To wean or not to wean: proton pump inhibitor management after anti-reflux surgery amongst foregut experts.

BACKGROUND: Most patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery (ARS) have a history of preoperative proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. It is well-established that ARS is effective in restoring the anti-reflux barrier, eliminating the ongoing need for costly PPIs. Current literature lacks objective evidence supporting an optimal postoperative PPI cessation or weaning strategy, leading to wide practice variations. We sought to objectively gauge current practice and opinion surrounding the postoperative management of PPIs among expert foregut surgeons and gastroenterologists in the United States. METHODS: We created a survey of postoperative PPI management protocols, with an emphasis on discontinuation and timing of PPI cessation, and aimed to determine what factors played a role in the decision-making. An electronic survey tool (Qualtrics XM, Qualtrics, Provo, UT) was used to distribute the survey and to record the responses anonymously for a period of three months. RESULTS: The survey was viewed 2658 times by 373 institutions and shared with 644 members. In total, 121 respondents participated in the survey and 111 were surgeons (92%). Fifty respondents (42%) always discontinue PPIs immediately after ARS. Of the remaining 70 respondents (58%), 46% always wean or taper PPIs postoperatively and 47% wean or taper them selectively. The majority (92%) of practitioners taper within a 3-month period postoperatively. Five respondents never discontinue PPIs after ARS. Overall, only 23 respondents (19%) stated their protocol is based on medical literature or evidence-based medicine. Instead, decision-making is primarily based on anecdotal evidence/personal preference (42%, n = 50) or prior training/mentors (39%, n = 47). CONCLUSIONS: There are two major protocols used for PPI discontinuation after ARS: Nearly half of providers abruptly stop PPIs, while just over half gradually tapers them, most often in the early postoperative period. These decisions are primarily driven by institutional practices and personal preferences, underscoring the need for evidence-based recommendations.

A superior approach? The role of robotic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with super super obesity using the 2019-2022 MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in patients with BMI ≥ 60 presents technical challenges, that might be overcome by robotic surgery, but its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated. We compared the 30-day outcomes of LSG and robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) in patients with BMI < 60 versus ≥ 60 and between LSG and RSG in patients with BMI ≥ 60. METHODS: Patients aged 18-65 years who underwent sleeve gastrectomy were included using the 2019-2022 MBSAQIP database. We performed a Propensity Score Matching analysis, with 21 preoperative characteristics. We compared 30-day postoperative outcomes for patients with BMI < 60 versus ≥ 60 using either a laparoscopic (Analysis 1) or robotic approach (Analysis 2) and compared LSG versus RSG in patients with BMI ≥ 60 (Analysis 3). RESULTS: 297,250 patients underwent LSG and 81,008 RSG. Propensity-matched¸ outcomes in analysis 1 (13,503 matched cases), showed that patients with BMI ≥ 60 had higher rates of mortality (0.1% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.014), staple line leak (0.3% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.035), postoperative bleeding (0.2% vs 0.1%, p = 0.028), readmissions (3.5% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001), and interventions (0.7% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.028) when compared to patients with BMI < 60. In analysis 2 (4350 matched cases), patients with BMI ≥ 60 demonstrated longer operative times, length of stay, and higher rates of unplanned ICU when compared to patients with BMI < 60. In analysis 3 (4370 matched cases), patients who underwent RSG had fewer readmissions (2.9% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.037), staple line leaks (0.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.029), and postoperative bleeding (0.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.045), compared to LSG. Conversely, a longer operative time (92.74 ± 38.65 vs. 71.69 ± 37.45 min, p < 0.001) was reported. CONCLUSION: LSG patients with BMI ≥ 60 have higher rates of complications compared to patients with a BMI < 60. Moreover, some outcomes may be improved with the robotic approach in patients with BMI ≥ 60. These results underscore the importance of considering a robotic approach in this super super obese population.

Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients With Organ Transplant-Related Immunosuppression.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is frequent among organ transplant recipients, increasing the risk of acute graft rejection and overall morbimortality. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) effectively improves graft survival and associated comorbidities. We first compared 30-d outcomes between chronic immunosuppressed (CI) and nonchronic immunosuppressed (non-CI) patients. Then, between organ transplant and non-organ transplant CI patients who underwent LSG. METHODS: Patients who underwent LSG within the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program 2017-2019 were included. Using 1:1 and 1:4 propensity score matching analysis, the cohorts were matched for 30 characteristics. We then compared 30-d outcomes between CI and non-CI (analysis 1) and between organ transplant and non-organ transplant CI patients who underwent LSG (analysis 2). RESULTS: A total of 486,576 patients were included. The matched cohorts in analysis 1 (n = 8978) and analysis 2 (n = 1152, n = 371) had similar preoperative characteristics. Propensity score matching in analysis 1 showed that patients in the CI group had significantly higher rates of renal complications (0.4% versus 0.2%, P = 0.006), unplanned intensive care unit admission (1.1% versus 0.7%, P = 0.003), blood transfusions (1.1% versus 0.7%, P = 0.003), readmissions (4.6% versus 3.5%, P < 0.001), reoperations (1.4% versus 1.0%, P = 0.033), interventions (1.3% versus 1.0%, P = 0.026), and postoperative bleeding (0.6% versus 0.4%, P = 0.013). In analysis 2, patients with organ transplant CI had a higher rate of pulmonary complications (1.1% versus 0.3%, P = 0.043), renal complications (2.4% versus 0.2%, P < 0.001), blood transfusions (6.5% versus 1.3%, P < 0.001), and readmissions (10.0% versus 4.6%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with transplant-related CI who underwent LSG have higher 30-d postoperative complication rates compared to nontransplant-related CI patients; however, there were no differences in terms of mortality, intensive care unit admissions, staple line leaks, or bleeding. LSG is safe and feasible in this high-risk population.

Multifunctional Ablative Gastrointestinal Imaging Capsule (MAGIC) for Esophagus Surveillance and Interventions.

Objective and Impact Statement: A clinically viable technology for comprehensive esophagus surveillance and potential treatment is lacking. Here, we report a novel multifunctional ablative gastrointestinal imaging capsule (MAGIC) technology platform to address this clinical need. The MAGIC technology could also facilitate the clinical translation and adoption of the tethered capsule endomicroscopy (TCE) technology. Introduction: Recently developed optical coherence tomography (OCT) TCE technologies have shown a promising potential for surveillance of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer in awake patients without the need for sedation. However, it remains challenging with the current TCE technology for detecting early lesions and clinical adoption due to its suboptimal resolution, imaging contrast, and lack of visual guidance during imaging. Methods: Our technology reported here integrates dual-wavelength OCT imaging (operating at 800 and 1300 nm), an ultracompact endoscope camera, and an ablation laser, aiming to enable comprehensive surveillance, guidance, and potential ablative treatment of the esophagus. Results: The MAGIC has been successfully developed with its multimodality imaging and ablation capabilities demonstrated by imaging swine esophagus ex vivo and in vivo. The 800-nm OCT imaging offers exceptional resolution and contrast for the superficial layers, well suited for detecting subtle changes associated with early neoplasia. The 1300-nm OCT imaging provides deeper penetration, essential for assessing lesion invasion. The built-in miniature camera affords a conventional endoscopic view for assisting capsule deployment and laser ablation. Conclusion: By offering complementary and clinically viable functions in a single device, the reported technology represents an effective solution for endoscopic screening, diagnosis, and potential ablation treatment of the esophagus of a patient in an office setting.

A multi-national, video-based qualitative study to refine training guidelines for assigning an "unsafe" score in laparoscopic cholecystectomy critical view of safety.

