One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OABG) vs. Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI) as revisional procedure following Sleeve Gastrectomy: results of a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed bariatric surgery, but a considerable number of patients may require revisional procedures for suboptimal clinical response/recurrence of weight (SCR/RoW). Conversion options include One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) and Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI). The study aims to compare SADI vs. OAGB as revisional procedures in terms of early and mid-term complications, operative time, postoperative hospital stay and clinical outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent OAGB or SADI as revisional procedures following SG for SCR/RoW at three high-volume bariatric centers between January 2014 and April 2021 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were identified. After PSM, the two groups included 42 OAGB and 42 SADI patients. Early (≤ 30 days) postoperative complications rate did not differ significantly between OAGB and SADI groups (3 bleedings vs. 0, p = 0.241). Mid-term (within 2 years) complications rate was significantly higher in the OAGB group (21.4% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.007), mainly anastomotic complications and reflux disease (12% of OAGBs). Seven OAGB patients required conversion to another procedure (Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-RYGB) vs. none among the SADI patients (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: SADI and OAGB are both effective as revisional procedures for SCR/RoW after SG. OAGB is associated with a significantly higher rate of mid-term complications and a not negligible rate of conversion (RYGB). Larger studies are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on thyroidectomy for malignant diseases in high-volume referral centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has limited the availability of healthcare resources for non-COVID patients and decreased elective surgeries, including thyroidectomy. Despite the prioritization of surgical procedures, it has been reported that thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer (TCa) was adversely impacted. We assessed the impact of the pandemic on the surgical activities of two high-volume referral centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients operated at two National Referral Centers for Thyroid Surgery between 03/01/2020 and 02/28/2021 (COVID-19 period) were included (P-Group). The cohort was compared with patients operated at the same Centers between 03/01/2019 and 02/29/2020 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic) (C-Group). RESULTS: Overall, 7017 patients were included: 2782 in the P-Group and 4235 in the C-Group. The absolute number of patients with TCa was not significantly different between the two groups, while the rate of malignant disease was significantly higher in the P-Group (1103/2782 vs 1190/4235) (P < 0.0001). Significantly more patients in the P-Group had central (237/1103 vs 232/1190) and lateral (167/1103 vs 140/1190) neck node metastases (P = 0.001). Overall, the complications rate was significantly lower (11.9% vs 15.1%) and hospital stay was significantly shorter (1.7 ± 1.5 vs 1.9 ± 2.2 days) in the P-Group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly decreased the overall number of thyroidectomies but did not affect the number of operations for TCa. Optimization of management protocols, due to limited resource availability for non-COVID patients, positively impacted the complication rate and hospital stay.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic bariatric procedures in super-obese patients: clinical and economic outcomes.

The increased operative time and costs represent the main limitations of robotic technology application to bariatric surgery. Robotic platforms may help the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties in super-obese (SO, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2) patients, in which multi-quadrant operations could be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the effect of robot-assisted (R) versus laparoscopic (L) approaches in Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) in SO and Super-Super Obese (SSO, BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2) patients in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Bariatric procedures performed from 2012 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, primary SADI-S or RYGB. Operative time (OT), early complications, post-operative stay (POS), overall costs and follow-up data were analyzed. A subgroup analysis for surgical procedures and SSO patients was also performed. Among 4596 patients, 174 RYGB and 91 SADI-S in BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 patients were selected. After Propensity Score Matching analysis, two groups of patients were identified (laparoscopic and robot-assisted), each one composed of 18 RYGB and 26 SADI-S. Intraoperative and post-operative complication rates and POS were comparable. Mean OT was longer in robotic procedures compared with laparoscopy (199.1 ± 65.7 and 109.5 ± 39.1 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The difference in OT was eliminated after only SSO patients were included in the analysis (172.7 ± 24.1 vs 152.6 ± 26.2 min for R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S, respectively, p = 0.107). Robotic surgeries were associated with higher costs (8134.6 ± 1886.7 and 2386.7 ± 388.2 € in R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively; 7996.6 ± 873.1 and 3954.6 ± 631.1 € in R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S). Despite increased costs, robotic approach may represent an added value in more complex cases such as SSO patients.

A Narrative Review on Non-Cirrohotic Portal Hypertension: Not All Portal Hypertensions Mean Cirrhosis.

