Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopes are an essential tool in the diagnosis, screening, and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued a news release, recommending that duodenoscope manufacturers and health care facilities phase out fully reusable duodenoscopes with fixed endcaps in lieu of duodenoscopes that are either fully disposable or those that contain disposable endcaps. With this study, we systematically reviewed the published literature on single-use disposable gastrointestinal scopes to describe the current state of the literature and provide summary recommendations on the role of disposable gastrointestinal endoscopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For our inclusion criteria, we searched for studies that were published in the year 2015 and afterward. We performed a literature search in PubMed using the keywords, "disposable," "reusable," "choledochoscope," "colonoscope," "duodenoscope," "esophagoscope," "gastroscope," and "sigmoidoscope." After our review, we identified our final article set, including 13 articles relating to disposable scopes, published from 2015 to 2023. RESULTS: In this review, we show 13 articles discussing the infection rate, functionality, safety, and affordability of disposable gastrointestinal scopes in comparison to reusable gastrointestinal scopes. Of the 3 articles that discussed infection rates (by Forbes and colleagues, Ridtitid and colleagues, and Ofosu and colleagues), each demonstrated a decreased risk of infection in disposable gastrointestinal scopes. Functionality was another common theme among these articles. Six articles (by Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Ross and colleagues, Kang and colleagues, and Forbes and colleagues) demonstrated comparable functionality of disposable scopes to reusable scopes. The most reported functionality issue in disposable scopes was decreased camera resolution. Disposable scopes also showed comparable safety profiles compared with reusable scopes. Six articles (by Kalipershad and colleagues, Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Luo and colleagues, and Huynh and colleagues) showed comparable rates of AEs, whereas 1 article (by Ofosu and colleagues) demonstrated increased rates of AEs with disposable scopes. Lastly, a cost analysis was looked at in 3 of the articles. Two articles (by Larsen et al and Ross and colleagues) remarked that further research is needed to understand the cost of disposable scopes, whereas 1 article (by Kang and colleagues) showed a favorable cost analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After a review of the literature published since the 2015 Food and Drug Administration safety communication, disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes. However, more research is required to compare disposable and reusable scopes in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support During Bariatric Surgery: A Novel Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device and Cardiac Transplantation.

Advanced heart failure (HF) with comorbid severe obesity presents a unique surgical dilemma: bariatric surgery may help patients meet cardiac transplantation body mass index (BMI) criteria, but poor cardiac function puts them at increased intraoperative risk. Per International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines BMI > 35 is a contraindication for orthotopic heart transplantation. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella 5.5 during bariatric surgery, as presented in this report, may help solve this dilemma for some patients. We present three patients with severe obesity and advanced heart failure (HF) who underwent successful bariatric surgery while supported by Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, MA).

The Financial Implications of a Single-Use Device Reprocessing Program at a Tertiary Referral Center Surgical Department.

The operating room has been identified as one of the primary contributors to waste and energy expenditure in the health care system. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of single-use device reprocessing and report the cost savings, waste diversion, and reduction in carbon emissions. Data was collected from January 2021 to April 2023. Medline collected the data for analysis and converted it from an Excel file format to SPSS (Version 27) for analysis. Descriptive frequencies were used for data analysis. We found a mean monthly cost savings of $16,051.68 and a mean 700.68 pounds of waste a month diverted, resulting in an estimated yearly saving of $2354.29 in disposal costs and a reduction of 1112.65 CO2e emissions per month. This program has made significant contributions to cost savings and environmental efforts.

