Preoperative Assessment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Bariatric Patients Using Polysomnography or Polygraphy.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative assessment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients scheduled for bariatric surgery can be performed by in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG) or by portable polygraphy (PP) at home. We aimed to evaluate the association between PSG/PP, OSA diagnosis, and implementation of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. METHODS: All patients who underwent bariatric surgery from 2015 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent preoperative PSG or PP, based on prevailing protocols or at the physician's discretion. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of CPAP implementation. OSA-related postoperative complications were analyzed in both groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 1464 patients were included. OSA was diagnosed in 79% of 271 patients undergoing PSG, compared to 64% of 1193 patients undergoing PP (p < 0.001), with median apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 15.8 and 7.7, respectively. CPAP treatment was initiated in 52% and 27% of patients, respectively, p < 0.001. Predictors (with adjusted odds ratio) in multivariate regression analysis for CPAP implementation were as follows: male gender (5.15), BMI ≥ 50 (3.85), PSG test (2.74), hypertension (2.38), and age ≥ 50 (1.87). OSA-related complications did not differ between groups (p = 0.277). CONCLUSION: Both PSG and PP are feasible options for preoperative OSA assessment in bariatric patients. When PP is performed, some underdiagnosis may occur as cases of mild OSA may be missed. However, clinically relevant OSA is detected by both diagnostic tools. No difference in OSA-related complications was found. PP is a safe, less invasive option and can be considered as a suitable measure for OSA assessment in this population.

Protocol of a multicentre, prospective cohort study that evaluates cost-effectiveness of two perioperative care strategies for potential obstructive sleep apnoea in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, OSA is undiagnosed in the majority of patients and thus untreated. While untreated OSA is associated with an increased risk of preoperative and postoperative complications, no evidence-based guidelines on perioperative care for these patients are available. The aim of the POPCORN study (Post-Operative Pulse oximetry without OSA sCreening vs perioperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment following OSA scReeNing by polygraphy (PG)) is to evaluate which perioperative strategy is the most cost-effective for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery without a history of OSA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre observational cohort study, data from 1380 patients who will undergo bariatric surgery will be collected. Patients will receive either postoperative care with pulse oximetry monitoring and supplemental oxygen during the first postoperative night, or care that includes preoperative PG and CPAP treatment in case of moderate or severe OSA. Local protocols for perioperative care in each participating hospital will determine into which cohort a patient is placed. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness, which will be calculated by comparing all healthcare costs with the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, calculated using EQ-5D questionnaires). Secondary outcomes are mortality, complications within 30 days after surgery, readmissions, reoperations, length of stay, weight loss, generic quality of life (QOL), OSA-specific QOL, OSA symptoms and CPAP adherence. Patients will receive questionnaires before surgery and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery to report QALYs and other patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Medical Research Ethics Committees United was granted in accordance with the Dutch law for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (reference number W17.050). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6991.

Mandatory imaging in the work-up of children suspected of having appendicitis reduces the rate of unnecessary surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: In children, the diagnosis "acute appendicitis" is difficult. In 2010, a new Dutch appendicitis guideline was published with the goal to reduce the negative appendectomy rate. The guideline recommended mandatory imaging (ultrasound first and CT or MRI when inconclusive) before surgery. This study examines whether the negative appendectomy rate in children has declined after the implementation of the guideline and if the number of ionising imaging procedures increased. METHODS: In this cohort study, all consecutive patients aged 17 or younger, with the suspicion of appendicitis were included. Patients were divided into two groups. Those who presented between 2006 and 2010 (before the implementation) and those between 2011 and 2016 (after implementation). RESULTS: In total, 748 children were enrolled, of which 363 children were seen before and 385 children after implementation of the guideline. Before implementation, 46% of the children with acute appendicitis underwent preoperative ultrasound compared with 95% in the post implementation group, p < 0.001. Any imaging was performed in 51% and 100%, respectively, p < 0.001. The percentage of negative appendectomy before implementation was 13% and 2.7% after implementation, p < 0.001. There was no significant increase in the number of CT scans before and after the implementation of the guideline, 3.6% versus 6.0%, respectively, p = 0.126. There was no increase in direct medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory preoperative imaging in children with the suspicion of acute appendicitis results in a significant decrease in negative appendectomies with no increase in the number of CT scans and without a substantial increase in costs.

Symptomatic marginal ulcer disease after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: incidence, risk factors and management.

