Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a First Step Procedure for Oncologic Purposes: An Indication Beyond the Updated Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for cancer. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is established as a safe procedure providing accelerated weight loss and comorbidity improvement or remission. Additionally, it is approved as a bridging procedure for various non-oncologic surgeries, with very limited data for oncologic procedures. The aim of this study is to present a series of patients with severe obesity and concomitant cancer who underwent LSG prior to definitive oncological procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review (2008-2023) was conducted in three institutions, identifying 5 patients with cancer and severe obesity who underwent LSG as bridging procedure. Variables analyzed were initial weight, initial body mass index (BMI), type of malignancy, comorbidities, interval between LSG and oncological surgery, weight and BMI before the second intervention, percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Malignancies identified were 2 prostate cancers, 1 periampullary neuroendocrine tumor, 1 rectal cancer, and 1 renal clear cell carcinoma. Mean age of patients was 50.2 years, mean initial BMI 47.4 kg/ m 2 , and mean BMI before oncological surgery 37 kg/ m 2 . Mean time interval between LSG and oncological surgery was 8.3 months. Mean %EWL achieved was 45.2%. Two thromboembolic events were encountered after LSG, while none of the patients developed complications after definitive oncological treatment. The mean follow-up after oncological surgery was 61.6 months. CONCLUSION: LSG can be proposed as bridging procedure before oncological surgery in meticulously selected patients. Achieved weight loss can render subsequent oncological procedures easier and safer.

Gastroesophageal Cancer After Gastric Bypass Surgeries: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Data comparing the occurrence of gastroesophageal cancer after gastric bypass procedures are lacking and are only available in the form of case reports. We perform in this study a systematic review and a meta-analysis of all the reported cases of gastroesophageal cancer following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and loop gastric bypass-one anastomosis gastric bypass/mini gastric bypass (LGB-OAGB/MGB). We conducted a systematic review of all the reported cases in articles referenced in PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and Scholar Google. Only cases of gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma following RYGB or LGB-OAGB/MGB are included. Statistical analysis was done accordingly. Fifty cases were identified, along with 2 reported in this paper. Sixty-one percent (27/44) of the cancers after RYGB were in the gastric tube compared to 37.5% (3/8) after LGB-OAGB/MGB. This resulted in an odds ratio of 0.38 (p-value = 0.26), which failed to prove an increase in cancer occurrence in the gastric tube after LGB-MGB/OAGB compared to RYGB. The most common symptoms were dysphagia for cancers occurring in the gastric tube (15/30) and abdominal pain for those occurring in the excluded stomach (10/22). Twenty-nine/thirty of the cancers in the gastric tube were diagnosed by gastroscopy and 13/22 of the cancers in the excluded stomach were diagnosed by CT scan. Gastroesophageal cancers after gastric bypass procedures occur commonly in the excluded stomach where many are not identified by conventional means. Physician awareness and patient education as well as lifelong follow-up are essential for maintaining bypass surgeries on the beneficial side.

Preventing staple-line leak in sleeve gastrectomy: reinforcement with bovine pericardium vs. oversewing.

One of the most serious, potentially life-threatening complications of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is staple-line leakage. Oversewing the LSG staple line vs buttressing it with bovine pericardial strips (BPS) to reduce perioperative bleeding and postoperative gastric leak was evaluated. From 2006 through 2011, 160 patients underwent LSG with suturing as the only staple-line reinforcement (Group A). From March 2010 through August 2012, 84 LSG patients had BPS incorporated into their last two stapler firings (Group B). Staple lines were evaluated perioperatively for bleeding, and patients were monitored for indications of staple-line leaks (peritonitis, abnormal output from the drain). In preoperative Group A and B, there were 117 (73.1%) vs. 56 (66.7%) females; mean age, 35.2 years (18.0-68.0) vs. 33.8 years (15.0-64.0); mean body mass index (BMI, kilograms per square meter), 42.5 (27.0-76.0) vs. 42.0 (30.0-58.0). Three months after surgery, mean BMI for Group A was 37.3 (-5.9); Group B, 35.2 (-7.3); at 6 months, 32.7 (-10.8) and 31.5 (-11.3; p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in perioperative blood loss, oversewn staple lines in Group A often required electrocautery to stanch bleeding; this was not required for Group B. In Group A, 15 patients (9.4%) developed complications; in Group B, five (6.0%; p = 0.46). Gastric fistula, verified by barium swallow, occurred in eight Group A patients (5.0%); in Group B, one (1.2%; p = 0.17). Relative to oversewing, staple-line buttressing with bovine pericardium was readily accomplished, safe, and associated with a lower staple-line leak rate.