Does the use of a suction calibration system (SCS) reduce stapler load firings and operative time? A randomized controlled trial comparing use of endoscopic calibration vs. SCS in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to ensure appropriate and consistent sleeve size and orientation during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Various devices are used to achieve this, including weighted rubber bougies, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and suction calibration systems (SCS). Prior reports suggest that SCSs may decrease operative time and stapler load firings but are limited by single-surgeon experience and retrospective design. We performed the first randomized controlled trial comparing SCS against EGD in patients undergoing LSG to investigate whether the SCS decreases the number of stapler load firings. METHODS: This was a randomized, non-blinded study from a single MBSAQIP-accredited academic center. Appropriate LSG candidates ≥ 18 years of age were randomized to EGD or SCS calibration. Exclusion criteria included prior gastric or bariatric surgery, detection of hiatal hernia before surgery, and intraoperative hiatal hernia repair. A randomized block design was employed controlling for body mass index, gender, and race. Seven surgeons employed a standardized LSG operative technique. The primary endpoint was the number of stapler load firings. Secondary endpoints were operative duration, reflux symptoms, and change in total body weight (TBW). Endpoints were analyzed via t-test. RESULTS: A total of 125 LSG patients (84% female) underwent study enrollment, with an average age of 44 ± 12 years and average BMI of 49 ± 8 kg/m2. Overall, 117 patients were randomized to receive EGD (n = 59) or SCS (n = 58) calibration. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were identified. The mean number of stapler load firings for EGD and SCS groups were 5.43 ± 0.89 and 5.31 ± 0.81, respectively (p = 0.463). The mean operative times for EGD and SCS groups were 94.4 ± 36.5 and 93.1 ± 27.9 min, respectively (p = 0.83). There were no significant differences in post-operative reflux, TBW loss, or complications. CONCLUSION: Use of EGD and SCS resulted in a similar number of LSG stapler load firings and operative duration. Additional research is needed to compare LSG calibration devices in different patients and settings to optimize surgical technique.

The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sleeve gastrectomy at a major academic institution.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19- pandemic significantly impacted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) practices due to large-scale surgery cancellations along with staff and supply shortages. We analyzed sleeve gastrectomy (SG) hospital-level financial metrics before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Hospital cost-accounting software (MicroStrategy, Tysons, VA) was reviewed for revenues, costs, and profits per SG at an academic hospital (2017-2022). Actual figures were obtained, not insurance charge estimates or hospital projections. Fixed costs were obtained through surgery-specific allocation of inpatient hospital and operating-room costs. Direct variable costs were analyzed with sub-components including: (1) labor and benefits, (2) implants, (3) drug costs, and 4) medical/surgical supplies. The pre-COVID-19 period (10/2017-2/2020) and post-COVID-19 period (5/2020-9/2022) financial metrics were compared with student's t-test. Data from 3/2020 to 4/2020 were excluded due to COVID-19-related changes. RESULTS: A total of 739 SG patients were included. Average length of stay (LOS), Center for Medicaid and Medicare Case Mix Index (CMI), and percentage of patients with commercial insurance were similar pre vs. post-COVID-19 (p > 0.05). There were more SG performed per quarter pre-COVID-19 than post-COVID-19 (36 vs. 22; p = 0.0056). Pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 financial metrics per SG differed significantly for, respectively, revenues ($19,134 vs. $20,983) total variable cost ($9457 vs. $11,235), total fixed cost ($2036 vs. $4018), total profit ($7571 vs. $5442), and labor and benefits cost ($2535 vs. $3734; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The post-COVID-19 period was characterized by significantly increased SG fixed cost (i.e., building maintenance, equipment, overhead) and labor costs (increased contract labor), resulting in precipitous profit decline that crosses the break-even in calendar year quarter (CQ) 3, 2022. Potential solutions include minimizing contract labor cost and decreasing LOS.

Achieving durable compliance with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in bariatric surgery: 3-year data from a major academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) venous thromboembolism (VTE) prescribing practices vary widely. Our institutional VTE prophylaxis protocol has historically been unstandardized. OBJECTIVES: To create a standardized MBS VTE prophylaxis protocol, track protocol compliance, and identify barriers to protocol compliance and address them with Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. SETTING: Single Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program-accredited academic hospital. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study for all patients undergoing MBS (January 2019 to September 2022). A multidisciplinary group of bariatric clinicians reviewed literature and developed the following standardized VTE prophylaxis protocol: 5000 units preoperative subcutaneous (SC) heparin within 60 minutes of anesthesia induction and postoperative 40 mg SC low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) within 24 hours of surgery. This protocol was distributed to relevant clinical stakeholders. We assessed monthly compliance rates through chart review. Goal compliance was ≥90%. We identified sources of noncompliance and addressed them with PDSA methodology. RESULTS: A total of 796 patients were included. Preoperative heparin administration increased from a mean of 47% (107/228) preintervention to 96% (545/568) postintervention (P < .0001), and postoperative LMWH administration increased from 71% (47/66) to 96% (573/597, P = .0002). These compliance rates were sustained for 3 years. Barriers to protocol noncompliance included order set timing errors (n = 45), surgeon error (n = 44), surgeon discretion (n = 40), and nursing error (n = 20). No change in bleeding or VTE rates was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Developing a standardized VTE prophylaxis protocol, monitoring process measures, and engaging relevant stakeholders in PDSA cycles resulted in drastic and durable improvement in VTE prophylaxis compliance rates.