Preoperative comorbidities as a predictor of EBWL after bariatric surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of preoperative comorbidities, including depression, anxiety, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, and the type of surgery on %EBWL (percent estimated body weight loss) in patients 1 year after bariatric surgery. Patients who choose to undergo bariatric surgery often have other comorbidities that can affect both the outcomes of their procedures and the postoperative period. We predict that patients who have depression, anxiety, diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, or hypothyroidism will have a smaller change in %EBWL when compared to patients without any of these comorbidities. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Data points were retrospectively collected from the charts of 440 patients from March 2012-December 2019 who underwent a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery. Data collected included patient demographics, select comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, depression, and anxiety, and body weight at baseline and 1 year postoperatively. Ideal body weight was calculated using the formula 50 + (2.3 × height in inches over 5 feet) for males and 45.5 + (2.3 × height in inches over 5 feet) for females. Excess body weight was then calculated by subtracting ideal body weight from actual weight at the above forementioned time points. Finally, %EBWL was calculated using the formula (change in weight over 1 year/excess weight) × 100. RESULTS: Patients who had a higher baseline BMI (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.026), hypothyroidism (p = 0.046), and who had a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy rather than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (p < 0.001) had a smaller %EBWL in the first year after bariatric surgery as compared to patients without these comorbidities at the time of surgery. Controversially, patients with anxiety or depression (p = 0.73) or obstructive sleep apnea (p = 0.075) did not have a statistically significant difference in %EBWL. CONCLUSION: A higher baseline BMI, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, and undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy may lead to lower %EBWL in the postoperative period after bariatric surgery. At the same time, patients' mental health status and sleep apnea status were not related to %EBWL. This study provides new insight into which comorbidities may need tighter control in order to optimize weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery.

Endoscopic closure techniques of bariatric surgery complications: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Leaks following bariatric surgery, while rare, are potentially fatal due to risk of peritonitis and sepsis. Anastomotic leaks and gastro-gastric fistulae following Roux-En-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as well as staple line leaks after sleeve gastrectomy have historically been treated multimodally with surgical drainage, aggressive antibiotic therapy, and more recently, endoscopically. Endoscopic clipping using over-the-scope clips and endoscopic suturing are two of the most common approaches used to achieve full thickness closure. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed to identify articles on the use of endoscopic clipping or suturing for the treatment of leaks and fistulae following bariatric surgery. Studies focusing on stents, and those that incorporated multiple closure techniques simultaneously, were excluded. Literature review and meta-analysis were performed with the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Five studies with 61 patients that underwent over-the-scope clip (OTSC) closure were included. The pooled proportion of successful closure across the studies was 81.1% (95% CI 67.3 to 91.7). The successful closure rates were homogeneous (I2 = 39%, p = 0.15). Three studies with 92 patients that underwent endoscopic suturing were included. The weighted pooled proportion of successful closure across the studies was shown to be 22.4% (95% CI 14.6 to 31.3). The successful closure rates were homogeneous (I2 = 0%, p = 0.44). Three of the studies, totaling 34 patients, examining OTSC deployment reported data for reintervention rate. The weighted pooled proportion of reintervention across the studies was 35.0% (95% CI 11.7 to 64.7). We noticed statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 68%, p = 0.04). One study, with 20 patients examining endoscopic suturing, reported rate of repeat intervention 60%. CONCLUSION: Observational reports show that patients managed with OTSC were more likely to experience healing of their defect than those managed with endoscopic suturing. Larger controlled studies comparing different closure devices for bariatric leaks should be carried out to better understand the ideal endoscopic approach to these complications.

Current trends and barriers to video management and analytics as a tool for surgeon skilling.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of intraoperative recording are well published in the literature; however, few studies have identified current practices, barriers, and subsequent solutions. The objective of this study was to better understand surgeon's current practices and perceptions of video management and gather blinded feedback on a new surgical video recording product with the potential to address these barriers effectively. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was used to survey 230 surgeons (general, gynecologic, and urologic) and hospital administrators across the US and Europe regarding their current video recording practices. The same questionnaire was used to evaluate a blinded concept describing a new intraoperative recording solution. RESULTS: 54% of respondents reported recording eligible cases, with the majority recording less than 35% of their total eligible caseload. Reasons for not recording included finding no value in recording simple procedures, forgetting to record, lack of access to equipment, legal concerns, labor intensity, and difficulty accessing videos. Among non-recording surgeons, 65% reported considering recording cases to assess surgical techniques, document practice, submit to conferences, share with colleagues, and aid in training. 35% of surgeons rejected recording due to medico-legal concerns, lack of perceived benefit, concerns about secure storage, and price. Regarding the concept of a recording solution, 74% of all respondents were very likely or quite likely to recommend the product for adoption at their facility. Appealing features to current recorders included the product's ease of use, use of AI to maintain patient and staff privacy, lack of manual downloads, availability of full-length procedural videos, and ease of access and storage. Non-recorders found the immediate access to videos and maintenance of patient/staff privacy appealing. CONCLUSION: Tools that address barriers to recording, accessing, and managing surgical case videos are critical for improving surgical skills. Touch Surgery Enterprise is a valuable tool that can help overcome these barriers.

