Laparoscopic Heller myotomy with Toupet fundoplication: revisiting GERD in treated achalasia.

INTRODUCTION: With the advent of the laparoscopic era in the 1990s, laparoscopic Heller myotomy replaced pneumatic dilation as the first-line treatment for achalasia. An advantage of this approach was the addition of a fundoplication to reduce gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). More recently, Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy has competed for first-line therapy, but the postoperative GERD may be a weakness. This study leverages our experience to characterize GERD following LHM with Toupet fundoplication (LHM+T ) so that other treatments can be appropriately compared. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of adult patients with achalasia who underwent LHM+T from January 2012 to April 2022 was performed. We obtained routine 6-month postoperative pH studies and patient symptom questionnaires. Differences in questionnaires and reflux symptoms in relation to pH study were explored via Kruskal-Wallis test or chi-square tests. RESULTS: Of 170 patients who underwent LHM+T , 51 (30%) had postoperative pH testing and clinical symptoms evaluation. Eleven (22%) had an abnormal pH study; however, upon manual review, 5 of these (45.5%) demonstrated low-frequency, long-duration reflux events, suggesting poor esophageal clearance of gastric refluxate and 6/11 (54.5%) had typical reflux episodes. Of the cohort, 7 (15.6%) patients reported GERD symptoms. The median [IQR] severity was 1/10 [0, 3] and median [IQR] frequency was 0.5/4 [0, 1]. Patients with abnormal pH reported more GERD symptoms than patients with a normal pH study (3/6, 50% vs 5/39, 12.8%, p = 0.033). Those with a poor esophageal clearance pattern (n = 5) reported no concurrent GERD symptoms. CONCLUSION: The incidence of GERD burden after LHM+T is relatively low; however, the nuances relevant to accurate diagnosis in treated achalasia patients must be considered. Symptom correlation to abnormal pH study is unreliable making objective postoperative testing important. Furthermore, manual review of abnormal pH studies is necessary to distinguish GERD from poor esophageal clearance.

Laparoscopic prophylactic total gastrectomy with limited lymphadenectomy for CDH1 gene carriers.

BACKGROUND: CDH1 gene mutations are the leading etiology of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer with cumulative lifetime risk ranging up to 83%. Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) is, therefore, recommended for CDH1 carriers. A laparoscopic approach may reduce operative risk versus an open operation, thus leading more patients with CDH1 mutations to pursue PTG prior to cancer development. However, more experience and oncologic outcome data are needed for a laparoscopic approach and indicated lymphadenectomy. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive cohort study of adult patients with CDH1 mutations who underwent laparoscopic PTG with D1 lymphadenectomy between 2012 and 2022 was conducted at a single institution. All patients had preoperative EGD screening, and those with visible tumor lesions on surveillance EGD were excluded and not considered prophylactic. Demographics, family history, pathology, and operative course were obtained. Outcomes included complications, readmission, and postoperative weight change. RESULTS: Among 23 patients, median age was 48 years (IQR 37, 53) and 15 (65%) were female. Family history for gastric and/or lobular breast cancer was present in 22 (96%) patients. The median [IQR] time from positive genetic testing to PTG was 347 days [140, 625]. Pathologic evaluation showed five (22%) patients with foci of gastric cancer on pre-operative EGD biopsies, 10 (44%) in resected stomach specimens. All lymph nodes were negative. To address early postoperative complications, EJ anastomotic technique changed from EEA to GIA over the course of the study and feeding jejunostomy was no longer placed during PTG with minimal change in postoperative weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series, spanning 10 years at a single institution, dedicated solely to a laparoscopic approach for risk-reducing PTG. A laparoscopic approach with limited lymphadenectomy resulted in acceptable surgical and oncologic outcomes. Despite no visible cancer, over half of our patients had foci of early gastric cancer. Therefore, CDH1 carriers should consider laparoscopic PTG.

Type II hiatal hernias: do they exist or are they actually parahiatal hernias?

