Missed Opportunities: the Timing and Frequency of Screening Colonoscopy in Patients That Develop Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Screening colonoscopy (SC) is widely accepted and has been shown to decrease the rate of colorectal cancer death. Guidelines and acceptance of screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are less established despite the fact that esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) remains the fastest increasing cancer in the USA. The aim of this study was to assess the timing and frequency of SC in patients ultimately found to have EA and to evaluate the presence of symptoms and risk factors that might have prompted an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and potentially earlier diagnosis of the EA. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who were referred to a single center with esophageal cancer between July 2016 and November 2022. Patients with any histology other than adenocarcinoma were excluded. RESULTS: There were 221 patients referred with EA. Of these, a SC had been done prior to the diagnosis of EA in 108 patients (49%): 96 men and 12 women. A total of 203 SC had been done (range 1-7 per patient), and 47% of patients had more than 1 SC. The median interval from the last SC to the diagnosis of EA was 2.9 years. At the time of SC, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms or chronic acid suppression medication use was reported by 81% of patients, and 80% had an American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) indication for a screening EGD. Only 19 patients (18%) that had a SC had an EGD at any time prior to the diagnosis of EA, and in these patients, 74% had erosive esophagitis or BE. The EA in most patients was stage III or IV and associated with lymph node metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-half of patients ultimately diagnosed with EA had one or more SCs, and most of these patients had GERD symptoms, were using acid suppression medications or had an ASGE indication for a screening EGD. Despite this, only 18% had an EGD prior to the EA diagnosis. The addition of an EGD at the time of SC in these patients may have allowed the detection of BE or EA at an early, endoscopically curable stage and represents a missed opportunity to intervene in the natural history of this disease.

Diaphragmatic relaxing incisions for complex hiatal reconstruction: longer-term follow-up confirms safety, efficacy and rare complications.

BACKGROUND: Tension is an important factor in hernia repairs. Relaxing incisions to reduce tension are common with ventral hernia repairs, and techniques for relaxing incisions also exist for the hiatus. The aim of this study was to update our original experience with a diaphragm relaxing incision (DRI) in a larger group of patients with longer follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who had a DRI between August 2016 and September 2021 during hiatal hernia repair. All DRI defects were repaired with permanent mesh remote from the esophagus. Objective follow-up was with chest x-ray, upper GI series (UGI) or both. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients had a total of 79 DRI (right in 63, left in 4, and bilateral in 6 patients), during a primary (n = 52) or redo (n = 21) hiatal hernia repair. Concomitant Collis gastroplasty was used in 38 patients (52%). A single intra-operative complication occurred where the right crus tore during a right DRI. At a median of 15 months, 78% of patients had objective follow-up. There was one hernia through a repaired right DRI (1.2%). No patient had evidence of diaphragm paralysis and there were no mesh infections. The 1-year hernia recurrence rate in these patients was 3.9%. CONCLUSIONS: A DRI can be done safely with minimal risk of intra- or post-operative complications. There was a low rate of herniation through the defect when repaired with permanent mesh. No patient developed a mesh infection despite concomitant Collis gastroplasty in 52% of patients, and there was no evidence of diaphragm paralysis on imaging studies. Further, the low rate of hiatal hernia recurrence suggests efficacy of a DRI to reduce crural closure tension. These excellent outcomes should encourage use of a DRI in patients with a difficult hiatus during hernia repair.

Abnormal response after multiple rapid swallow provocation is not predictive of post-operative dysphagia following a tailored fundoplication approach.

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to evaluate the clinical significance of multiple rapid swallows (MRS) during high-resolution manometry (HRM) prior to fundoplication. Despite pre-operative HRM, up to 38% of patients report post-fundoplication dysphagia. Suggestion that MRS improves prediction of dysphagia after fundoplication has not been investigated when using a tailored approach. We hypothesize response to MRS is predictive of dysphagia after tailored fundoplication. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing HRM with MRS provocation 5/2019-7/2021 at a single institution. Patients who underwent subsequent index laparoscopic fundoplication, without peptic stricture or achalasia, were included. After performing standard 10-swallow HRM, MRS provocation was performed. Patient-reported dysphagia frequency scores were collected at initial consultation and post-operative follow-up. At least weekly symptoms were considered clinically significant. Normal MRS response was defined as adequate deglutitive inhibition and MRS contractile response. Fundoplications were tailored based on standard HRM values. RESULTS: HRM was performed in 1201 patients, 220 met inclusion criteria. Clinically significant pre-operative dysphagia was reported by 85 (38.6%). Patients undergoing partial fundoplication (n = 123, 55.9%) had lower mean distal contractile integer, distal esophageal contraction amplitude, and percent peristalsis (p < 0.005). Post-operatively, 120 (54.5%) were without dysphagia, 59 (26.8%) had improved dysphagia, 26 (11.8%) had unchanged dysphagia, and 15 (6.8%) reported new dysphagia. There was no statistical difference in early or late dysphagia outcome between tailored fundoplication groups (p = 0.69). On univariate and multivariate analysis, neither MRS response, nor standard HRM metrics were significantly associated with post-operative dysphagia. Younger age (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.986, p = 0.042) and the presence of pre-operative dysphagia (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.17-5.65, p = 0.015) were significant predictors of post-operative dysphagia. CONCLUSION: The risk of clinically significant dysphagia post-fundoplication is low when using a tailored approach based on standard HRM metrics. Additional data provided by MRS does not add to surgical decision-making using the investigated approach.