The evidence behind robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advancements, the advantage of robotic surgery over other traditional modalities still harbors academic inquiries. We seek to take a recently published high-profile narrative systematic review regarding robotic surgery and add meta-analytic tools to identify further benefits of robotic surgery. METHODS: Data from the published systematic review were extracted and meta-analysis were performed. A fixed-effect model was used when heterogeneity was not significant (Chi2 p ≥ 0.05, I2 ≤ 50%) and a random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was significant (Chi2 p < 0.05, I2 > 50%). Forest plots were generated using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Robotic surgery had comparable overall complications compared to laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.85), which was significantly lower compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.68, p = 0.005). Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had fewer open conversions (risk difference - 0.0144, p = 0.03), shorter length of stay (mean difference - 0.23 days, p = 0.01), but longer operative time (mean difference 27.98 min, p < 0.00001). Compared to open surgery, robotic surgery had less estimated blood loss (mean difference - 286.8 mL, p = 0.0003) and shorter length of stay (mean difference - 1.69 days, p = 0.001) with longer operative time (mean difference 44.05 min, p = 0.03). For experienced robotic surgeons, there were less overall intraoperative complications (risk difference - 0.02, p = 0.02) and open conversions (risk difference - 0.03, p = 0.04), with equivalent operative duration (mean difference 23.32 min, p = 0.1) compared to more traditional modalities. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery may improve hospital length of stay and open conversion rates, with added benefits in experienced robotic surgeons showing lower overall intraoperative complications and comparable operative times.

Adjuvant and Neo-Adjuvant Anti-Obesity Medications and Bariatric Surgery: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To comprehensively summarize the current body of literature on the topic of adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmacotherapy used in combination with bariatric surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) have been used since the mid-1900s; however, their use in combination with bariatric surgery is a newer area of research that is rapidly growing. Pharmacotherapy may be used before (neoadjuvant) or after (adjuvant) bariatric surgery. Recent literature suggests that adjuvant AOMs may address weight regain and inadequate weight loss following bariatric surgery. Research on neoadjuvant AOM used to optimize weight loss before bariatric surgery is more limited. A literature review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Thirty-four studies were included after screening and exclusion of irrelevant records. Included studies were as follows: seven prospective studies on adjuvant AOM use, 23 retrospective studies on adjuvant AOM use, one prospective study on adjuvant and neoadjuvant AOM use, one retrospective study on adjuvant or neoadjuvant AOM use, one prospective study on neoadjuvant AOM use, and one case series on neoadjuvant AOM use. In the following scoping review, each of these studies is discussed with the goal of presenting a complete synthesis of the current body of literature on AOM use in combination with bariatric surgery.

