The Effect of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become one of the most popular surgical weight loss options. Since its inception as a procedure intended to promote durable weight loss, the association between LSG and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been a point of debate. First and foremost, it is known that GERD occurs more frequently in the obese population. With the sleeve gastrectomy growing to be the predominant primary bariatric operation in the United States, it is imperative that we understand the impact of LSG on GERD. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of LSG on GERD symptoms. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-one bariatric surgery candidates completed a Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire before and after undergoing elective LSG (mean follow-up time of 20.4 ± 2.7 months). Values were stratified by the presence or absence of preoperative GERD, GERD medications, age, gender, crural repair, patient satisfaction with present condition, and percent total weight loss (%TWL). RESULTS: For the entire group, mean weight loss, %TWL, and reduction in BMI were 79 pounds, 28.1%, and 12.7 kg/m2 respectively. Within the overall cohort, there was no significant change in GERD symptoms from before to after surgery (mean GERD-HRQL scores were 6.1 before and after surgery, p = 0.981). However, in a subgroup analysis, patients without GERD preoperatively demonstrated a worsening in mean GERD-HRQL scores after surgery (from 2.4 to 4.5, p = 0.0020). The percentage of change in the usage of medications to treat GERD was not statistically significant (from 37 to 32%, p = 0.233). The percent of patients satisfied with their condition postoperatively was significantly increased in those with preoperative GERD, older age, crural repair intraoperatively, and in those with the highest %TWL. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that while overall LSG does not significantly affect GERD symptoms, patients without GERD preoperatively may be at risk for developing new or worsening GERD symptoms after surgery. It is important to remark that this is a review of the patient's clinical symptoms of GERD, not related to any endoscopic, pathological, or manometry studies. Such studies are necessary to fully establish the effect of LSG on esophageal health.

Effects of a single subanaesthetic dose of ketamine on pain and mood after laparoscopic bariatric surgery: A randomised double-blind placebo controlled study.

BACKGROUND: When administered as a continuous infusion, ketamine is known to be a potent analgesic and general anaesthetic. Recent studies suggest that a single low-dose administration of ketamine can provide a long-lasting effect on mood, but its effects when given in the postoperative period have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that a single low-dose administration of ketamine after bariatric surgery can improve pain and mood scores in the immediate postoperative period. DESIGN: We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to compare a single subanaesthetic dose of ketamine (0.4 mg kg) with a normal saline placebo in the postanaesthesia care unit after laparoscopic gastric bypass and gastrectomy. SETTING: Single-centre, tertiary care hospital, October 2014 to January 2018. PATIENTS: A total of 100 patients were randomised into the ketamine and saline groups. INTERVENTION: Patients in the ketamine group received a single dose of ketamine infusion (0.4 mg kg) in the postanaesthesia care unit. Patients in the placebo groups received 0.9% saline. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the visual analogue pain score. A secondary outcome was performance on the short-form McGill's Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in visual analogue pain scores between groups (group-by-time interaction P = 0.966; marginal group effect P = 0.137). However, scores on the affective scale of SF-MPQ (secondary outcome) significantly decreased in the ketamine group as early as postoperative day (POD) 2 [mean difference = -2.2 (95% bootstrap CI -2.9 to 1.6), Bonferroni adjusted P < 0.001], compared with placebo group in which the scores decreased only by POD 7. Scores on the total scale of SF-MPQ for the ketamine group were smaller compared with the placebo group (P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Although there was no significant difference between ketamine and placebo for the primary outcome measure, patients who received ketamine experienced statistically and clinically significant improvement in their comprehensive evaluation of pain, particularly the affective component of pain, on POD 2. However, future studies are needed to confirm the enduring effects of ketamine on the affective response to postoperative pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02452060. : This article is accompanied by the following Invited Commentaries:Mion G. Ketamine stakes in 2018. Right doses, good choices. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:1-3.Robu B, Lavand'homme, P. Targeting the affective component of pain with ketamine. A tool to improve the postoperative experience? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:4-5.

Weight loss outcomes among patients referred after primary bariatric procedure.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric patients may not always obtain long-term care by their primary surgeon. Our aim was to evaluate weight loss outcomes in patients who had surgery elsewhere. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis. Postreferral management included nonsurgical, revision, or conversion. Primary outcomes were percent excess weight loss (%EWL) overall, according to original operation, and based on postreferral management. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2013, there were 569 patients. Mean follow-up was 3.1 years. Management was 42% nonsurgical, 41% revision, and 17% conversion. Overall, mean %EWL was 45.3%. Based on original surgery type, %EWL was 41.2% for adjustable gastric banding vs 58.3% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (P ≤ .0001). Management affected %EWL (41.2% nonsurgical vs 45.3% revision vs 55.1% conversion, P ≤ .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred after bariatric surgery can achieve satisfactory weight loss. This differs based on surgery type and management strategy.

Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Staple line leak is a serious complication of sleeve gastrectomy. Intraoperative methylene blue and air leak tests are routinely used to evaluate for leak; however, the utility of these tests is controversial. We hypothesize that the practice of routine intraoperative leak testing is unnecessary during sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed using a prospectively collected database of seven bariatric surgeons from two institutions. All patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy from March 2012 to November 2014 were included. The performance of intraoperative leak testing and the type of test (air or methylene blue) were based on surgeon preference. Data obtained included BMI, demographics, comorbidity, presence of intraoperative leak test, result of test, and type of test. The primary outcome was leak rate between the leak test (LT) and no leak test (NLT) groups. SAS version 9.4 was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1550 sleeve gastrectomies were included; most were laparoscopic (99.8%), except for one converted and two open cases. Routine intraoperative leak tests were performed in 1329 (85.7%) cases, while 221 (14.3%) did not have LTs. Of the 1329 cases with LTs, there were no positive intraoperative results. Fifteen (1%) patients developed leaks, with no difference in leak rate between the LT and NLT groups (1 vs. 1%, p = 0.999). After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups with a propensity analysis, the observed lack of association between leak and intraoperative leak test remained. In this cohort, leaks presented at a mean of 17.3 days postoperatively (range 1-67 days). Two patients with staple line leaks underwent repeat intraoperative leak testing at leak presentation, and the tests remained negative. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak due to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and is not predictive of the later development of staple line leak.

Surgical management and outcomes of patients with marginal ulcer after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Marginal ulcers (MUs) are potentially complex complications after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Although most resolve with medical management, some require surgical intervention. Many surgical options exist, but there is no standardized approach, and few reports of outcomes have been documented in the literature. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of surgical management of marginal ulcers. METHODS: Data from all patients who underwent surgical intervention between 2004 and 2012 for treatment of MU after previous Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were reviewed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with MUs underwent reoperation. Nine patients had associated gastrogastric fistulae (75%). The median time to reoperation was 43 months. Ten patients underwent subtotal gastrectomy, of which 9 had a revision of the gastrojejunal anastomosis and 1 did not. One underwent total gastrectomy with esophagojejunal anastomosis for ulcer after previous revisional partial gastrectomy, and 1 patient underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic truncal vagotomy for persistent ulcer-related bleeding in the early postoperative period. Three patients (25%) experienced postoperative complications associated with revisional surgery requiring reoperation. At median follow-up time of 35 months, 7 patients (58%) had chronic abdominal pain, and 4 patients (33%) had intermittent diarrhea. Three patients (25%) were lost to recent follow-up. None had recurrence of MU. CONCLUSION: Patients can undergo one of several available surgical interventions, including laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with gastrojejunostomy revision. Though this appears to offer definitive treatment of MU, its benefits must be weighed against the increased risk of significant postoperative complications and chronic symptoms related to revisional surgery.

Safety of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with concurrent cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cholelithiasis correlates with obesity. Patients often present for bariatric surgery with symptomatic cholelithiasis. There is a concern of cross-contamination when performing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) with concurrent cholecystectomy. The primary goal of this study is to address the safety and feasibility of this practice. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed from a prospectively collected database. All LAGB patients from July 2005 to April 2013 were included. Patients undergoing LAGB with concurrent cholecystectomy comprised the study group (LAGB/chole). The control group (LAGB) consisted of patients undergoing LAGB alone, and was selected using a 3:1 (control:study) case-match based on demographic and comorbidity data. The primary outcome was overall complication rate, with secondary outcomes including operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission/reoperation, erosion, infection, and band/port revisional surgery. RESULTS: There were 4,982 patients who met criteria. Of these, 28 patients had a LAGB with concurrent cholecystectomy, comprising the LAGB/chole (study) group. The remaining 4,954 patients were eligible controls, of which 84 were selected for the LAGB (control) group. Demographic and comorbidity data, along with mean follow-up time, were similar between the two groups. OR time was longer in the LAGB/chole group, but LOS was the same. The overall complication rate in the LAGB/chole group was 21 (n = 6) versus 20% (n = 17) in the LAGB group (p = 0.893). Thirty-day readmission and reoperation were similar. There was also no difference in port site, wound, and intra-abdominal infections. There were no band erosions in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a concurrent cholecystectomy at the time of LAGB does not result in increased immediate or delayed morbidity. Although longer to perform, this safe operation would avoid a second surgery for a patient already diagnosed with symptomatic cholelithiasis.

