Magnetic sphincter augmentation: considerations for use in Barrett's esophagus.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) occurs in 5-15% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While acid suppressive therapy is a critical component of BE management to minimize the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, surgical control of mechanical reflux is sometimes necessary. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an increasingly utilized anti-reflux surgical therapy for GERD. While the use of MSA is listed as a precaution by the United States Food and Drug Administration, there are limited data showing effective BE regression with MSA. MSA offers several advantages in BE including effective reflux control, anti-reflux barrier restoration and reduced hiatal hernia recurrence. However, careful patient selection for MSA is necessary.

Duramesh registry study: short-term outcomes using mesh suture for abdominal wall closure.

Introduction: Sutures are flexible linear elements that join tissue and maintain their hold with a surgeon-created knot. Tension at the suture/tissue interface can cut the very tissues that sutures are designed to hold, leading to dehiscence and incisional hernia formation. A new suture design (Duramesh, Mesh Suture Inc., Chicago, IL) was approved for marketing by the United States Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. The multiple filaments of the mesh suture are designed to diffuse tension at the suture/tissue interface thereby limiting pull-through. The macroporosity and hollow core of the mesh suture encourage fibrovascular incorporation for a durable repair. We created the first registry and clinical report of patients undergoing mesh suture implantation to assess its real-world effectiveness. Methods: A patient registry was created based on institutional implant logs from January to August 2023 at an integrated health-care system. Operative reports were reviewed by the study team to verify use of "Duramesh" by dictation. Retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate patient and surgical characteristics, follow-up, and short-term outcomes of interest. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared analysis with Microsoft Excel and GraphPad Prism. Results: Three hundred seventy-nine separate implantations by 56 surgeons across 12 (sub) specialties at a university hospital and two community hospitals were performed. Mesh suture was used for treatment of the abdominal wall in 314 cases. Follow-up averaged 80.8 ± 52.4 days. The most common abdominal wall indications were ventral hernia repair (N = 97), fascial closure (N = 93), abdominal donor site closure from autologous breast reconstruction (N = 51), and umbilical hernia repair (N = 41). Mesh suture was used in all Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wound classifications, including 92 CDC class 2 or 3 abdominal operations. There were 19 surgical site infections (6.1%) and 37 surgical site events (11.8%). Conclusions: Short-term registry data demonstrates the wide diversity of surgical disciplines and scenarios in which mesh suture has been used to date. The early adoption of mesh suture into practice highlights that consequences of suture pull-through influence operative decision making. As this is the first interim report of the Duramesh mesh suture registry, follow-up is too short for characterization of long-term durability of abdominal wall closures.

Surgical residents' perception of competence and relevance of the clinical curriculum to future practice.

INTRODUCTION: General surgery residents maintain a case log throughout residency in order to achieve a targeted number of designated operations. Program directors must certify that each graduate is competent to enter general surgery practice without direct supervision. Our purpose was twofold, to determine: 1) graduates' perception of competence and relevance of specific operations to their practice; and 2) if case volume is related to competence. METHODS: Six classes from a general surgery residency program (n=26) were surveyed one year after graduation. The survey was piloted and revised base on findings. It listed 67 operations encompassing all facets of general surgery. Each operation corresponded to two four-point scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). One scale was headed with "I was well prepared to work-up, independently perform the operation, and effectively care for the patient post-operatively" and the other "This operation is relevant to my current practice profile". A linear regression analysis was utilized to study the relationship between total case volume and overall competence. An unpaired T-test was utilized to study the relationship between volume of specific operations and perceptions of competence. RESULTS: Twenty-two graduates completed the survey (85% response rate). All respondents felt prepared to perform 24% (16/67) of the operations. Fifty percent or more of respondents felt prepared to perform 91% (61/67) of the operations. Fifty percent or more did not feel competent performing the surgical treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis, orchiopexy, transhiatal esophagectomy, adrenalectomy, and open/endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Twenty-six operations were felt to be irrelevant to the practice of 50% or more of graduates. No operation was unanimously felt to be relevant. For 12% of operations (8/67) at least 10% of graduates felt the operation was relevant to their practice but were not comfortable performing it. These operations (abdominoperineal resection, transanal excision of tumor, transhiatal esophagectomy, superficial inguinal lymph node dissection, right hepatectomy, whipple, colonoscopy, and adrenalectomy) were considered to be in need of educational improvement at a program level. After analyzing individual case logs, increased case volume only correlated with competence for esophagectomy (5 vs. 1 p = .014), EGD (32 vs. 9 p = .018), orchiopexy (2.5 vs. 0 p = .03), and adrenalectomy (3 vs. 1 p = .001). Total major operations performed did not correlate with overall competence (p = .12). CONCLUSION: As program directors must document graduates' competency they must do so with confidence. Our results suggest graduates to not feel competent performing many operations, and several are relevant to their practice. Competence in all aspects of general surgery may be unrealistic, even with robust volume. These findings might help in the restructuring curricula of residency.

