Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe postoperative complications (SPCs) may occur after curative esophagectomy for cancer and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, augmented costs, and increased in-hospital mortality. However, the effect of SPCs on survival after esophagectomy is uncertain. AIM: To assess the impact of severe postoperative complications (SPCs) on long-term survival following curative esophagectomy for cancer, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. The included studies examined the relationship between SPCs and survival outcomes, defining SPCs as Clavien-Dindo grade > 3. The primary outcome measure was long-term overall survival (OS). We used restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate pooled effect sizes. Additionally, we applied the GRADE methodology to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies (2181 patients) were included. SPCs were reported in 651 (29.8%) patients. The RMSTD overall survival analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, patients experiencing SPCs lived for 8.6 months (95% Cis -12.5, -4.7; p < 0.001) less, on average, compared with no-SPC patients. No differences were found for 60-month follow-up disease-free survival (-4.6 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.9; p = 0.17) and cancer-specific survival (-6.8 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.7; p = 0.21). The GRADE certainty of this evidence ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a statistically significant detrimental effect of SPCs on OS in patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for cancer. Also, a clinical trend toward reduced CSS and DFS was perceived.

Effect of complete mesocolic excision (cme) on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time estimation.

INTRODUCTION: Debate exists concerning the impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) on long-term oncological outcomes. The aim of this review was to condense the updated literature and assess the effect of CME on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through July 2023. The included studies evaluated the effect of CME on survival. The primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies (3665 patients) were included. Overall, 1443 (39.4%) underwent CME. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, stage I-III CME patients lived 2.5 months (95% CI 1.1-4.1) more on average compared with noCME patients. Similarly, stage III patients that underwent CME lived longer compared to noCME patients at 55-month follow-up (6.1 months; 95% CI 3.4-8.5). The time-dependent HRs analysis for CME vs. noCME (stage I-III disease) shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with noCME at 6 months (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.71), 12 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.73), and 24 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92) up to 27 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CME is associated with unclear OS benefit in stage I-III disease. Caution is recommended to avoid overestimation of the effect of CME in stage III disease since the marginal benefit of a more extended resection may have been influenced by tumor biology/molecular profile and multimodal adjuvant treatments.

Long-Term Impact of D2 Lymphadenectomy during Gastrectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Time Estimation.

BACKGROUND: Debate exists concerning the impact of D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy on long-term oncological outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the effect of D2 vs. D1 on survival were included. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size measures. RESULTS: Five RCTs (1653 patients) were included. Overall, 805 (48.7%) underwent D2 lymphadenectomy. The RMSTD OS analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, D2 patients lived 1.8 months (95% CI -4.2, 0.7; p = 0.14) longer on average compared to D1 patients. Similarly, 60-month CSS (1.2 months, 95% CI -3.9, 5.7; p = 0.72) and DFS (0.8 months, 95% CI -1.7, 3.4; p = 0.53) tended to be improved for D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to D1, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with a clinical trend toward improved OS, CSS, and DFS at 60-month follow-up.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. RESULTS: A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Short-term outcomes of different esophagojejunal anastomotic techniques during laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer. Linear stapled techniques include overlap (OL) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) while single staple technique (SST), hemi-double staple technique (HDST), and OrVil® are circular stapled approaches. Nowadays, the choice among techniques for EJ depends on operating surgeon personal preference. PURPOSE: To compare short-term outcomes of different EJ techniques during LTG. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® were compared. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to measure relative inference. RESULTS: Overall, 3177 patients (20 studies) were included. The technique for EJ was SST (n = 1026; 32.9%), OL (n = 826; 26.5%), FEEA (n = 752; 24.1%), OrVil® (n = 317; 10.1%), and HDST (n = 196; 6.4%). AL was comparable for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.82; 95% CrI 0.47-1.49), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.55; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.54; 95% CrI 0.32-1.22), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.28-1.63). Similarly, AS was similar for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.46; 95% CrI 0.18-1.28), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.89; 95% CrI 0.39-2.15), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.14-1.02), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.61; 95% CrI 0.31-1.21). Anastomotic bleeding, time to soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were comparable while operative time was reduced for FEEA. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis shows similar postoperative AL and AS risk when comparing OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® techniques. Similarly, no differences were found for anastomotic bleeding, operative time, soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper.