Single-stage versus 2-stage sleeve gastrectomy as a conversion after failed adjustable gastric banding: 30-day outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is being performed as a conversion after adjustable gastric banding (AGB), often in a single stage. However, some argue that it should be performed in 2 stages to improve safety. Few studies compare complications between 1-stage and 2-stage procedures. Our aim is to compare the 30-day complication rates among these two groups. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients converted from AGB to SG between 8/2008 and 10/2013 and compared patients undergoing 1-stage and 2-stage techniques. Primary outcome was overall 30-day adverse event rate (postoperative complication, readmission, or reoperation). Secondary outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), leak, infection, and bleeding rates, as well as mortality. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients underwent SG after band removal; three were excluded due to short follow-up, leaving 60 1-stage and 20 2-stage. Mean time from band removal to SG for 2-stage was 438 days. Demographics, intraoperative technique (bougie size, staple reinforcement, oversewing staple line, and leak test), and mean follow-up were not statistically different. Mean OR time (132.1 min 1-stage vs. 127.8 min 2-stage, p = 0.702) and LOS (3.1 vs. 2.4 days, p = 0.676) were similar. Overall 30-day adverse event rate was 12 % for 1-stage versus 15 % for 2-stage procedures (p = 0.705). Differences in 30-day readmission (8 vs. 5 %) and reoperation (5 vs. 0 %) were not statistically significant (p = 0.999 and 0.569, respectively). Leak (3 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999), abscess (2 vs. 5 %, p = 0.440), and bleeding rates (2 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999) were not different. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: SG performed as a conversion after AGB is safe and feasible. Our findings indicate no statistical difference in 30-day outcomes when performed in 1 or 2 stages. Future studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further investigate these differences.

Sustained weight loss after gastric banding revision for pouch-related problems.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on weight loss at 12 and 24 months. BACKGROUND: There is no uniform consensus as to the optimal procedure for patients requiring revision after LAGB. Few studies address the issue of weight loss after band salvage procedures, despite this being a critical factor in deciding which reoperative procedure to choose. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of adult patients who underwent LAGB from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2009 at a single institution. Patients who required revision for pouch-related problems including band slippage, pouch dilation, and hiatal hernia were studied. Demographic data, body mass index (BMI), percentage excess weight loss (% EWL), and operative details were recorded. Weights were recorded at 12 and 24 months after revision. These were compared with initial weight, weight before revision, and weight in patients who did not have a reoperation. RESULTS: Of 3876 patients, 390 patients were included in analysis of weight outcomes after revision. The procedure-related mortality was 0%. Early (30-day) complications occurred in 0.5%, late complications (erosion) in 0.5%, and 29 patients (7.4%) required a second revision. For patients undergoing revision, the initial weight was 124.06 ± 21.28 kg and BMI was 44.80 ± 6.12 kg/m. At reoperation, weight was 89.18 ± 20.51 kg, BMI was 32.25 ± 6.50 kg/m and, %EWL was 54.13 ± 21.80%. Twelve months postrevision, weight was 92.24 ± 20.22 kg, BMI was 33.32 ± 6.41 kg/m, and %EWL was 48.81 ± 22.71%. Weight was 92.42 ± 19.91 kg, BMI was 33.53 ± 6.25 kg/m, and %EWL was 47.50 ± 22.91% twenty-four months postrevision. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for pouch-related problems after LAGB is safe and effective. Weight loss is maintained after reoperation.

Location and number of sutures placed for hiatal hernia repair during laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: does it matter?

