3D versus 2D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic gastrectomy is a prominent therapeutic approach for distal gastric cancer, the clinical benefits of 3D laparoscopy over 2D laparoscopy remain unclear. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of 3D laparoscopy and 2D laparoscopy for distal gastric cancer resection through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception through January 2023, according to the PRISMA guidelines. The MD or RR was used to compare 3D and 2D distal gastrectomy. Random-effects meta-analysis was estimated using the inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel method for binary outcomes and the DerSimonian-Laird estimator for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: After reviewing 559 studies, 6 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The analysis included 689 patients, with 348 (50.5%) in the 3D group and 341 (49.5%) in the 2D group. 3D laparoscopic gastrectomy reduces the operative time (WMD - 28.57 min, 95% CI - 50.70 to - 6.44, p = 0.011), intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 6.69 mL, 95% CI - 8.09 to - 5.29, p < 0.001), and postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.92 days, 95% CI - 1.43 to - 0.42, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in time to first postoperative flatus (WMD - 0.22 days, 95% CI - 0.50 to 0.05, p = 0.110), postoperative complications (Relative Risk 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.41, p = 0.217), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes (WMD 1.25, 95% CI - 0.54 to 3.03, p = 0.172) between 3 and 2D laparoscopic distal gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the potential advantages of 3D laparoscopy in distal gastrectomy, including shorter operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and decreased intraoperative blood loss.

Surgeon presence and utilization of bariatric surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective long-term treatment for morbid obesity; however, it is under-utilized. This study examines the association between morbid obesity rates, bariatric surgeon presence, and utilization of bariatric surgery in the United States. METHODS: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's 2013 National Inpatient Sample was used to determine the incidence of inpatient bariatric procedures using ICD-9 codes. The Center for Disease Control's 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey was analyzed to determine estimates of bariatric surgery qualified adults, aged 18-70, with BMI ≥ 40 or ≥ 35 with diabetes. The number of bariatric surgeons was determined from four online sources: searches of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program accredited bariatric programs, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery membership, and two adjustable gastric band manufacturer "find a surgeon" search tools. Correlations between rates of morbid obesity, bariatric surgeon presence, and incidence of inpatient bariatric surgery were determined. RESULTS: The defined bariatric surgery eligible population comprised between 3.6% (New England) to 6.8% (East South Central) of the total division population (p < 0.001). Incident rates of bariatric surgery ranged from 0.9% in East South Central to 2.2% in New England (p < 0.001). 2124 bariatric surgeons were identified. The rate of bariatric surgery by division was negatively correlated with division morbid obesity rates (r = - 0.65) and strongly positively correlated with surgeon presence (r = 0.91). After adjusting for demographic differences between divisions, surgeon presence remained highly associated with surgery utilization (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of bariatric surgery procedures in the U.S. are minimally correlated with rates of morbid obesity and are strongly correlated with the number of available bariatric surgeons. Effective therapy for the morbidly obese may be limited by the lack of qualified surgeons.

Definitions for Loss of Domain: An International Delphi Consensus of Expert Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for 'loss of domain' (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. METHODS: A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. RESULTS: Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

Obstructing ventral hernias are not independently associated with surgical site infections.

BACKGROUND: Delayed operative intervention in the setting of adhesive bowel obstruction has been recently shown to increase the rate of surgical site infection (SSI), raising the concern for bacterial translocation. The effect of obstruction on SSI rate in patients with ventral hernia is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the association between bowel obstruction and SSI in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective database review. Patients undergoing isolated VHR from 2005-2011 were identified from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-d outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used for variables with a P value of <0.1. RESULTS: A total of 68,811 patients underwent isolated VHR; 53.1% were male with mean age of 53 ± 15 y and body mass index of 32 ± 8. Hernia-related obstruction was found in 17,058 (24.8%). In patients with obstruction, SSI was more frequent (3.2% versus 2.6%, P < 0.001). Obesity, advanced age, vascular, pulmonary, hepatic, renal disease, and diabetes were more prevalent. After controlling for confounding baseline variables, bowel obstruction was not independently associated with SSI (odds ratio, 0.983, 95% confidence interval, 0.872-1.107). Subgroup analysis of clean classified cases also demonstrated the lack of independent association between obstruction and SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Obstruction in patients undergoing VHR is not independently associated with SSI. Our results suggest that mesh implantation remains a viable option in this setting. Other confounding comorbid conditions should be assessed at the time of surgical intervention to identify patients appropriate for mesh repair.