Many countries are facing an aging population. As people live longer, surgeons face the prospect of operating on increasingly older patients. Traditional teaching is that with older age, these patients face an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, even to a level deemed too prohibitive for surgery. However, this is not always true. An active 90-year-old patient can be much fitter than an overweight, sedentary 65-year-old patient with comorbidities. Recent literature shows that frailty-an age-related cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, is therefore a better predictor of mortality and morbidity than chronological age alone. Despite recognition of frailty as an important tool in identifying vulnerable surgical patients, many surgeons still shun objective tools. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide recommendations on emergency laparotomy and in frail patients. This position paper was reviewed by an international expert panel composed of 37 experts who were asked to critically revise the manuscript and position statements. The position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. We shall present the derived statements upon which a consensus was reached, specifying the quality of the supporting evidence and suggesting future research directions.

Impact of postoperative NSAIDs administration on anastomotic leak after esophago-gastric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a feared complication of esophago-gastric surgery. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat postoperative pain. Previous analyses conveyed heterogeneous data for colorectal surgery with a tendency toward high risk for AL after NSAIDs administration. In the setting of upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery data are even more puzzled. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether an association exists between postoperative NSAIDs administration and AL after esophago-gastric surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to November 2022. The included studies evaluated outcomes for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration after esophago-gastric surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak (AL). Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to assess pooled effect size and relative inference. Six studies (43,784 patients) were included. The patient age ranged from 31 to 84 years, 82.4% were males and preoperative BMI ranged from 15 to 31 kg/m2. Esophagectomy was performed in 95% of patients. NSAIDs were administered in 18,075 (41.3%) patients. The cumulative incidence of AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs (13.6% vs. 13.4%). The risk for postoperative AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.81-2.75; p = 0.19). The cumulative incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding (0.36% vs. 0.39%), acute kidney injury (0.62% vs. 0.71%), and in-hospital mortality (2.39% vs. 2.66%) were comparable. NSAIDs administration for postoperative analgesia seems not associated with an increased risk for AL after esophago-gastric surgery.

What is the ideal mesh location for incisional hernia prevention during elective laparotomy? A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) represents an important complication after surgery. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) with different mesh locations [onlay (OL), retromuscular (RM), preperitoneal (PP), and intraperitoneal (IP)] has been described to possibly reduce the risk of postoperative IH. However, data reporting the 'ideal' mesh location are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal mesh location for IH prevention during elective laparotomy. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OL, RM, PP, IP, and no mesh (NM) were compared. The primary aim was postoperative IH. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1052 (45.1%) had no mesh (NM) while 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR stratified in IP ( n =344 pts), PP ( n =52 pts), RM ( n =463 pts), and OL ( n =421 pts) placement. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 67 months. RM (RR=0.34; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.81) and OL (RR=0.15; 95% CrI: 0.044-0.35) were associated with significantly reduced IH RR compared to NM. A tendency toward reduced IH RR was noticed for PP versus NM (RR=0.16; 95% CrI: 0.018-1.01), while no differences were found for IP versus NM (RR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.19-1.81). Seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, 90-day mortality, operative time and hospital length of stay were comparable among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: RM or OL mesh placement seems associated with reduced IH RR compared to NM. PP location appears promising; however, future studies are warranted to corroborate this preliminary indication.

Linear- Versus Circular-Stapled Esophagojejunostomy During Total Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: While numerous techniques have been defined for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during total gastrectomy including hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses, mechanical linear-stapled (LS) and circular-stapled (CS) anastomoses are widely adopted. However, there are scarce data on the optimal stapled technique for EJ during total gastrectomy. Materials and Methods: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to October 30, 2022. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after LS versus CS anastomosis in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and anastomotic bleeding (AB) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Results: Sixteen studies (3156 patients) were incorporated. Overall, 1540 (48.8%) underwent CS, whereas 1616 (51.2%) underwent LS. Compared with CS, LS was related to a condensed RR for AS (RR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.15-0.49; P < .01), whereas no differences were found for AL (RR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.51-1.10; P = .14) and AB (RR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.24-1.44; P = .25). Postoperative pneumonia (RR: 0.98; P = .94), operative time (SMD: 0.51; P = .31), days to soft diet (SMD: -0.08; P = .36), hospital stay (SMD: 0.19; P = .46), and 30-day mortality (RR: 1.76; P = .31) were comparable between LS and CS. Conclusions: For EJ during total gastrectomy, our results suggest that LS seems related to a reduced risk of AS compared with CS, although no significant differences were found for the risk of AL and AB between the two techniques. Clinical Trial Registration number: CRD42022381221.