BACKGROUND: Type II hiatal hernias (HH) are characterized by a portion of the gastric fundus located above the esophageal hiatus adjacent to the esophagus while the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains fixed below the esophageal hiatus. This type of HH has been called the "true" paraesophageal hernia (PEH) because the fundus appears to the side of the esophagus. In our experience, Type II HHs are occasionally identified on radiographic testing, however they are rarely, if ever, confirmed intraoperatively. This led to our question: Does Type II HH exist? METHODS: We searched for evidence of type II HH in three locations: 1. Retrospective review of all first-time PEH repairs (excluding Type I HHs and re-operative cases) performed at the University of Washington Medical Center from 1994 to 2021; 2. Operative videos available on YouTube and WebSurg websites; and 3. Abstracts from the SAGES annual meetings from 2005 to 2021. RESULTS: We found no evidence of Type II HH in any of our three searches. We performed 846 PEH repairs: 760 Type III, 75 Type IV, and 11 parahiatal. Upon website video review, we found only one possible type II hernia, though it too was likely a para-hiatal hernia. No video or case presentations of a type II HH were identified within SAGES annual meeting abstracts. CONCLUSION: Type II HHs do not exist as they are currently defined. Although uncommon, parahiatal hernia can easily be misinterpreted as Type II HH. We should consider changing the hiatal hernia classification system to prevent ongoing clinical confusion.

The environmental impact of surgical telemedicine: life cycle assessment of virtual vs. in-person preoperative evaluations for benign foregut disease.

BACKGROUND: Health care accounts for almost 10% of the United States' greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for a loss of 470,000 disability-adjusted life years based on the health effects of climate change. Telemedicine has the potential to decrease health care's carbon footprint by reducing patient travel and clinic-related emissions. At our institution, telemedicine visits for evaluation of benign foregut disease were implemented for patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the environmental impact of telemedicine usage for these clinic encounters. METHODS: We used life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for an in-person and a telemedicine visit. For in-person visits, travel distances to clinic were retrospectively assessed from 2020 visits as a representative sample, and prospective data were gathered on materials and processes related to in-person clinic visits. Prospective data on the length of telemedicine encounters were collected and environmental impact was calculated for equipment and internet usage. Upper and lower bounds scenarios for emissions were generated for each type of visit. RESULTS: For in-person visits, 145 patient travel distances were recorded with a median [IQR] distance travel distance of 29.5 [13.7, 85.1] miles resulting in 38.22-39.61 carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCO2-eq) emitted. For telemedicine visits, the mean (SD) visit time was 40.6 (17.1) min. Telemedicine GHG emissions ranged from 2.26 to 2.99 kgCO2-eq depending on the device used. An in-person visit resulted in 25 times more GHG emissions compared to a telemedicine visit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine has the potential to decrease health care's carbon footprint. Policy changes to facilitate telemedicine use are needed, as well as increased awareness of potential disparities of and barriers to telemedicine use. Moving toward telemedicine preoperative evaluations in appropriate surgical populations is a purposeful step toward actively addressing our role in health care's large carbon footprint.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair with selective use of biologic mesh.

BACKGROUND: The use of biologic mesh in paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) has been associated with decreased short-term recurrence but no statistically significant difference in long-term recurrence. Because of this, we transitioned from routine to selective use of mesh for PEHR. The aim of this study was to examine our indications for selective mesh use and to evaluate patient outcomes in this population. METHODS: We queried a prospectively maintained database for patients who underwent laparoscopic PEHR with biologic mesh from October 2015 to October 2018, then performed a retrospective chart review. The decision to use mesh was made intraoperatively by the surgeon. Recurrence was defined as the presence of > 2 cm intrathoracic stomach on postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series. RESULTS: Mesh was used in 61/169 (36%) of first-time PEHRs, and in 47/82 (57%) of redo PEHRs. Among first-time PEHRs, the indications for mesh included hiatal tension (85%), poor crural tissue quality (11%), or both (5%). Radiographic recurrence occurred in 15% of first-time patients (symptomatic N = 2, asymptomatic N = 3). There were no reoperations for recurrence. Among redo PEHRs, the indication for mesh was most commonly the redo nature of the repair itself (55%), but also hiatal tension (51%), poor crural tissue quality (13%), or both (4%). Radiographic recurrence occurred in 21% of patients (symptomatic N = 4, asymptomatic N = 1). There was 1 reoperation for recurrence in the redo-repair group. CONCLUSIONS: We selectively use biologic mesh in a third of our first-time repair patients and in over half of our redo-repair patients when there is a perceived high risk of recurrence based on hiatal tension, poor tissue quality, or prior recurrence. Despite the high risk for radiologic recurrence, there was only 1 reoperation for recurrence in the entire cohort.

