Hepaticojejunostomy with gastric access loop versus conventional hepaticojejunostomy: a randomized trial.

Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ) with the provision of "gastric access loop" was developed to shorten the distance traveled by the endoscope to reach hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) anastomotic site. The aim of our study was to assess modified RYHJ with gastric access loop (RYHJ-GA) and compare it with conventional RYHJ (RYHJ-C) regarding short- and long-term outcomes and, moreover, to evaluate the feasibility and results of future endoscopic access of the modified bilio-enteric anastomosis. Patients eligible for RYHJ between September 2017 and December 2019 were allocated randomly to receive either RYHJ-C or RYHJ-GA. Fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to RYHJ-C (n = 26) or RYHJ-GA (n = 26). Three cases in RYHJ-C and 4 cases in RYHJ- GA developed HJ anastomotic stricture (HJAS) (P=0.68). 3 cases of RYHJ-GA had successful endoscopic dilation and balloon sweeping of biliary mud (one case) or stones (2 cases). Revisional surgery was needed in 2 cases of RYHJ-C and 1 case in RYHJ-GA (P=0.68). Modified RYHJ with gastric access loop is comparable to the classic hepaticojejunostomy regarding complications. However, gastric access enables easy endoscopic access for the management of future HJAS. This modification should be considered in patients with a high risk of HJAS during long-term follow-up.The trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03252379), August 17, 2017.

Therapeutic Role of Subcutaneous Access Loop Created Adjunct to Hepaticojejunostomy for Management of Bile Duct Injury.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ) is usually required for major bile duct injury (BDI) as a definitive treatment. Hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture (HJAS) is the most feared long-term complication following RYHJ. The ideal management of HJAS remains undefined. The provision of permanent endoscopic access to the bilio-enteric anastomotic site can make endoscopic management of HJAS feasible and attractive option. In this cohort study, we aimed to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of subcutaneous access loop created adjunct to RYHJ (RYHJ-SA) for management of BDI and its usefulness for endoscopic management of anastomotic stricture if occurred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study including patients who were diagnosed with iatrogenic BDI and underwent hepaticojejunostomy with subcutaneous access loop between September 2017 and September 2019. RESULTS: This study included a total number of 21 patients whom ages ranged between 18 and 68 years. During follow-up, three cases had HJAS. One patient had the access loop in subcutaneous position. Endoscopy was done but failed to dilate the stricture. The other 2 patients had the access loop in subfascial position. Endoscopy of them failed to enter the access loop due to failure of fluoroscopy to identify the access loop. The three cases underwent redo-hepaticojejunostomy. Parajejunal (parastomal) hernia occurs in 2 patients in whom the access loop was fixed subcutaneous position. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, modified RYHJ with subcutaneous access loop (RYHJ-SA) is associated with reduced quality of life and patient satisfaction. Moreover, its role in endoscopic management of HJAS after biliary reconstruction for major BDI is limited.

Laparoscopic versus Open Complete Mesocolic Excision for Right Colon Cancer.

RESULTS: The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LCME group than that in the OCME group with less mean intraoperative blood loss. Conversion was required in 4 patients (8.3%) in the LCME group. The use of laparoscopy increased the number of harvested lymph nodes compared to the open approach (39.81 ± 16.74 vs. 32.65 ± 12.28, respectively, P=0.010). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a shorter time interval to first flatus as well as shorter time interval to liquid and normal diet after surgery. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LCME group. The complication rate was slightly lower in the LCME (14.7%) than in the OCME group (27.2%) (P=0.252). The 3-year OS in the LCME group was similar to that in OCME (78.2% vs. 63.2%, respectively, P value = 0.423). The three-year DFS in the laparoscopic group was higher (74.5%) than the open group (60.0%), but did not reach statistical significance (P value = 0.266). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, laparoscopic CME right hemicolectomy is a technically feasible and safe procedure if surgeon expertise is present. LCME has long-term oncologic outcomes (recurrence and survival) comparable to open surgery for management of patients with stage II or III colon cancer.