Revisional bariatric surgery at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery, although safe, can have long-term complications that require revision. Our series illustrates the spectrum of primary procedures, indications for surgery, and strategies for revision. METHODS: The study was a retrospective chart review. Sixty-three patients were identified. Of specific interest were complications and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Eighteen patients had a previous vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), 26 had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 18 had a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), and 1 had a jejunal-ileal bypass. All VBG patients were revised to RYGB. Seventeen RYGB patients were revised with RYGB. Eight LAGB patients were revised with RYGB. Eight RYGB patients had placement of LAGB. Two LAGB patients were revised with LAGB because of a slipped band. Eight LAGB patients had the band removed. The morbidity rate was 30% with a major morbidity rate of 11%. There were 2 leaks, neither required reoperation. Other major complications included 3 pneumonias, 2 reoperations, and 2 intra-abdominal abscesses. There were no mortalities. In the 15 patients who had conversion of VBG to RYGB, the mean EWL was 50%, with 60% of patients achieving more than 50% EWL. In the 10 patients who had revision of their RYGB, the mean EWL was 51%, with 60% of patients achieving more than 50%. In the 6 patients who had revision of LAGB to RYGB, the mean EWL was 39%, with 33% of patients achieving more than 50% EWL. In the 8 patients who had LAGB after RYGB the mean EWL was -2%, with 0% of patients achieving more than 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Revisional surgery is effective, although complication rates are higher than primary bariatric surgery. The type of initial and revisional procedure affects EWL.

A single institution's experience with single incision cholecystectomy compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The advent of single incision laparoscopic surgery has brought renewed attention to cholecystectomy due to the promise of improved cosmesis and less parietal trauma. Small series have demonstrated the feasibility of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Our series adds to the literature by demonstrating a variety of ancillary techniques that may be employed to perform single incision LC safely, and compares our early experience with that of our standard LC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent single incision LC between February 2008 and April 2009. These patients were compared with an equal number of randomly selected patients undergoing LC during the same period. We identified 25 attempted single incision LC, which were included in our analysis. RESULTS: Single incision LC was successfully performed in 21 patients, with only 4 patients requiring conversion to LC. No patients in either group had acute cholecystitis. The critical view of safety was documented in 20 of 21 patients undergoing a successful single incision LC compared with all patients undergoing LC. Operative time was significantly longer in the single incision group. Complications were minor and comparable between the 2 groups. In 9 patients (43%), a suture passer helped to retract the gallbladder. In 8 patients (38%), 1 or 2 Prolene sutures placed by means of a Keith needle helped to retract the gallbladder over the liver and/or helped to retract the infundibulum. In 2 patients, ≥1 supplemental 5-mm port was utilized. In 5 patients (24%), no supplementary retraction was necessary. CONCLUSION: Single incision LC is technically more challenging than LC, but can be performed safely by experienced laparoscopic surgeons with results comparable with LC.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy using radiofrequency energy.

INTRODUCTION: The pancreatic remnant remains a significant source of morbidity during laparoscopic pancreatectomy. Previous series have relied heavily on the endoscopic stapler for transection. Our study is the first to report use of a laparoscopic radiofrequency device for pancreatic transection. METHODS: The laparoscopic Habib 4x delivers high-energy radio waves through a hand-held device consisting of 4 electrodes and allows for bloodless tissue transection. We retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data. Fourteen patients were identified and used in our analysis. RESULTS: There were no conversions, blood transfusions, reoperations, or mortalities. Average length of stay was 4.6 days. There was 1 readmission. Clinically significant fistula occurred in 2 patients (14%), only one of which required an intervention. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency energy is safe and feasible for use during laparoscopic pancreatic transection. Moreover, it is technically simple to use.

What is the optimal channel density for transmyocardial laser revascularization?

BACKGROUND: Transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMR) has demonstrated reproducible relief of angina in patients with end-stage coronary disease. However, the optimum dose or channel density has not been elucidated. METHODS: Using a porcine model of chronic myocardial ischemia, 14 animals were treated with CO2 TMR and randomized as follows: group 1 was 1 channel per 2 cm2; group 2 was 1 channel per 1 cm2; and group 3 was 2 channels per 1 cm2. Left ventricular myocardial viability and function were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and echocardiography pretreatment, and repeated 6 weeks later. RESULTS: The MRI assessment of group 1 (1 channel/2 cm2) and group 2 (1 channel/cm2) demonstrated similar improvement in segmental contractility posttreatment of 12.11% +/- 5.15% and 12.47% +/- 9.51%, respectively. In contrast, group 3 (2 channels/cm2) showed significantly worse segmental contractility posttreatment: -18.52% +/- 7.16% (p = 0.01). Echocardiographic imaging revealed significant improvements in wall thickening in the ischemic zone for group 1 at 0.91 +/- 0.07 cm pretreatment versus 1.30 +/- 0.09 cm posttreatment, (p = 0.01); and for group 2 at 0.93 +/- 0.11 cm versus 1.42 +/- 0.18 cm, (p = 0.01). No significant improvement in wall thickening was seen in group 3 (0.84 +/- 0.06 cm versus 0.88 +/- 0.09 cm, p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: These data corroborate the empiric finding of an effective therapeutic dose range for TMR, 1 channel per 1 to 2 cm2. These results also demonstrate a detrimental effect when channel density is increased above the clinical standard of 1 channel per cm2 to a density of 2 channels per 1 cm2.