Tackling a Post-COVID-19 Cholecystectomy Waiting List: Are We Meeting the Challenge?

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a tremendous backlog in elective surgical activity. Our hospital trust adopted an innovative approach to dealing with elective waiting times for cholecystectomy during the recovery phase from COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate trends in overall cholecystectomy activity and the effect on waiting times. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was undertaken, investigating patients who received a cholecystectomy at a large United Kingdom hospital trust between February 2021 and February 2022. There were multiple phased strategies to tackle a 533-patient waiting list: private sector, multiple sites including emergency operating, mobile theatre, and seven-day working. The correlation of determination (R2) and Kruskal-Wallis analysis were used to evaluate trends in waiting times across the study period. Results: A total of 657 patients underwent a cholecystectomy. The median age was 49 years, 602 (91.6%) patients had an ASA of 1-2, and 494 (75.2%) were female. A total of 30 (4.6%) patients were listed due to gallstone pancreatitis, 380 (57.8%) for symptomatic cholelithiasis, and 228 (34.7%) for calculous cholecystitis. Median waiting times were reduced from 428 days (IQR 373-508) to 49 days (IQR 34-96), R2 = 0.654, p < 0.001. For pancreatitis specifically, waiting times had decreased from a median of 218 days (IQR 139-239) to 28 (IQR 24-40), R2 = 0.613, p < 0.001. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the methodology utilised to safely and effectively tackle the cholecystectomy waiting list locally. The approach utilised here has potential to be adapted to other units or similar operation types in order to reduce elective waiting times.

Does powered stapler improve the mechanical integrity of gastrojejunal anastomosis compared to the current techniques? Experimental study in ex vivo porcine models.

BACKGROUND: Numerous techniques have been described for fashioning gastrojejunostomy (GJ) in a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. These include hand-sewn anastomosis (HSA) and mechanical anastomosis; the latter includes circular stapled anastomosis (CSA) or manual linear stapled anastomosis (mLSA). More recently, this list also includes powered linear stapled anastomosis (pLSA). The aim of this study was to analyse if addition of power to stapling would improve the integrity of GJ anastomosis in ex vivo porcine models. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The present study included five groups - mLSA1, mLSA2, HSA, CSA, and pLSA. Sequential infusions of methylene blue-coloured saline were performed into the GJ models. Pressure readings were recorded till the point of leak denoting burst pressure (BP). Total volume (TV) and site of leak were recorded. Compliance was calculated from the equation ΔTV/ΔBP. RESULTS: Differences in pouch and intestinal thickness were not statistically significant between the models. BPs were higher in the mechanical anastomosis groups, i.e., pLSA 21 ± 9.85 mmHg, CSA 20.33 ± 5.78 mmHg, mLSA1 18 ± 4.69 mmHg and mLSA2 11 ± 2.94 mmHg, when compared to HSA 9.67 ± 3.79 mm Hg, which was found to be statistically significant (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.03). Overall, the highest BP was recorded for powered stapling followed by circular, and then, linear stapling; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.86). There was no statistically significant difference among groups with regard to compliance (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.082). CONCLUSION: Despite the limited number of samples, mechanical anastomosis showed a statistically higher BP when compared to HSA, suggesting better anastomotic integrity. The pLSA group showed promising results with the highest BP recorded among all groups; however, this did not reach statistical significance.

Laparoscopic Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in a Hostile Abdomen.