Ventral hernia repairs in the oldest-old: high-risk regardless of approach.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repairs (VHR) are among the most common procedures performed by general surgeons. Even though the US population is aging, outcomes of VHR in the elderly and oldest-old (≥80 years) are not well documented. Our study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of VHR in the oldest-old patients. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all patients who underwent VHR based on Current Procedural Terminology codes between 2005 and 2011. Chi square, Fisher's exact and two-tailed Student's t test were used to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes. Binary logistic regression was used to control for confounding variables. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported when applicable. RESULTS: We identified 123,151 patients who underwent a VHR; 4,917 (4 %) were ≥80 years of age. The incidence of laparoscopy increased from 19.8 % in 2009-23.2 % in 2011 (p < 0.001). 30-day unadjusted mortality was 1.7 versus 0.1 % for younger patients (p < 0.001). After controlling for baseline differences, age ≥80 years was an independent predictor of overall morbidity (OR 1.4, 95 % CI 1.3-1.6, p < 0.001), serious morbidity (OR 1.6, 95 % CI 1.4-1.8, p < 0.001) and mortality (OR 3.5, 95 % CI 2.5-4.6, p < 0.001). Oldest-old patients undergoing laparoscopic VHR had a lower incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) compared with patients with open repair (1 vs. 3.4 %, p = 0.001). Mortality, serious morbidity and overall morbidity were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: VHR in the oldest-old carried significantly higher 30-day overall morbidity, serious morbidity and mortality, compared with younger patients. The use of laparoscopy was associated with improved SSI. Mortality and morbidity were associated with emergency surgery, wound classification and baseline comorbidities, but not surgical approach.

Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity. METHODS: The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both. RESULTS: For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.

Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Risk Stratification Tools: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernias are a common pathology encountered by surgeons. Multiple risk stratification tools have been developed in attempts to predict a patient's postoperative risk for complication. The aim of this systematic review was to identify published stratification tools, to assess their generalizability, and develop an ensemble risk score model. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and following the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers identified articles describing hernia stratification tools or validating an established tool. Inclusion criteria included articles that studied ventral hernia risk score models developed through expert consensus or from data of at least 500 subjects, performed a multivariable analysis of at least 500 patients, or assessed a previously reported model. Studies were grouped by primary outcome, and the odds ratios for correlated variables were compiled. Outcomes described in 4 or more articles were then stacked to generate a cumulative risk score model for patients undergoing abdominal wall repair. RESULTS: A total of 20 articles were found to meet our inclusion criteria and used to develop our ensemble model. Surgical-site infection, surgical-site occurrence, and hernia recurrence were the 3 primary outcomes used to calculate our stacked cumulative risk stratification score. CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple risk score tools published; however, all have their strengths and limitations. For this reason, we created a composite score model with data from major articles to predict a patient's risk for postoperative complications. This model aims to ease the shared-decision making process for patients, surgeons, and institutions.