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that hiatal hernia repair (HHR) during laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) decreases the rate of reoperation. However, the technical aspects (location and number of sutures) are not standardized. It is unknown whether such technical details are associated with differing rates of reoperation for band-related problems. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from a single institution, including 2,301 patients undergoing LAGB with HHR from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011. Independent variables were number and location of sutures. Data collected included demographics, operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), follow-up time, postoperative BMI/%EWL, and rates of readmission/reoperation. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and Chi squared tests. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox regression tests were used for follow-up data and reoperation rates, in order to account for differential length of follow-up and confounding variables. RESULTS: There was no difference in length of follow-up among all groups. The majority of patients had one suture (range 1-6; 55 %). Patients with fewer sutures had shorter OR time (1 suture 45 min vs. 4+ sutures 56 min, p < 0.0001). LOS, 30-day readmission, band-related reoperation, and postop BMI/%EWL were not statistically significant. Anterior suture placement (vs. posterior vs. both) was most common (61 %). OR time was shorter in those with anterior suture (41 min vs. posterior 56 min vs. both 59 min, p < 0.0001). Patients with posterior suture had a longer LOS (84 % 1 day vs. anterior 74 % 1 day vs. both 74 % 1 day, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day readmission, band-related reoperation, and postoperative BMI/%EWL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fewer or anterior sutures have shorter OR times. However, 30-day readmission, band-related reoperation, and postoperative weight loss were unaffected by number or location of suture. The technical aspects of HHR did not appear to be associated with readmission or reoperation, and therefore a standardized approach may not be necessary.

Single-incision laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is effective and safe: 756 cases in an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is safe and effective. This less invasive option involving fewer incisions and umbilical approaches is coined as single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS). Over the last 3 years, we performed 46 % of our LAGBs as SILS with excellent results. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 1,644 LAGBs performed between 2008 and 2010. A total of 756 were performed as SILS bands (46 %) and 888 as standard (non-SILS) (54 %). Data points compared include operative time, percent of excess weight loss at 1 and 2 years, complication, and re-operation rates. RESULTS: Groups were matched by age, initial BMI, and gender: 584 non-SILS and 710 SILS patients. The average operating time was 44.3 ± 19.6 min for SILS and 51.1 ± 19.4 min for non-SILS (p < 0.001). The 12-month percent excess weight loss (%EWL) for SILS was 45.0 ± 19.1; it was 40.7 ± 17.5 for non-SILS (p = 0.003). The 24 month %EWL for SILS was 54.4 ± 16.3; it was 46.4 ± 16.1 for non-SILS (p = 0.10). Complication rates were 5.6 % (40 of 710) for SILS and 4.5 % (26 of 584) for non-SILS (p = 0.34). The 30-day readmission/re-operation rates are 1 % (seven of 710) for SILS and 1.5 % (nine of 584) for non-SILS (p = 0.37). There was one death in the SILS group. CONCLUSIONS: We have been performing more SILS bands over time. Our operative times and weight loss figures show that it is an efficient and effective means of weight loss. Furthermore, the data also show that the SILS approach is safe and does not increase operative time. In conclusion, SILS laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a safe and effective means of attaining weight loss in selected patients.

Does adding a lesser-curvature gastrogastric plication suture reduce the need for revision after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band placement?

BACKGROUND: The need for revision after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) surgery has been reduced over the past 10 years with the introduction of the pars flaccida technique, delicate band tightening, and concurrent hiatal hernia repairs. However, band revision still occurs for as many as 5% of patients. Placement of a lesser-curvature gastrogastric suture distal to the band is one newer technique suggested to lower band slippage. To evaluate the worth of this technique, the authors have investigated two groups of patients in their practice: one group with the plication stitch and one group without it. METHODS: This retrospective review examined data for 1,365 LAGB patients collected prospectively by an institutional review board-approved database between July 2007 and May 2010. One surgeon did not perform the plication stitch (n = 776) and one did (n = 589). The surgical techniques were very similar. The majority of the patients had crural repair at the primary operation. Band revision rates were assessed. RESULTS: For 1,365 patients, LAGB was performed safely. The mean follow-up period was 22 months. The two groups were similar. The no-stitch group consisted of 776 patients (496 women, 64%) with a mean age of 42 years, a mean weight of 278 lb, and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.6 kg/m(2). The stitch group consisted of 589 patients (426 woman, 72%) with a mean age of 40 years, a mean weight of 278 lb, and a mean BMI of 44.8 kg/m(2). The no-stitch group had an estimated weight loss (EWL) of 44% at 12 months and 50% EWL at 2 years. The stitch group had 37% EWL at 12 months and 45% EWL at 2 years. Both groups had very low revision rates. The no-stitch group had 4 revisions in 776 patients (0.26%), and the stitch group had 9 revisions in 589 patients (1.5%). CONCLUSION: Adding gastrogastric plication sutures offers no benefit of reducing the rate of revision after LAGB surgery.