BACKGROUND: The critical view of safety (CVS) was incorporated into a novel 6-item objective procedure-specific assessment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC-CVS OPSA) to enhance focus on safe completion of surgical tasks and advance the American Board of Surgery's entrustable professional activities (EPAs) initiative. To enhance instrument development, a feasibility study was performed to elucidate expert surgeon perspectives regarding "safe" vs. "unsafe" practice. METHODS: A multi-national consortium of 11 expert LC surgeons were asked to apply the LC-CVS OPSA to ten LC videos of varying surgical difficulty using a "safe" vs. "unsafe" scale. Raters were asked to provide written rationale for all "unsafe" ratings and invited to provide additional feedback regarding instrument clarity. A qualitative analysis was performed on written responses to extract major themes. RESULTS: Of the 660 ratings, 238 were scored as "unsafe" with substantial variation in distribution across tasks and raters. Analysis of the comments revealed three major categories of "unsafe" ratings: (a) inability to achieve the critical view of safety (intended outcome), (b) safe task completion but less than optimal surgical technique, and (c) safe task completion but risk for potential future complication. Analysis of reviewer comments also identified the potential for safe surgical practice even when CVS was not achieved, either due to unusual anatomy or severe pathology preventing safe visualization. Based upon findings, modifications to the instructions to raters for the LC-CVS OPSA were incorporated to enhance instrument reliability. CONCLUSIONS: A safety-based LC-CVS OPSA has the potential to significantly improve surgical training by incorporating CVS formally into learner assessment. This study documents the perspectives of expert biliary tract surgeons regarding clear identification and documentation of unsafe surgical practice for LC-CVS and enables the development of training materials to improve instrument reliability. Learnings from the study have been incorporated into rater instructions to enhance instrument reliability.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy critical view of safety (LC-CVS): a multi-national validation study of an objective, procedure-specific assessment using video-based assessment (VBA).

BACKGROUND: A novel 6-item objective, procedure-specific assessment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy incorporating the critical view of safety (LC-CVS OPSA) was developed to support trainee formative and summative assessments. The LC-CVS OPSA included two retraction items (fundus and infundibulum retraction) and four CVS items (hepatocystic triangle visualization, gallbladder-liver separation, cystic artery identification, and cystic duct identification). The scoring rubric for retraction consisted of poor (frequently outside of defined range), adequate (minimally outside of defined range) and excellent (consistently inside defined range) and for CVS items were "poor-unsafe", "adequate-safe", or "excellent-safe". METHODS: A multi-national consortium of 12 expert LC surgeons applied the OPSA-LC CVS to 35 unique LC videos and one duplicate video. Primary outcome measure was inter-rater reliability as measured by Gwet's AC2, a weighted measure that adjusts for scales with high probability of random agreement. Analysis of the inter-rater reliability was conducted on a collapsed dichotomous scoring rubric of "poor-unsafe" vs. "adequate/excellent-safe". RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was high for all six items ranging from 0.76 (hepatocystic triangle visualization) to 0.86 (cystic duct identification). Intra-rater reliability for the single duplicate video was substantially higher across the six items ranging from 0.91 to 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: The novel 6-item OPSA LC CVS demonstrated high inter-rater reliability when tested with a multi-national consortium of LC expert surgeons. This brief instrument focused on safe surgical practice was designed to support the implementation of entrustable professional activities into busy surgical training programs. Instrument use coupled with video-based assessments creates novel datasets with the potential for artificial intelligence development including computer vision to drive assessment automation.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Secondary bariatric surgery rates have increased, accounting for approximately 19% of the total bariatric cases in the last years, most commonly conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass. Using the MBSAQIP, we evaluate the outcomes of this procedure compared to the primary RYGB surgery. METHODS: The new variable, conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB in the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP database was analyzed. Patients who underwent primary laparoscopic RYGB and those who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB conversion were identified. Using Propensity Score Matching analysis, the cohorts were matched for 21 preoperative characteristics. We then compared 30-day outcomes and bariatric-specific complications between primary RYGB and conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB. RESULTS: There were 43,253 primary RYGB procedures performed and 6,833 conversions from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB. The matched cohorts (n = 5912) for the two groups have similar pre-operative characteristics. Propensity-matched outcomes showed that conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB was associated with more readmissions (6.9% vs 5.0%, p < 0.001), interventions (2.6% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), conversion to open (0.7% vs 0.2%, p < 0.001), length of stay (1.79 ± 1.77 days vs 1.62 ± 1.66 days, p < 0.001), and operative time (119.16 ± 56.82 min vs 138.27 ± 66.00, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality (0.1% vs 0.1%, p = 0.405), and bariatric-specific complications such as anastomotic leak (0.5% vs 0.4%, p = 0.585), intestinal obstruction (0.1% vs 0.2%, p = 0.808), internal hernia (0.2% vs 0.1%, p = 0.285) or anastomotic ulcer (0.3% vs 0.3%, p = 0.731) rates. CONCLUSION: Conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB is a safe and feasible operation with reasonable outcomes compared with primary RYGB.

