The durability of revisional sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after previous adjustable gastric band.

BACKGROUND: Patients with adjustable gastric banding (AGB) often require revision to one-stage or two-stage sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term durability of revisional SG and RYGB, in terms of subsequent revision or conversion (RC). METHODS: The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems dataset was queried from 2006 to 2013 for patients who underwent primary SG and RYGB, one-stage, and two-stage conversion from AGB to SG and RYGB. Patients who required RC were identified. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the RC risk among these groups. RESULTS: 13,749 had primary SG, 621 one-stage, and 321 two-stage AGB to SG. 31,814 had primary RYGB, 555 one-stage, and 248 two-stage AGB to RYGB. The estimated 5-year cumulative RC incidence rate was significantly lower after primary surgery than after prior AGB (one-stage AGB to SG 14.4%, two-stage AGB to SG 11.6%, primary SG 5.2%, one-stage AGB to RYBG 3.4%, two-stage AGB to RYGB 2.9%, and primary RYGB 1.1%, p-value < 0.0001). RYGB and SG did not differ significantly in terms of the elevation effect of one- and two-stage AGB conversion over primary surgeries (RYGB vs SG: one stage vs primary ratio of HR = 0.97, 95% CI = [0.58, 1.63], p-value = 0.9153; two stage vs primary ratio of HR = 1. 02, 95% CI = [0.50, 2.07], p-value = 0.9596). CONCLUSION: RC after AGB to SG or RYGB is more frequent compared to primary surgeries with procedures following AGB to SG being more common than AGB to RYGB. However, that difference was proportionally similar to the RC rate ratio differences noted for primary SG and RYGB.

Timing and management of bleeding after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The timing of bleeding after bariatric surgery and subsequent management (characterized as surgical versus non-surgical (i.e., interventions including endoscopic or interventional radiology approaches)) has not been thoroughly studied. As such, we sought to describe the rates of reoperation or non-operative intervention after bleeding following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was queried between 2015 and 2018 for any bleeding after SG or RYGB and subsequent reoperation or non-operative intervention. Multivariable Fine-Gray models were used to compare the hazard of reoperation/non-operative intervention. Multivariable generalized linear regression models were used to test the number of subsequent reoperations/non-operative interventions depending on initial management. RESULTS: 6251 patients with bleeding after SG or RYGB were identified, of which 2653 patients underwent subsequent procedures (n = 1375 [51.83%] RYGB index procedure, n = 1278 [48.17%] SG index procedure). 1892 (71.32%) and 761 (28.68%) patients had reoperation and non-operative intervention, respectively. For patients who developed bleeding, SG was associated with significantly higher reoperation risk, while RYGB was associated with significantly higher risk of non-operative intervention. Early bleeding was associated with significantly increased risk of reoperation and decreased risk of non-operative intervention, regardless of initial procedure. The total number of subsequent reoperations/non-operative interventions did not differ significantly depending on whether the patients had non-operative intervention or reoperation first [ratio 1.01, 95% CI (0.75, 1.36), p value 0.9418]. CONCLUSION: Patients after SG who experience bleeding are more likely to undergo reoperation than RYGB patients. On the other hand, patients with bleeding after RYGB are more likely to undergo non-operative intervention compared to SG patients. Early bleeding is associated with higher risk of reoperation and lower risk of non-operative intervention both after SG and RYGB. The initial approach did not play a role in the total number of subsequent reoperations/non-operative interventions.

Cardiac surgical simulation program during general surgery residency increases resident physician exposure to cardiac surgery and technical expertise.

Objective: The changing surgical education landscape in surgical training pathways greatly diminished cardiac surgical knowledge, interest, and skills among general surgery trainees. To address this issue, our department developed a cardiac surgery simulation program. Methods: All simulation sessions lasted at least 2 hours and occurred during resident physician protected education time. Participants were postgraduate year 2 through 5 general surgery residents assisted by staff and led by cardiac surgery faculty. Five of the 6 sessions were porcine heart wet labs simulating coronary anastomoses, surgical aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair and replacement, and left ventricular assist device implantation. The transcatheter aortic valve replacement session was designed as a video simulation and a manikin for wire manipulation and implantation. At the end of each lab, all participants were surveyed about their experiences. Results: An average of 10 resident physicians participated in each session (range, 8-13), for a total of 120 simulation hours. One hundred percent of residents surveyed agreed that the labs improved knowledge and understanding of the disease process, improved understanding of cardiac surgical principles, and helped acquire skills for surgical residency and treatment. Factors that residents cited for increased attendance rate included protected education time, hands-on experience, and a high faculty-to-resident ratio. Conclusions: This program successfully demonstrates that cardiac surgery training and simulation can be integrated into general surgery residency programs, despite the lack of cardiac surgery requirements. Additional metrics for future study includes technical grades on resident physicians' performance to further assess the value of this program.