The impact of socioeconomic status on telemedicine utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic among surgical clinics at an academic tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused many surgical providers to conduct outpatient evaluations using remote audiovisual conferencing technology (i.e., telemedicine) for the first time in 2020. We describe our year-long institutional experience with telemedicine in several general surgery clinics at an academic tertiary care center and examine the relationship between area-based socioeconomic measures and the likelihood of telemedicine participation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our outpatient telemedicine utilization among four subspecialty clinics (including two acute care and two elective surgery clinics). Geocoding was used to link patient visit data to area-based socioeconomic measures and a multivariable analysis was performed to examine the relationship between socioeconomic indicators and patient participation in telemedicine. RESULTS: While total outpatient visits per month reached a nadir in April 2020 (65% decrease in patient visits when compared to January 2020), there was a sharp increase in telemedicine utilization during the same month (38% of all visits compared to 0.8% of all visits in the month prior). Higher rates of telemedicine utilization were observed in the two elective surgery clinics (61% and 54%) compared to the two acute care surgery clinics (14% and 9%). A multivariable analysis demonstrated a borderline-significant linear trend (p = 0.07) between decreasing socioeconomic status and decreasing odds of telemedicine participation among elective surgery visits. A sensitivity analysis to examine the reliability of this trend showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine has many patient-centered benefits, and this study demonstrates that for certain elective subspecialty clinics, telemedicine may be utilized as the preferred method for surgical consultations. However, to ensure the equitable adoption and advancement of telemedicine services, healthcare providers will need to focus on mitigating the socioeconomic barriers to telemedicine participation.

Viewer discretion advised: is YouTube a friend or foe in surgical education?

BACKGROUND: In the current era, trainees frequently use unvetted online resources for their own education, including viewing surgical videos on YouTube. While operative videos are an important resource in surgical education, YouTube content is not selected or organized by quality but instead is ranked by popularity and other factors. This creates a potential for videos that feature poor technique or critical safety violations to become the most viewed for a given procedure. METHODS: A YouTube search for "Laparoscopic cholecystectomy" was performed. Search results were screened to exclude animations and lectures; the top ten operative videos were evaluated. Three reviewers independently analyzed each of the 10 videos. Technical skill was rated using the GOALS score. Establishment of a critical view of safety (CVS) was scored according to CVS "doublet view" score, where a score of ≥5 points (out of 6) is considered satisfactory. Videos were also screened for safety concerns not listed by the previous tools. RESULTS: Median competence score was 8 (±1.76) and difficulty was 2 (±1.8). GOALS score median was 18 (±3.4). Only one video achieved adequate critical view of safety; median CVS score was 2 (range 0-6). Five videos were noted to have other potentially dangerous safety violations, including placing hot ultrasonic shears on the duodenum, non-clipping of the cystic artery, blind dissection in the hepatocystic triangle, and damage to the liver capsule. CONCLUSIONS: Top ranked laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos on YouTube show suboptimal technique with half of videos demonstrating concerning maneuvers and only one in ten having an adequate critical view of safety. While observing operative videos can be an important learning tool, surgical educators should be aware of the low quality of popular videos on YouTube. Dissemination of high-quality content on video sharing platforms should be a priority for surgical societies.