Do advances in technology translate to improved outcomes? Comparing robotic bariatric surgery outcomes over two-time intervals utilizing the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare outcomes and utilization of robotics in bariatric procedures across two-time intervals, chosen because they correspond to drastic changes in technology utilization-namely, a new platform and a new stapling device. Outcomes of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) and robotic sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) across this changing landscape have not been well studied, despite increasing popularity. METHODS: The MBSAQIP database was analyzed over early (2015-2016) and late (2019-2020) time intervals. Patients who underwent rSG and rRYGB were identified, and the cohorts were matched for 26 preoperative characteristics using Propensity Score Matching Analysis. We then compared 30-day outcomes and bariatric-specific complications between the early and late time frames for rSG and rRYGB. RESULTS: 49,442 rSG were identified: 13,526 cases in the early time frame and 35,916 in the late time frame. The matched cohorts were 13,526 for the two groups. 30-day outcomes showed that in the late time frame, rSG was associated with lower rates of pulmonary complications (0.1% vs 0.3%, p < 0.001), readmissions (2.5% vs 3.6%, p < 0.001), interventions (0.6% vs 1.4%, p < 0.001), reoperations (0.7% vs 1.0%, p = 0.024), length of stay (1.36 ± 1.01 days vs 1.76 ± 1.79 days, p < 0.001), operative time (92.47 ± 41.70 min vs102.76 ± 45.67 min p < 0.001), staple line leaks (0.2% vs 0.4%, p = 0.001) and strictures (0.0% vs 0.2%, p < 0.001). Similarly, 21,933 rRYGB were found: 6,514 cases were identified in the early time frame and 15,419 in the late time frame. The matched cohorts were 6,513 for the two groups. 30-day outcomes revealed that the late time fame rRYGB was associated with lower rates of pulmonary complications (0.1% vs 0.3%, p = 0.012), readmissions (6.3% vs 7.2%, p = 0.050), interventions (2.0% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001), length of stay (1.69 ± 1.46 days vs 2.13 ± 2.12 days p < 0.001), postoperative bleeding (0.4% vs 0.7%, p = 0.001), stricture (0.4% vs 0.8%, p < 0.001) and anastomotic ulcer (0.2% vs 0.4%, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Compared to early robotic bariatric surgery outcomes, a significant reduction in pulmonary complications, readmissions, reoperations, interventions and length of stay were seen in 2019-20 after rSG and rRYGB. Potential contributing factors include increased surgical experience and advances in the robotic platform. A significant recent reduction in staple line leaks with faster operative times associated with rSG suggests that stapling technology has had a positive impact on patient outcomes.

Comparative outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with ESRD on dialysis in the modern era of renal transplantation: analysis using the 2015-2020 MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Severe obesity is a relative contraindication for renal transplantation, therefore bariatric surgery is an important option as a pre-kidney transplant weight loss strategy. However, comparative data regarding postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in patients with or without ESRD on dialysis are scarce. METHODS: Patients between 18- and 80-year-old who underwent LSG and RYGB were included. To determine the outcomes of patient who underwent bariatric surgery with ESRD on dialysis, a 1:4 PSM was performed between the patients with ESRD on dialysis and those without renal disease. The PSM analyses in both groups were performed using 20 preoperative characteristics. Then 30-day postoperative outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The operative time and postoperative-LOS were significantly longer in ESRD patients on dialysis compared to those with no renal disease either for LSG (82.37 ± 40.42 vs. 73.62 ± 38.65; P < 0.001, 2.22 ± 3.01 vs. 1.67 ± 1.90; P < 0.001) or for LRYGB (129.13 ± 63.20 vs. 118.72 ± 54.16; P = 0.002, 2.53 ± 1.74 vs. 2.00 ± 1.68; P < 0.001). In the LSG cohort (2137 vs. 8495 matched cases), patients with ESRD on dialysis showed significant increase in mortality (0.7% vs 0.3%; P = 0.019), unplanned ICU admission (3.1% vs 1.3%; P < 0.001), blood transfusions (2.3% vs 0.8%; P 0.001), readmissions (9.1% vs. 4.0%; P < 0.001), reoperations (3.4% vs. 1.2%; P < 0.001), interventions (2.3% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.006). In the LRYGB group (443 vs. 1769 matched cases), patients with ESRD on dialysis showed a significantly higher need for unplanned ICU admission (3.8% vs. 1.4%; P = 0.027), readmissions (12.4% vs. 6.6%; P = 0.011), and interventions (5.2% vs. 2.0%; P = 0.050). CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery is a safe procedure for patients with ESRD on dialysis to help them get a kidney transplant. Even though this group experienced a higher incidence of postoperative complications compared to those without kidney disease, the absolute complication rates are low and not associated with bariatric-specific complications. Therefore, ESRD should not be perceived as contraindications to bariatric surgery.