Duty-hour restrictions and the work of surgical faculty: results of a multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: To examine whether duty-hour restrictions have been consequential for various aspects of the work of surgical faculty and if those consequences differ for faculty in academic and nonacademic general surgery residency programs. METHOD: Questionnaires were distributed in 2004 to 233 faculty members in five academic and four nonacademic U.S. residency programs in general surgery. Participation was restricted to those who had been faculty for at least one year. Ten items on the questionnaire probed faculty work experiences. Results include means, percentages, and t-tests on mean differences. Of the 146 faculty members (63%) who completed the questionnaire, 101 volunteered to be interviewed. Of these, 28 were randomly chosen for follow-up interviews that probed experiences and rationales underlying items on the questionnaire. Interview transcripts (187 single-spaced pages) were analyzed for main themes. RESULTS: Questionnaire respondents and interviewees associated duty-hour restrictions with lowered faculty expectations and standards for residents, little change in the supervision of residents, a loss of time for teaching, increased work and stress, and less satisfaction. No significant differences in these perceptions (p < or = .05) were found for faculty in academic and nonacademic programs. Main themes from the interviews included a shift of routine work from residents to faculty, a transfer of responsibility to faculty, more frequent skill gaps at night, a loss of time for research, and the challenges of controlling residents' hours. CONCLUSIONS: Duty-hour restrictions have been consequential for the work of surgical faculty. Faculty should not be overlooked in future studies of duty-hour restrictions.

How surgical faculty and residents assess the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions: results of a multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined how surgical residents and faculty assessed the first year of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour restrictions. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered in 9 general-surgery programs during the summer of 2004; response rates were 63% for faculty and 58% for residents (N = 259). Questions probed patient care, the residency program, quality of life, and overall assessments of the duty-hour restrictions. Results include the means, mean deviations, percentage who agree or strongly agree with the hour restrictions, and significance tests. RESULTS: Although most support the restrictions, few maintain that they improved surgical training or patient care. Faculty and residents differed (P < or = .05) on 16 of 21 items. Every difference shows that residents view the restrictions more favorably than faculty. The sex of the resident shaped the magnitude of the gap for 11 of 21 items. CONCLUSIONS: Few believe that duty-hour restrictions improve patient care or resident training. Residents, especially female residents, view the restrictions more favorably than faculty.

A novel intestinal anastomotic device in a porcine model.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel, intraluminally deployed anastomotic device (AD). A survival study was conducted in 18 farm pigs. One early subject was excluded and replaced due to premature expiration. Six animals were placed in 1 of 3 cohorts, with euthanasia and AD explantation planned at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. A distal small intestinal side-side [functional end-end] anastomosis using the AD was performed via midline laparotomy. Fluoroscopy with double-contrast dilute barium and burst pressure measurements were performed in 4 animals in each group. Two animals in each cohort underwent fluoroscopy without contrast and resection for histology. Mucosal healing, inflammation, anastomotic alignment of the muscularis propria, and fibrosis were graded on a 4-point scale. All animals survived to the date of planned euthanasia except the excluded subject, who expired from causes unrelated to the device. Normal weight gain was seen in all. Sixteen of 18 devices sloughed prior to extraction without evidence of injury or obstruction during the survival period or at necropsy. Filling pressures of >200 mm Hg were reached; no leakage was seen. Mucosal healing and continuity were graded good to excellent at 2 weeks and excellent at 4 and 6 weeks. Inflammation improved with time, with moderate change at 2 weeks and mild at 6 weeks. Anastomotic fibrosis was mild at 2 weeks, mild to minimal at 4 weeks, and minimal at 6 weeks. The anastomotic alignment was 100 per cent except in 1 animal at 2 weeks with >50 per cent but <100 per cent alignment. The AD resulted in a stable, functional anastomosis without narrowing. All tested anastomoses withstood supraphysiologic insufflation pressures without evidence of disruption. The applicability of this novel device will be explored for use in other gastrointestinal and biliary anastomoses using minimally invasive deployment techniques.

Laparoscopic approach to pancreatic disease.

Minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of pancreatic disease have been revolutionary and provide clinical evidence of decreased morbidity and comparable efficacy to traditional, open surgery. Although the use of other laparoscopic solid organ procedures has outdistanced therapeutic laparoscopy of the pancreas, the advent of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery preceded the general use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the popularity of other solid organ procedures. This article describes four main applications of laparoscopic pancreatic procedures, which are staging of pancreatic cancer, palliative bypass procedures for pancreatic cancer, resection of benign and malignant pancreatic disease, and pancreatic drainage procedures.

Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: advanced age is associated with minor but not major morbidity or mortality.