C-reactive Protein and Procalcitonin Levels to Predict Anastomotic Leak After Colorectal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a feared complication after colorectal surgery. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are crucial. C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) have been proposed as early AL indicators. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the CRP and CPT predictive values for early AL diagnosis after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search to identify studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of postoperative CRP and CPT for AL. A Bayesian meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model and pooled predictive parameters to determine postoperative CRP and PCT cut-off values at different postoperative days (POD). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (11,144 patients) were included. The pooled prevalence of AL was 8% (95 CI 7-9%), and the median time to diagnosis was 6.9 days (range 3-10). The derived POD3, POD4 and POD5 CRP cut-off were 15.9 mg/dl, 11.4 mg/dl and 10.9 mg/dl respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was comparable with a pooled area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% CIs 0.23-0.85), 0.84 (95% CIs 0.18-0.86) and 0.84 (95% CIs 0.18-0.89) respectively. Negative likelihood ratios (LR-) showed moderate evidence to rule out AL on POD 3 (LR- 0.29), POD4 (LR- 0.24) and POD5 (LR- 0.26). The derived POD3 and POD5 CPT cut-off were 0.75 ng/ml (AUC = 0.84) and 0.9 ng/ml (AUC = 0.92) respectively. The pooled POD5 negative LR (-0.18) showed moderate evidence to rule out AL. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of colorectal surgery, CRP and CPT serum concentrations lower than the derived cut-offs on POD3-POD5, may be useful to rule out AL thus possibly identifying patients at low risk for AL development.

Linear- versus circular-stapled esophagogastric anastomosis during esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described for esophagogastric anastomosis. Over the past decades, surgeons have been improving anastomotic techniques with a gradual shift from hand-sewn to stapled anastomosis. Nowadays, circular-stapled (CS) and linear-stapled (LS) anastomosis are commonly used during esophagectomy. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2022. The included studies evaluated short-term outcomes for LS vs. CS anastomosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stricture (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (2861 patients) were included. Overall, 1371 (47.9%) underwent CS while 1490 (52.1%) LS. Compared to CS, LS was associated with a significantly reduced RR for AL (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.54-0.91; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.51; p < 0.0001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to the level of anastomosis (cervical and thoracic) still shows a tendency toward reduced risk for LS. No differences were found for pneumonia (RR 0.78; p = 0.12), reflux esophagitis (RR 0.74; p = 0.36), operative time (SMD -0.25; p = 0.16), hospital length of stay (SMD 0.13; p = 0.51), and 30-day mortality (RR 1.26; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: LS anastomosis seems associated with a tendency toward a reduced risk for AL and AS. Although surgeon's own training and experience might direct the choice of esophagogastric anastomosis, our meta-analysis encourages the use of LS anastomosis.

The LIFE TRIAD of emergency general surgery.

Emergency General Surgery (EGS) was identified as multidisciplinary surgery performed for traumatic and non-traumatic acute conditions during the same admission in the hospital by general emergency surgeons and other specialists. It is the most diffused surgical discipline in the world. To live and grow strong EGS necessitates three fundamental parts: emergency and elective continuous surgical practice, evidence generation through clinical registries and data accrual, and indications and guidelines production: the LIFE TRIAD.

Patient-tailored algorithm for laparoscopic cruroplasty standardization: comparison with hiatal surface area and medium-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different methods have been described for laparoscopic hiatoplasty and hiatus hernia (HH) repair. All techniques are not standardized and the choice to reinforce or not the hiatus with a mesh is left to the operating surgeon's preference. Hiatal surface area (HSA) has been described as an attempt at standardization; in case the area is > 4 cm2, a mesh is used to reinforce the repair. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe a new patient-tailored algorithm (PTA), compare its performance in predicting crura mesh buttressing to HSA, and analyze outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective, single-center, descriptive study (September 2018-September 2021). Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent laparoscopic HH repair. Outcomes and quality of life measured with the disease-specific gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) and reflux symptom index (RSI) were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty patients that underwent laparoscopic hiatoplasty and Toupet fundoplication were included. The median age was 61 years (range 32-83) and the median BMI was 26.7 (range 17-36). According to the PTA, 27 patients (54%) underwent simple suture repair while crural mesh buttressing with Phasix-ST® was used in 23 (46%). According to the HSA, the median hiatus area was 4.7 cm2 while 26 patients had an HSA greater than 4 cm2. The overall concordance rate between PTA and HSA was 94% (47/50). The median hospital stay was 1.9 days (range 1-8) and the 90-day complication rate was 4%. The median follow-up was 18.6 months (range 1-35). Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in 6%. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in one patient (2%). The GERD-HRQL (p < 0.001) and RSI (p = 0.001) were significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: The application of PTA for cruroplasty standardization in the setting of HH repair seems effective. While concordance with HSA is high, the PTA seems easier and promptly available in the operative theater with a potential increase in procedure standardization, reproducibility, and teaching.

WSES guidelines on blunt and penetrating bowel injury: diagnosis, investigations, and treatment.