PURPOSE: Failure of weight loss is the most common indication for revisional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as reported by Guan et al. (Obes Surg. 2019; 29:1965-1975). Recent evidence suggests that the revision rates for SG can be up to 10% when patients are followed up for more than 3 years and as high as 22% after 10 years as reported by Guan et al. (Obes Surg. 2019; 29:1965-1975). Options for revisional surgery following a SG include Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and re-sleeve as the commonest procedures. There is good evidence supporting revisional surgery following failure of weight loss post-primary surgery as reported by Guan et al. (Obes Surg. 2019; 29:1965-1975); Cheung et al. (Obes Surg. 2014; 24:1757-1763); Shimizu et al. (Obes Surg. 2013; 23:1766-1773); and Mora Oliver et al. (Cirugia Espanola. 2019; 97:568-574). However, at the same time, retrospective studies suggest higher complication rates following revisional surgery with a major complication rate up to 10% as reported by Yilmaz et al. (Obes Surg. 2017; 27:2855-2860); Fulton et al. (Can J Surg J Can Chir. 2017; 60:205-211); and Abdelgawad et al. (Obes Surg. 2016; 26:2144-2149). Additionally, the durability of weight loss and morbidity reduction in re-operated patients is still debated and overall high-quality evidence in the field is lacking as discussed by Abdelgawad et al. (Obes Surg. 2016; 26:2144-2149). Aim of this educational video is to demonstrate a revisional bariatric procedure which was technically difficult due to extensive intra-abdominal adhesions and explain the available surgical options and the decision-making process adopted by the surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The video describes a laparoscopic conversion of a SG to OAGB in a 37-year-old female patient due to weight regain. Her primary bariatric procedure was planned to be a RYGB but due to extensive intra-abdominal adhesions discovered at the time of primary surgery, a SG was performed. Pre-primary procedure weight was 134kg with a BMI of 52.3kg/m2. After SG, the patient lost a maximum of 50kg (71.4% excess BMI loss) within the first 18 months before she started regaining weight. Her BMI was 45.4kg/m2 when she was referred for revisional surgery. During the procedure, dense small bowel adhesions were encountered and required meticulous dissection in order to free adequate small bowel to allow a safe, effective, and tension-free anastomosis. One hundred fifty centimeters of small bowel was the maximum length that could be safely dissected starting from the ligament of Treitz. An OAGB was preferred to RYGB as it is routine practice in our unit to bypass 200cm of small bowel for revisional RYGB procedures (50-cm biliopancreatic limb and 150-cm alimentary limb), whilst all OAGB's (primary and revisional) have an afferent limb of 150cm. A re-sleeve was also considered as a viable alternative. RESULTS: Extensive adhesiolysis followed by OAGB were performed successfully with an uneventful post-operative course. The patient was discharged on the second post-operative day. Excess BMI loss was 58% at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Revisional surgery can be a challenging especially in the context of extensive surgical history. OAGB can be used as an alternative to RYGB.

Evaluation of four mesh fixation methods in an experimental model of ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The present animal study was conducted to comparably investigate the performance of four different fixation techniques of intraperitoneally implanted meshes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen New Zealand white rabbits were used. In each animal, four abdominal wall defects were created and repaired with four pieces of intraperitoneal mesh (Parietex Composite), fixed with nonabsorbable (titanium) spiral tacks (group A), absorbable (lactic and glycolic acid co-polymer) screw-type tacks (group B), transfascial polypropylene sutures (group C), or fibrin glue (group D). Adhesion formation, mesh shrinkage, tensile strength, and host tissue response were evaluated at 90 d. RESULTS: Adhesions were observed in all groups, and differences were not significant. The percentage of shrinkage was higher in group C (26.91%), lower in group D (12%), whereas in groups A and B, the mean shrinkage was 20.17% and 23.33%, respectively (P = 0.032). The incorporation of mesh fixation element to the abdominal wall was 9.18 ± 3.91 N, 6.96 ± 3.0 N, 13.68 ± 5.38 N, and 2.57 ± 1.29 N, in groups A, B, C, and D, respectively (P < 0.001). Regarding local inflammatory response and foreign body reaction, no difference was observed between groups. However, with respect to fibrous tissue presence, its quantity was clearly less in group D compared with the other groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: None of the examined fixation techniques proved to be ideal. Probably, the best way to fixate an intraperitoneally implanted mesh may be achieved using a combination of the studied materials. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the superiority of the combined use of different fixation devices in clinical practice.