for management of leaks, while 1 patient had an anastomotic disruption complicated by an associated tracheoesophageal fistula that required surgical reoperation and subsequent colonic interposition. Main outcome measures focused on the 10 patients who were managed with endoscopic stenting, including length of hospital stay following leak management, need for thoracotomy or gastrointestinal diversion for leak, stent complications, and leak-associated mortality. RESULTS: Of the 10 patients who underwent endoscopic esophageal stenting as primary therapy for management of leaks, there were 8 males with a median age of 66 years. The median time to diagnosis of anastomotic leak was 10 days postoperatively. One of the ten patients also underwent percutaneous drain placement, while none of the patients required thoracotomy. Median duration of stent placement was 39 (range, 29-105) days. Median length of stay after stent placement was 10 (range, 4-43) days. The median number of stent exchange was 1 (range, 1-3) stent. Gastrointestinal continuity was maintained in all patients. The 90-day leak-associated mortality was 9.1% (1 of 11 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic stenting is an effective primary therapy in the management of postesophagectomy leak and avoids the need for an invasive, reoperative thoracotomy or gastrointestinal diversion procedure.