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.

Validation of the cumulative deficit theory in bariatric surgery: new bariatric frailty score is associated with non-home discharge, prolonged hospital stay and mortality in the era of fast-track bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a wasting disorder that can coexist with obesity, thus, the term "obese frailty syndrome". Frailty can be measured using the cumulative deficit model demonstrated in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging-Frailty Index (CSHA-FI). OBJECTIVES: To develop a Bariatric Frailty Score (BFS) to predict 30-day adverse postoperative outcomes. SETTING: University hospital. METHODS: Patients (aged 18-80 yr) who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (RYGB) were included using the 2015-2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. Fourteen variables of the CSHA-FI were mapped onto 10 variables of MBSAQIP (each component equal 1 point). Correlations and multivariate logistical regression analysis were performed between BFS and 4 postoperative outcomes (non-home discharge, mortality, prolonged hospital stay, and ICU admissions). Finally, a propensity matching score (PSM) between low BFS (0-4) and high BFS (5-10) was performed. RESULTS: In 650,882 patients (72% SG, 28% RYGB), the increasing BFS was strongly correlated on linear regression. In the multivariate analysis, scores of 5, 6, and 7 strongly predicted the 4 postoperative outcomes of interest. After the PSM, high BFS (5-10) was associated with an increased rate of postoperative complications in SG and RYGB groups. CONCLUSION: Our BFS is a better predictor of non-home discharge, prolonged hospital stay, mortality, and unplanned ICU admission compared with age >60 years or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of IV-V. Our study validated the cumulative deficit theory in bariatric surgery, implying that the cumulative effects of the existing co-morbidities are higher than if these co-morbidities were simply added.

Is staple line oversewing in patients on chronic anticoagulation during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy necessary? Propensity score matching analysis using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased incidence of post-operative bleeding in patients on chronic anticoagulation (CAC). This incited some surgeons to oversew the sleeve staple line as a potentially preventive measure for post-operative bleeding. However, there is no clear evidence to assess the effectiveness of staple line oversewing during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in patients with CAC. METHODS: Using the 2015-2018 metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program database, patients between ages 18 and 65 who underwent LSG were included. To investigate the role of CAC, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) between the CAC and non-CAC patients. Then, to explore the impact of oversewing, we focused on the CAC patients and divided them into 2 subgroups: oversewing versus non-oversewing. PSM was also performed to compare both subgroups. To avoid confounders, both PSM analyses were performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. 30-day postoperative outcomes including bleeding and blood transfusion requirement were assessed. RESULTS: 402,826 patients underwent LSG. 9148 patients (2.3%) were on CAC. In the CAC cohort (8843 matched cases), the anticoagulated patients showed significant increase in postoperative bleeding (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < 0.001), blood transfusion requirements (1.7% vs. 0.7%; P < 0.001), unplanned ICU admissions (2.0% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.001), interventions (2.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.015), and readmissions (6.2% vs. 4.7%; P < 0.001). 1939 (21.2%) patients on CAC underwent oversewing during the LSG. The operative time was significantly longer in these patients (87.11 ± 40 vs. 76.19 ± 37; P < 0.001). Patients who underwent oversewing showed similar results in 30-day outcomes as those who did not, with no statistical difference, including postoperative bleeding (1.0% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.8) and blood transfusion requirements (1.4% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Incidences of post-operative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements are higher in patients on CAC during the LSG. Oversewing the sleeve staple line leads to longer operative times without additional benefit in 30-day outcomes.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic approach to concurrent bariatric surgery and hiatal hernia repair: propensity score matching analysis using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP.