BACKGROUND: One of the long-term complications of laparoscopic Roux-and-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is the development of marginal ulcers (MU). The aim of the present study is to assess the incidence, risk factors, symptomatology and management of patients with symptomatic MU after LRYGB surgery. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent a LRYGB from 2006 until 2011 were evaluated in this study. Signs of abdominal pain, pyrosis, nausea or other symptoms of ulcer disease were analysed. Acute symptoms of (perforated) MU such as severe abdominal pain, vomiting, melena and haematemesis were also collected. Patient baseline characteristics, medication and intoxications were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with MU. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients underwent a LRYGB. Minimal follow-up was 24 months. Twenty-three patients (6.6%) developed a symptomatic MU of which four (1.1%) presented with perforation. Smoking, the use of corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was significantly associated with the development of MU. Five out of 23 patients (22%) underwent surgery. All other patients could be treated conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal ulcers occurred in 6.6% of the patients after a LRYGB. Smoking, the use of corticosteroids and the use of NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk of MU. Most patients were managed conservatively.

Incidence and management of biliary leakage after hepaticojejunostomy.

This study analyzes the change in the management of biliary leakage after hepaticojejunostomy. Between 1993 and 2003 all patients (n = 1033) were studied with a hepaticojejunostomy as part of a pancreatoduodenectomy (n = 486), proximal bile duct resection (without liver resection) (n = 35), and biliodigestive bypass for malignant (n = 302) and benign (n = 210) disease. Biliary leakage was defined as the presence of bile-stained fluid (>50 mL) in the abdominal drain more than 24 hours after surgery, proven radiologically or at relaparotomy. The studied patients were divided into two equal periods to analyze the change in management. Overall, 24 of 1033 patients (2.3%) had biliary leakage. In multivariate analysis, a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m2 (P = .012), endoscopic biliary drainage (P = .044), and an anastomosis on the segmental bile ducts (P < .001) were independent predictors of leakage. Management in the first half of the study period (1993-1998) versus the second half (1999-2003) was maintenance of operatively placed drains (18% vs. 15%, respectively, P = 1.000), percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (18% vs. 69%, respectively, P = .012), surgical drainage (55% vs. 8%, respectively, P = .023), and re-hepaticojejunostomy (9% vs. 8%, respectively, P = 1.000). There was no mortality in the patients with biliary leakage. Leakage after a hepaticojejunostomy is a relatively rare complication without mortality and can safely be managed with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.

The need for a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy for unresectable periampullary cancer: a prospective randomized multicenter trial with special focus on assessment of quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy on the development of gastric outlet obstruction and quality of life in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer found during explorative laparotomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies, including one randomized trial, propagate to perform a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy routinely in patients with periampullary cancer found to be unresectable during laparotomy. Others suggest an increase of postoperative complications. Controversy still exists in general surgical practice if a double bypass should be performed routinely in these patients. METHODS: Between December 1998 and March 2002, patients with a periampullary carcinoma who were found to be unresectable during exploration were randomized to receive a double bypass (hepaticojejunostomy and a retrocolic gastrojejunostomy) or a single bypass (hepaticojejunostomy). Randomization was stratified for center and presence of metastases. Patients with gastrointestinal obstruction and patients treated endoscopically for more than 3 months were excluded. Primary endpoints were development of clinical gastric outlet obstruction and surgical intervention for gastric outlet obstruction. Secondary endpoints were mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, survival, and quality of life, measured prospectively by the EORTC-C30 and Pan26 questionnaires. It was decided to perform an interim analysis after inclusion of 50% of the patients (n = 70). RESULTS: Five of the 70 patients randomized were lost to follow-up. From the remaining 65 patients, 36 patients underwent a double and 29 a single bypass. There were no differences in patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, and surgical findings between the groups. Clinical symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction were found in 2 of the 36 patients (5.5%) with a double bypass, and in 12 of the 29 patients (41.4%) with a single bypass (P = 0.001). In the double bypass group, one patient (2.8%) and in the single bypass group 6 patients (20.7%) required (re-)gastrojejunostomy during follow-up (P = 0.04). The absolute risk reduction for reoperation in the double bypass group was 18%, and the numbers needed to treat was 6. Postoperative morbidity rates, including delayed gastric emptying, were 31% in the double versus 28% in the single bypass group (P = 0.12). Median postoperative length of stay was 11 days (range 4-76 days) in the double versus 9 days (range 6-20 days) in the single bypass group (P = 0.06); median survival was 7.2 months in the double versus 8.4 months in the single bypass group (P = 0.15). No differences were found in the quality of life between both groups. After surgery most quality of life scores deteriorated temporarily and were restored to their baseline score (t = -1) within 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic gastrojejunostomy significantly decreases the incidence of gastric outlet obstruction without increasing complication rates. There were no differences in quality of life between the two groups. Together with the previous randomized trial from the Hopkins group, this study provides sufficient evidence to state that a double bypass consisting of a hepaticojejunostomy and a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy is preferable to a single bypass consisting of only a hepaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing surgical palliation for unresectable periampullary carcinoma. Therefore, the trial was stopped earlier than planned.