Robotics vs Laparoscopy in Foregut Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Analyzing Hiatal Hernia Repair and Heller Myotomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery remains the mainstay of treating foregut pathologies. Several studies have shown improved outcomes with the robotic approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs (HHR) and Heller myotomy (HM) repairs is needed. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between January 2010 and November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool. Assessed outcomes included intra- and post-operative outcomes. We pooled the dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model to report odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and continuous data to report mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-two comparative studies enrolling 196,339 patients were included. Thirteen (13,426 robotic, 168,335 laparoscopic patients) studies assessed HHR outcomes, while nine (2,384 robotic, 12,225 laparoscopic patients) assessed HM outcomes. Robotic HHR had a non-significantly shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) [MD -0.41 (95% CI -0.87, -0.05)], fewer conversions to open [OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.03, 1.49)], and lower morbidity rates [OR 0.76 (95% CI 0.47, 1.23)]. Robotic HM led to significantly fewer esophageal perforations [OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.15, 0.83)], reinterventions [OR 0.18 (95% CI 0.07, 0.47)] a non-significantly shorter LOS [MD -0.31 (95% CI -0.62, 0.00)]. Both robotic HM and HHR had significantly longer operative times. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic HHR and HM repairs have similar safety profiles and perioperative outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the two methods, given the low to moderate quality of included studies.

Evaluating the use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant terminology in bariatric surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Weight regain and inadequate weight loss are common after bariatric surgery. Literature is emerging regarding the use of pharmacotherapy with bariatric surgery as a potential solution to these adverse effects. Pharmacotherapy may be used before (neoadjuvant) or after (adjuvant) bariatric surgery, although this terminology has not been standardized. As a rapidly growing area of research, there is opportunity to standardize terminology for future ease of research, data synthesis, and communication. This review aimed to comprehensively evaluate the use of the terms "adjuvant" and "neoadjuvant" to describe pharmacotherapy used in combination with bariatric surgery and propose standardized terminology for future research. METHODS: Literature search was conducted systematically and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were published after 1999; were randomized controlled trials, prospective/retrospective cohort studies, or case series; and used human subjects that were adults at least 18 years of age. The use of the terms "neoadjuvant" and "adjuvant" was analyzed over time. RESULTS: Thirty-four publications were included. Thirty-two (94.1%) studied the use of adjuvant pharmacotherapy after bariatric surgery. Four (11.8%) studied the use of pharmacotherapy before bariatric surgery, and 1 used the term "neoadjuvant" to describe medications used before bariatric surgery. Eight publications used the term "adjuvant" to describe medications used after bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Standardized terminology is needed to ease future understanding, evidence synthesis, and dissemination of work. We propose that the terms "neoadjuvant" and "adjuvant" become the standard terminology to describe pharmacotherapy use before and after bariatric surgery, respectively.

Examining surgeon stress in robotic and laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic surgery may decrease surgeon stress compared to laparoscopic. To evaluate intraoperative surgeon stress, we measured salivary alpha-amylase and cortisol. We hypothesized robotic elicited lower increases in surgeon salivary amylase and cortisol than laparoscopic. Surgical faculty (n = 7) performing laparoscopic and robotic operations participated. Demographics: age, years in practice, time using laparoscopic vs robotic, comfort level and enthusiasm for each. Operative data included operative time, WRVU (surgical "effort"), resident year. Saliva was collected using passive drool collection system at beginning, middle and end of each case; amylase and cortisol measured using ELISA. Standard values were created using 7-minute exercise (HIIT), collecting saliva pre- and post-workout. Linear regression and Student's t test used for statistical analysis; p values < 0.05 were significant. Ninety-four cases (56 robotic, 38 laparoscopic) were collected (April-October 2022). Standardized change in amylase was 8.4 ± 4.5 (p < 0.001). Among operations, raw maximum amylase change in laparoscopic and robotic was 23.4 ± 11.5 and 22.2 ± 13.4; raw maximum cortisol change was 44.21 ± 46.57 and 53.21 ± 50.36, respectively. Values normalized to individual surgeon HIIT response, WRVU, and operative time, showing 40% decrease in amylase in robotic: 0.095 ± 0.12, vs laparoscopic: 0.164 ± 0.16 (p < 0.02). Normalized change in cortisol was: laparoscopic 0.30 ± 0.44, robotic 0.22 ± 0.4 (p = NS). On linear regression (p < 0.001), surgeons comfortable with complex laparoscopic cases had lower change in normalized amylase (p < 0.01); comfort with complex robotic was not significant. Robotic may be less physiologically stressful, eliciting less increase in salivary amylase than laparoscopic. Comfort with complex laparoscopic decreased stress in robotic, suggesting laparoscopic experience is valuable prior to robotic.