BACKGROUND: Up to 37% of class three obesity patients have a Hiatal Hernia (HH). Most of the existent HHs get repaired at the time of bariatric surgery. Although the robotic platform might offer potential technical advantages over traditional laparoscopy, the clinical outcomes of the concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair comparing robotic vs laparoscopic approaches have not been reported. METHODS: Using the 2015-2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between 18 and 65 year old who underwent Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with concurrent HH repair were identified. Demographic, operative, and 30-day postoperative outcomes data were compared between laparoscopic and robotic groups. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. RESULTS: 75,034 patients underwent SG (n = 61,458) or RYGB (n = 13,576) with concurrent HH repair. The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to the laparoscopic approach both for SG (102.31 ± 44 vs. 75.27 ± 37; P < 0.001) and for RYGB (163.48 ± 65 vs. 132.87 ± 57; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (4639 matched cases), the robotic approach showed similar results in 30 day outcomes as in the laparoscopic approach, with no statistical difference. Conversely, for the RYGB cohort (1502 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.3% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.001), fewer anastomotic leaks (0.2% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.035), and less postoperative bleeding (0.4% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Robotic concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair leads to similar overall clinical outcomes as the laparoscopic approach despite longer operative times. Furthermore, the robotic approach is associated with reduced blood transfusion and anastomotic leak incidence in the RYGB group.

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.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery program for bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been successfully implemented in several surgical fields; however, there have been mixed results observed in bariatric surgery. Our institution implemented an enhanced recovery program with specific pre-, intra-, and post-operative protocols aimed at patients, nursing staff, and physicians. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of the ERAS program. METHODS: Patients who underwent bariatric surgery prior to the implementation of the enhanced recovery program in the calendar year 2015 were compared to those who had surgery after implementation in 2017. Data for our institution was drawn from the Premier Hospital Database. Poisson and quantile regressions were used to examine the association between ERAS protocol and LOS and cost, respectively. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of ERAS on 30-day complications and readmissions. RESULTS: 277 bariatric surgical procedures were performed in the pre-ERAS group, compared to 348 procedures post-ERAS. While there was a 25.6% increase in volume, there was no statistical difference between the patient populations or the type of procedure performed between the 2 years. A decrease in length of stay was observed from 2.77 days in 2015 to 1.77 days in 2017 (p < 0.001), while median cost was also cut from $11,739.03 to $9482.18 (p < 0.001). 30-day readmission rate also decreased from 7.94% to 2.86% (p = 0.011). After controlling for other factors, ERAS protocol was associated with decreased LOS (IRR 0.65, p < 0.001), cost (- $2256.88, p < 0.001), and risk of 30-day readmission (OR 0.37, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a standardized enhanced recovery program resulted in reduced length of stay, cost, and 30-day readmissions. Total costs saved were greater than $800,000 in one calendar year. This study highlights that the value of an enhanced recovery program can be observed in bariatric surgery, benefiting both patients and hospital systems.

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.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis using the 2015-2016 MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery is part of the armamentarium in many bariatric centers. However, limited data correlate the robotic benefits to with clinical outcomes. This study compares 30-day outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: Using the 2015-2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between18- and 65-year-old were included. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. Second PSM analysis was performed adding operative time and conversion rate. RESULTS: 269,923 patients underwent SG (n = 190,494) or RYGB (n = 79,429). The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic approach either for SG (102.58 ± 46 vs. 73.38 ± 36; P < 0.001) or for RYGB (158.29 ± 65 vs. 120.17 ± 56; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (12,877 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significant reduction of postoperative bleeding (0.16% vs. 0.43%; P < 0.001) and strictures (0.19% vs. 0.33%; P = 0.04) with similar results in the other 30-day outcomes in both analyses. Similarly, for the RYGB cohort (5780 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.64% vs. 1.16%; P = 0.004) with no statistically different results for the other's outcomes. Conversely, when adding operative time and conversion rate to the PSM analysis, the robotic platform showed significantly shorter length of stay (2.12 ± 1.9 vs. 2.30 ± 3.1 days; P < 0.001), reduction of anastomotic leak (0.52% vs. 0.92%; P = 0.01), renal complications (0.16% vs. 0.38%; P = 0.004), and venous thromboembolism (0.24% vs. 0.52%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion are significantly reduced with the robotic platform, and after correcting for all factors including operative time, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with better postoperative outcomes especially for RYGB.

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.