The aim of this paper was to review the recent literature to create recommendations for the day-to-day diagnosis and surgical management of small bowel and colon injuries. Where knowledge gaps were identified, expert consensus was pursued during the 8th International Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery Annual (September 2021, Edinburgh). This process also aimed to guide future research.

Staple Line Reinforcement During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Staple line reinforcement (SLR) during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the most commonly utilized techniques for SLR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare no reinforcement (NR), suture oversewing (SR), glue reinforcement (GR), bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement (Gore® Seamguard®) (GoR), and clips reinforcement (CR). Risk Ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used as pooled effect size measures. RESULTS: Overall, 3994 patients (17 RCTs) were included. Of those, 1641 (41.1%) underwent NR, 1507 (37.7%) SR, 689 (17.2%) GR, 107 (2.7%) GoR, and 50 (1.3%) CR. SR was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding (RR=0.51; 95% CrI 0.31-0.88), staple line leak (RR=0.56; 95% CrI 0.32-0.99), and overall complications (RR=0.50; 95% CrI 0.30-0.88) compared to NR while no differences were found vs. GR, GoR, and CR. Operative time was significantly longer for SR (WMD=16.2; 95% CrI 10.8-21.7), GR (WMD=15.0; 95% CrI 7.7-22.4), and GoR (WMD=15.5; 95% CrI 5.6-25.4) compared to NR. Among treatments, there were no significant differences for surgical site infection (SSI), sleeve stenosis, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SR seems associated with a reduced risk of bleeding, leak, and overall complications compared to NR while no differences were found vs. GR, GoR, and CR. Data regarding GoR and CR are limited while further trials reporting outcomes for these techniques are warranted.

Techniques for reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for cancer: updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The choice of the best reconstruction technique after distal gastrectomy (DG) remains controversial and still not defined. The purpose was to perform a comprehensive evaluation within the major type of intestinal reconstruction after DG for gastric cancer. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare Billroth I (BI), Billroth II (BII), Billroth II Braun (BII Braun), Roux-en-Y (RY), and Uncut Roux-en-Y (URY). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures while 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (1456 patients) were included. Of these, 448 (33.7%) underwent BI, 220 (15.1%) BII, 114 BII Braun (7.8%), 533 (36.6%) RY, and 141 URY (9.6%). No significant differences were found among treatments for 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and overall complications. At 12-month follow-up, RY was associated with a significantly reduced risk of remnant gastritis compared to BI (RR=0.56; 95% Crl 0.35-0.76) and BII reconstruction (RR=0.47; 95% Crl 0.22-0.97). Similarly, despite the lack of statistical significance, RY seems associated with a trend toward reduced endoscopically proven esophagitis compared to BI (RR=0.58; 95% Crl 0.24-1.51) and bile reflux compared to BI (RR=0.48; 95% Crl 0.17-1.41), BII (RR=0.74; 95% Crl 0.20-2.81), and BII Braun (RR=0.65; 95% Crl 0.30-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis shows that there are five main options for intestinal anastomosis after DG. All techniques seem equally safe with comparable anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, overall morbidity, and short-term outcomes. In the short-term follow-up (12 months), RY seems associated with a reduced risk of remnant gastritis and a trend toward a reduced risk of bile reflux and esophagitis.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation device removal: surgical technique and results at medium-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device has become a common option for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Knowledge of MSA-related complications, indications for removal, and techniques are puzzled. With this study, we aimed to evaluate indications, techniques for removal, surgical approach, and outcomes with MSA removal. METHODS: This is an observational singe-center study. Patients were followed up regularly with endoscopy, pH monitoring, and assessed for specific gastroesophageal reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) and generic short-form 36 (SF-36) quality of life. RESULTS: Five patients underwent MSA explant. Four patients were males and the median age was 47 years (range 44-55). Heartburn, epigastric/chest pain, and dysphagia were commonly reported. The median implant duration was 46 months (range 31-72). A laparoscopic approach was adopted in all patients. Intraoperative findings included normal anatomy (40%), herniation in the mediastinum (40%), and erosion (20%). The most common anti-reflux procedures were Dor (n = 2), Toupet (n = 2), and anterior partial fundoplication (n = 1). The median operative time was 145 min (range 60-185), and the median hospital length of stay was 4 days (range 3-6). The median postoperative follow-up was 41 months (range 12-51). At the last follow-up, 80% of patients were off PPI; the GERD-HRQL and SF-36 questionnaire were improved with DeMeester score and esophageal acid exposure normalization. CONCLUSION: The MSA device can be safely explanted through a single-stage laparoscopic procedure. Tailoring a fundoplication, according to preoperative patient symptoms and intraoperative findings, seems feasible and safe with a promising trend toward improved symptoms and quality of life.