How Does Oversewing/Suturing (OS/S) Compare to Other Staple Line Reinforcement Methods? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Various staple line reinforcement (SLR) techniques in sleeve gastrectomy, including oversewing/suturing (OS/S), gluing, and buttressing, have emerged to mitigate postoperative complications such as bleeding and leaks. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has demonstrated OS/S as an efficacious strategy for preventing postoperative complications, encompassing leaks, bleeding, and reoperations. Given that OS/S is the sole SLR technique not incurring additional costs during surgery, our study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes associated with OS/S versus alternative SLR methods. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed the literature and conducted fifteen pairwise meta-analyses of comparative studies, each evaluating an outcome between OS/S and another SLR technique. Thirteen of these analyses showed no statistically significant differences, whereas two revealed notable distinctions.

A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication.

BACKGROUND METHODS: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). RESULTS: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. CONCLUSIONS: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

How I do it: robotic hiatal hernia repair with stapled conversion from Nissen to Toupet fundoplication.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a robotic surgical technique for converting a slipped Nissen fundoplication to a Toupet fundoplication. Our technique utilizes four 8 mm robotic ports placed in a horizontal pattern above the umbilicus. The robotic tools we used are a vessel sealer, bipolar forceps, and Cadière forceps. In addition, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is placed through the esophagus into the stomach to be used as a bougie. If a hernia is present, we dissect it from the mediastinum until the posterior confluence is identified. Next sutures from the previous Nissen fundoplication are identified and removed to mobilize the crus. All adhesions around the stomach are removed to mobilize the esophagus, ensuing 3 cm of intraabdominal esophagus is available. Using an EGD as a bougie, we used two interrupted, 0 silk suture over Teflon pledgets placed in a horizontal mattress fashion to close the hiatal defect. Using an endoscope, we identified the previous Nissen fundoplication and used a 60 mm blue load stapler to transect the wrap from the stomach. The 360° Nissen fundoplication had now been converted into a 270° Toupet fundoplication, which is confirmed with the EGD. The functionality of the wrap is confirmed if the "Stack of Coins" sign is present, and the wrap lies tight against the scope. A Nissen-to-Toupet fundoplication conversion using a robotic-assisted surgical technique may be useful in reducing reoperations and complications in patients undergoing fundoplication surgery.

Hernia repair in the bariatric patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Repair options for ventral hernias in bariatric patients include performing a staged approach in which bariatric surgery is performed before definitive hernia repair (BS-first), a staged approach in which hernia repair is performed before bariatric surgery (HR-first), or a concomitant approach. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aims to determine which surgical approach is best for bariatric patients with hernias. SETTING: PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase databases. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to screen for all studies that focused on outcomes of patients who underwent both hernia repair and bariatric surgery, either simultaneously or separately. Exclusion criteria included hiatal and inguinal hernia studies, case reports, and case series. RESULTS: 27 studies fit our inclusion criteria after identifying 1584 studies initially. Seven comparative studies were included, enrolling 8548 staged patients (6458 BS-first) and 3528 concomitant patients. A total of 7 single-arm staged studies and 13 single-arm concomitant studies were also included. Data on hernia recurrence, mesh infection, reoperation, surgical site infections, seroma, bowel complications, and mortality were abstracted. The concomitant approach was associated with decreased odds of experiencing surgical site infections, reoperation, and seromas. The staged approach (BS-first) was associated with decreased odds of mesh infection. The single-arm studies suggest a lower incidence of hernia recurrence in a staged BS-first approach than in a concomitant approach. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a concomitant approach is appropriate for hernias that the surgeon feels do not require mesh, while the staged (BS-first) approach is more appropriate if the hernia requires mesh placement.