BACKGROUND: Large studies have documented the safety of laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair in the general population. Even though this condition affects primarily the elderly, data on the short-term outcomes of this procedure on the oldest-old are lacking. STUDY DESIGN: The NSQIP database was analyzed for all patients undergoing laparoscopic PEH repair in 2010 and 2011. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and 2-tailed Student's t-test were used to compare baseline characteristics, morbidity, and mortality. Binary logistic regression was used to control for confounding variables. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported when applicable. RESULTS: A total of 2,681 patients undergoing laparoscopic PEH repair were identified. The mean (±SD) age of the cohort was 63 ± 14 years. We identified 313 patients (11.7%) aged 80 years and older. Using regression analysis, advanced age (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7, p = 0.009), American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or 4 (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1, p = 0.045), gastrostomy placement (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.7, p = 0.007), and significant recent weight loss (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.1, p = 0.037) were independently associated with development of overall morbidity. Mortality (1% vs 0.4%, p = 0.16) and serious morbidity (5.8% vs 3.7%, p = 0.083) were not significantly different between the older and younger groups. Minor morbidity was higher in the older group (8.3% vs 3.5%, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In an assessment of modern nationwide practice, laparoscopic PEH repair is performed with minimal morbidity and mortality. Elective repair in patients aged 80 years or older is not associated with significant differences in mortality or major morbidity compared with younger patients.

Early morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass in the elderly: a NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Even though the U.S. population is aging, outcomes of bariatric surgery in the elderly are not well defined. Current literature mostly evaluates the effects of gastric bypass (RYGB), with paucity of data on sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The objective of this study was to assess 30-day morbidity and mortality associated with laparoscopic SG in patients aged 65 years and over, in comparison to RYGB. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all patients aged 65 and over who underwent laparoscopic RYGB and SG between 2010 and 2011. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared. P value<.05 was considered significant. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported when applicable. RESULTS: We identified 1005 patients. Mean body mass index was 44 ± 7. SG was performed in 155 patients (15.4%). The American Society of Anesthesiology physical classification of 3 or 4 was similar between the 2 groups (82.6% versus 86.7%, P = .173). Diabetes was more frequent in the RYGB group (43.2% versus 55.6%, P = .004). 30-day mortality (0.6% versus 0.6%, OR 1.1, 95% CI .11-9.49), serious morbidity (5.2% versus 5.6%, OR .91, 95% CI .42-0.96), and overall morbidity (9% versus 9.1%, OR 1.0, 95% CI .55-1.81) were similar. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, SG is not associated with significantly different 30-day outcomes compared to RYGB. Both procedures are followed by acceptably low morbidity and mortality.

How should we establish the clinical case numbers required to achieve proficiency in flexible endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: Recommended procedure numbers for upper endoscopy (UE) and colonoscopy (C) are 35 and 50 for surgical residents, and 130 and 140 for gastroenterology fellows, respectively. The purpose of this study was to challenge the methods used to determine proficiency in flexible endoscopy. METHODS: Global assessment of gastrointestinal endoscopic skills (GAGES) was used to evaluate 139 procedures. Scores for UE were compared using self-reported case numbers and grouped according to requirements for each discipline. C scores were compared using the requirements to define novice and experienced endoscopists. Procedure volumes were plotted against GAGES scores. RESULTS: Three groups were compared for UE based on case volumes: fewer than 35 cases (group 1), 35 to 130 cases (group 2), and more than 130 cases (group 3). There was no difference between group 2 (17.8 +/- 1.8) and group 3 (19.1 +/- 1.1), but both scored higher than group 1 (14.4 +/- 3.7; P < .05). For C, the scores were 11.8 +/- 3.8 (novices) and 18.8 +/- 1.34 (experienced; P < .001) at a 50-case minimum and 12.4 +/- 4.2 and 18.8 +/- 1.3 (P < .001) for a 140-case proficiency cut-off level, respectively. The curve of procedures versus GAGES plateaued at 50 (UE) and 75 (C). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical and gastroenterology case recommendations may not represent the experience needed to achieve proficiency. GAGES scores could help define proficiency in basic endoscopy.