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH), also known as idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH) and porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD), is a rare disease characterized by intrahepatic portal hypertension (IPH) in the absence of cirrhosis. The precise etiopathogenesis of IPH is an area of ongoing research. NCPH diagnosis is challenging, as there are no specific tests available to confirm the disease, and a high-quality liver biopsy, detailed clinical information, and an expert pathologist are necessary for diagnosis. Currently, the treatment of NCPH relies on the prevention of complications related to portal hypertension, following current guidelines of cirrhotic portal hypertension. No treatment has been studied that aimed to modify the natural history of the disease; however, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) placement, shunt and liver transplantation are considerable symptomatic options. In this review, we discuss the heterogeneity of NCPH as well as its etiopathogenesis, clinical presentation and management issues. Starting from the assumption that portal hypertension does not always mean cirrhosis, cooperative studies are probably needed to clarify the issues of etiology and the possible genetic background of this rare disease. This knowledge might lead to better treatment and perhaps better prevention.

Systematic use of magnetic double J stent in pediatric kidney transplantation: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The intraoperative insertion of a double J stent (DJS) is known to reduce urological complications and is broadly accepted in kidney transplant (KTx) patients. The magnetic ureteral DJS (mDJS) represents a valid alternative device as it can be removed without cystoscopy, using a transurethral magnet. This is of particular importance in the pediatrics, allowing us to avoid cystoscopy requiring general anesthesia (GA) in this population. To date, few data are available on the systematic use of mDJS in pediatric patients undergoing KTx. METHODS: We report a retrospective analysis of 32 consecutive pediatric KTx at our center from July 2020 to December 2021. RESULTS: Ureteral stents remained in place for a median of 35 days (range: 12-76). Non-surgical magnetic removal of the mDJS was attempted in all cases without complications. In most cases (69%), the removal procedure was performed in an outpatient clinic. In 10 cases, the mDJS was removed in the operating room under sedation before removal of the abdominal Tenckhoff catheter. All patients were clinically followed (range: 3-15 months). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the safety and feasibility of systematic use of mDJS in the setting of pediatric KTx. The systematic use of this device contributes to reduce the need for GA and the rate of hospital admission.

Medium-Term Nutritional and Metabolic Outcome of Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S).

INTRODUCTION: Single Anastomosis Duodenal-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S), like other hypoabsorptive procedures, could be burdened by long-term nutritional deficiencies such as malnutrition, anemia, hypocalcemia, and hyperparathyroidism. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to report our experience in terms of mid-term (2 years) bariatric, nutritional, and metabolic results in patients who underwent SADI-S both as a primary or revisional procedure. METHODS: One hundred twenty-one patients were scheduled for SADI-S as a primary or revisional procedure from July 2016 to February 2020 and completed at least 2 years of follow-up. Demographic features, bariatric, nutritional, and metabolic results were analyzed during a stepped follow-up at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (47 female and 19 male) were included. The median preoperative BMI was 53 (48-58) kg/m2. Comorbidities were reported in 48 (72.7%) patients. At 2 years, patients had a median BMI of 27 (27-31) kg/m2 (p < 0.001) with a median %EWL of 85.3% (72.1-96.1), a TWL of 75 (49-100) kg, and a %TWL of 50.9% (40.7-56.9). The complete remission rate was 87.5% for type 2 diabetes mellitus, 83.3% for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and 64.5% for hypertension. The main nutritional deficiencies post SADI-S were vitamin D (31.82%) and folic acid deficiencies (9.09%). CONCLUSION: SADI-S could be considered as an efficient and safe procedure with regard to nutritional status, at least in mid-term (2 years) results. It represents a promising bariatric procedure because of the excellent metabolic and bariatric outcomes with acceptable nutritional deficiency rates. Nevertheless, larger studies with longer follow-ups are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in octogenarian patients: a propensity score matching analysis on the "Lazio Network" database.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and compliance with the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in octogenarian patients undergoing colorectal surgery in 12 Italian high-volume centers. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in a consecutive series of patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery between 2016 and 2018. Patients were grouped by age (≥ 80 years vs < 80 years), propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed, and the groups were compared regarding clinical outcomes and the mean number of ERAS items applied. RESULTS: Out of 1646 patients identified, 310 were octogenarians. PSM identified 2 cohorts of 125 patients for the comparison of postoperative outcomes and ERAS compliance. The 2 groups were homogeneous regarding the clinical variables and mean number of ERAS items applied (11.3 vs 11.9, p-ns); however, the application of intraoperative items was greater in nonelderly patients (p 0.004). The functional recovery was similar between the two groups, as were the rates of postoperative severe complications and 30-day mortality rate. Elderly patients had more overall complications. Furthermore, the mean hospital stay was higher in the elderly group (p 0.027). Multivariable analyses documented that postoperative stay was inversely correlated with the number of ERAS items applied (p < 0.0001), whereas age ≥ 80 years significantly correlated with the overall complication rate (p 0.0419). CONCLUSION: The ERAS protocol is safe in octogenarian patients, with similar levels of compliance and surgical outcomes. However, octogenarian patients have a higher rate of overall complications and a longer hospital stay than do younger patients.

