Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the benefits of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery translate into superior surgical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish the 'best possible' outcomes for robotic bariatric surgery and compare them with the established laparoscopic benchmarks. METHODS: Benchmark cut-offs were established for consecutive primary robotic bariatric surgery patients of 17 centres across four continents (13 expert centres and 4 learning phase centres) using the 75th percentile of the median outcome values until 90 days after surgery. The benchmark patients had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnoea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI greater than 50 kg/m2, or age greater than 65 years. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients were included, who were mainly female (75.5%) and who had a mean(s.d.) age of 44.7(11.5) years and a mean(s.d.) baseline BMI of 44.6(7.7) kg/m2. In expert centres, 13.74% of the 3020 patients who underwent primary robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 5.9% of the 4078 patients who underwent primary robotic sleeve gastrectomy presented with greater than or equal to one complication within 90 postoperative days. No patient died and 1.1% of patients had adverse events related to the robotic platform. When compared with laparoscopic benchmarks, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had lower benchmark cut-offs for hospital stay, postoperative bleeding, and marginal ulceration, but the duration of the operation was 42 min longer. For most surgical outcomes, robotic sleeve gastrectomy outperformed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a comparable duration of the operation. In robotic learning phase centres, outcomes were within the established benchmarks only for low-risk robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: The newly established benchmarks suggest that robotic bariatric surgery may enhance surgical safety compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery; however, the duration of the operation for robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is longer.

Impact of surgical repair on type IV paraesophageal hernias (PEHs).

BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernias (PEHs; types II-III-IV) account for about 5% of all hiatal hernias (HHs). The peculiarity of PEHs is the presence of a herniated sac which contains a more or less important part of the stomach, along with other abdominal organs in type IV PEHs. Surgical treatment is more complex since it requires a reduction not only of the herniated content but also of the "container," namely the sac adherent to mediastinal structures. Since type III and IV PEHs are mostly grouped together as large PEHs, there is a lack of articles in the literature with regards to clear surgical outcomes, as well as management algorithms in type IV PEHs. This study aims to compare outcomes in type IV vs. type III PEHs after surgical repair. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent laparoscopic PEH hernia repair (LPEHR) was conducted in a single institution between 2006 and 2020. Patient baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included in the analysis. Patients presenting with type IV PEHs (12/103) were significantly older than patients with type III PEHs (91/104) (75.25 ± 7.15 vs. 66.91 ± 13.58 respectively (p = 0.039), and more fragile with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (4.25 ± 1.48 vs. 2.96 ± 1.72, p = 0.016). Operative time was significantly longer (243 ± 101.73 vs. 133.38 ± 61.76, p = 0.002), and postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in type IV PEH repair (50% vs. 8.8% type III, p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Patients with type IV PEHs appear to be older and frailer. The higher incidence of postoperative complications in patients with type IV PEHs should advocate for a precise indication for surgical treatment, which should be performed in centers of expertise.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Failed Gastric Banding: One-Step or Two-Step Revisional Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Surgical revision rates are high, reaching 41% at 10 years after Laparoscopic gastric band (LAGB). Surgical revision may include re-banding, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), duodenal switch (DS), or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). LRYGBP has been proposed as the procedure of choice after failure of restrictive procedures with better results than any other procedure. LRYGB as a revisional bariatric surgery is hazardous compared with primary LRYGB. However, controversy as to whether revisional bariatric surgery should be performed as a one-step revision or as a two-step revision. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the mortality and morbidity between one-step versus two-step revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of our revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB between November 2007 and December 2016. Revisional surgery was indicated in cases of inadequate weight loss or weight regain and after band-related complications. Gastric band removal and conversion to LRYGB was either in a one-step or a two-step procedure, according to the indication of this revisional surgery and based on the intra-operative decision. RESULTS: One-step group included 107 patients, two-step group had 76 patients. MINOR COMPLICATIONS: Dindo-Clavien I-II: 5 complication in the one-step group, whereas 4 complication were seen in the two-step group (P = 1.000). MAJOR COMPLICATIONS: Dindo-Clavien ≥ IIIa complications: 10 complication in the one-step group, whereas 2 complications in the two-step group (P = 0.127). CONCLUSION: One-step revision is safe and feasible, without significant increased morbidity when performed in a specialized institution. However, proper patient selection is of the utmost importance.

Evaluating the Surgeon's Experience as a Risk Factor for Post-Esophagectomy Chylothorax on a Four-Year Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Chylothorax (CHT) is a known post-operative complication after esophageal surgery with vaguely defined risk factors. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 70 consecutive patients with operable cancer over a period of four years (January 2013 to December 2016). Ivor Lewis and McKeown interventions were performed. Thoracic duct is identified and ligated routinely. Factors related to the patient, the tumor, and the operating surgeon were analyzed. RESULTS: Incidence of CHT was 10%. Surgeons with less than five years of esophageal surgery experience had the most CHT, 71% (p=0.001). No association was found between tumor location, type, body mass index (BMI), neoadjuvant therapy, response to neoadjuvant therapy or male sex, and CHT. The odds of developing CHT were 17 times higher in patients operated by a junior surgeon (odds ratio, OR=17.67, confidence interval, CI 2.68-116.34, p=0.003). Four patients (5.7%) had anastomotic leaks, none of them had CHT. Senior surgeons had less operative time and harvested more lymph nodes (p=0.0002 and p=0.1086 respectively). CONCLUSION: Surgeon's experience might be considered a major risk factor to develop CHT. This finding needs to be confirmed by a larger multicentric series taking into consideration the human factor.