Feasibility of discharge within 72†hours of major colorectal surgery: lessons learned after 5 years of institutional experience with the ERAS protocol.

BACKGROUND: Early postoperative discharge after colorectal surgery within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines has been demonstrated to be safe, although its applicability has not been universal. The primary aim of this study was to identify the predictors of early discharge and readiness for discharge in a study population. METHODS: Early discharge was defined as discharge occurring in 72 h or less after surgery. The characteristics and clinical outcomes of the patients in the early and non-early discharge groups were compared, and variables associated with early discharge were identified. Additionally, independent variables associated with the readiness for discharge within 48 h were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 965 patients who underwent colorectal surgery between January 2015 and July 2020, 788 were included in this study. No differences in readmission, reoperation, or 30-day mortality were observed between the early and non-early discharge groups. Both early discharge and readiness for discharge had a positive association with adherence to 80 per cent or more of the ERAS items and a negative association with the female sex, duration of surgery, drain positioning, and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Early discharge after colorectal surgery is safe and feasible, and is not associated with a high risk of readmission or reoperation. Discharge at 48 h can be reliably predicted in a subset of patients. Future studies should collect prospective data on early discharge related to safety, as well as patients' expectations, possible organizational issues, and effective costs reduction in Italian clinical practice.

Systematic review of transanal total mesorectal excision literature according to the ideal framework: The evolution never ends.

BACKGROUND: Designing studies to assess critically novel procedures can be challenging; thus, the process to achieve robust evidence is frequently problematic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if literature on transanal total mesorectal excision is evolving according to the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results framework. METHODS: Literature on transanal total mesorectal excision was searched according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, and these variables were recorded: bibliometric data, design, corresponding author's nationality, number of patients enrolled, and Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (stage 0, stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4). RESULTS: Out of 447 articles retrieved, 247 were selected (76.5% single center and 23.5% multicenter collaborations), including 35 reviews, 15 meta-analyses, 24 other publications, and 173 articles classified according to Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (19 stage 0, 27 stage 1, 111 stage 2, 7 stage 3, and 9 stage 4). Overall, impact factor produced was 634.10. Reviewing corresponding authors' nationalities, 32 countries were identified, with the United States, China, and the United Kingdom the most reported; nearly all were from the Northern Hemisphere. Publication of stage 3 and 4 articles started in 2014, whereas stage 0 and 1 articles were stably published over time. The number of patients increased in correspondence with the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term results stages (case series with >51 patients, respectively, 100.0% stage 3, 77.8% stage 4, and 33.3% stage 2, P = .005). CONCLUSION: The number of stage 3 and 4 articles is still low; however, the technical innovation of transanal total mesorectal excision is a non-stop process with preclinical studies stably published over time.

Erratum: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-1300-1085.].

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the current standard for bariatric surgery, but it is affected by several postoperative complications. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) was created as a less invasive alternative to LSG. However, its efficacy and safety compared with LSG is unclear. Materials and methods Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/Cochrane/EMBASE/OVID/ PROSPERO and NIH up to January 2020. Studies were selected that included obese patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 40 kg/m² with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up and with reported incidence of complications. The mean difference in percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 months between LSG and ESG represented the primary endpoint. We also assessed the difference in pooled rate of adverse events. The quality of the studies and heterogeneity among them was analyzed. Results Sixteen studies were selected for a total of 2188 patients (LSG: 1429; ESG: 759) with a mean BMI 34.34 and 34.72 kg/m² for LSG and ESG, respectively. Mean %EWL was 80.32 % (±â€Š12.20; 95 % CI; P  = 0.001; I²â€Š= 98.88) and 62.20 % (±â€Š4.38; 95 % CI; P  = 0.005; I²â€Š= 65.52) for the LSG and ESG groups, respectively, corresponding to an absolute difference of 18.12 % (±â€Š0.89; 95 % CI, P  = 0.0001). The difference in terms of mean rate of adverse events was 0.19 % (±â€Š0.37; 95 %CI; χ 2  = 1.602; P  = 0.2056). Conclusions Our analysis showed a moderate superiority of LSG versus ESG. No difference in terms of safety was shown between the two groups. ESG is a less-invasive, repeatable and reversable and acceptable option for mild-moderate obese patients.