Esophageal sphincter device for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease who have a partial response to proton-pump inhibitors often seek alternative therapy. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of a new magnetic device to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. METHODS: We prospectively assessed 100 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease before and after sphincter augmentation. The study did not include a concurrent control group. The primary outcome measure was normalization of esophageal acid exposure or a 50% or greater reduction in exposure at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were 50% or greater improvement in quality of life related to gastroesophageal reflux disease and a 50% or greater reduction in the use of proton-pump inhibitors at 1 year. For each outcome, the prespecified definition of successful treatment was achievement of the outcome in at least 60% of the patients. The 3-year results of a 5-year study are reported. RESULTS: The primary outcome was achieved in 64% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 54 to 73). For the secondary outcomes, a reduction of 50% or more in the use of proton-pump inhibitors occurred in 93% of patients, and there was improvement of 50% or more in quality-of-life scores in 92%, as compared with scores for patients assessed at baseline while they were not taking proton-pump inhibitors. The most frequent adverse event was dysphagia (in 68% of patients postoperatively, in 11% at 1 year, and in 4% at 3 years). Serious adverse events occurred in six patients, and in six patients the device was removed. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-group evaluation of 100 patients before and after sphincter augmentation with a magnetic device, exposure to esophageal acid decreased, reflux symptoms improved, and use of proton-pump inhibitors decreased. Follow-up studies are needed to assess long-term safety. (Funded by Torax Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00776997.).

Efficacy of transoral fundoplication vs omeprazole for treatment of regurgitation in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Transoral esophagogastric fundoplication (TF) can decrease or eliminate features of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in some patients whose symptoms persist despite proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. We performed a prospective, sham-controlled trial to determine if TF reduced troublesome regurgitation to a greater extent than PPIs in patients with GERD. METHODS: We screened 696 patients with troublesome regurgitation despite daily PPI use with 3 validated GERD-specific symptom scales, on and off PPIs. Those with at least troublesome regurgitation (based on the Montreal definition) on PPIs underwent barium swallow, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 48-hour esophageal pH monitoring (off PPIs), and high-resolution esophageal manometry analyses. Patients with GERD and hiatal hernias ≤2 cm were randomly assigned to groups that underwent TF and then received 6 months of placebo (n = 87), or sham surgery and 6 months of once- or twice-daily omeprazole (controls, n = 42). Patients were blinded to therapy during follow-up period and reassessed at 2, 12, and 26 weeks. At 6 months, patients underwent 48-hour esophageal pH monitoring and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. RESULTS: By intention-to-treat analysis, TF eliminated troublesome regurgitation in a larger proportion of patients (67%) than PPIs (45%) (P = .023). A larger proportion of controls had no response at 3 months (36%) than subjects that received TF (11%; P = .004). Control of esophageal pH improved after TF (mean 9.3% before and 6.3% after; P < .001), but not after sham surgery (mean 8.6% before and 8.9% after). Subjects from both groups who completed the protocol had similar reductions in GERD symptom scores. Severe complications were rare (3 subjects receiving TF and 1 receiving the sham surgery). CONCLUSIONS: TF was an effective treatment for patients with GERD symptoms, particularly in those with persistent regurgitation despite PPI therapy, based on evaluation 6 months after the procedure. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT01136980.

Long-term Outcomes of Patients Receiving a Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation Device for Gastroesophageal Reflux.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Based on results from year 2 of a 5-year trial, in 2012 the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a magnetic device to augment lower esophageal sphincter function in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We report the final results of 5 years of follow-up evaluation of patients who received this device. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of the safety and efficacy of a magnetic device in 100 adults with GERD for 6 months or more, who were partially responsive to daily proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and had evidence of pathologic esophageal acid exposure, at 14 centers in the United States and The Netherlands. The magnetic device was placed using standard laparoscopic tools and techniques. Eighty-five subjects were followed up for 5 years to evaluate quality of life, reflux control, use of PPIs, and side effects. The GERD-health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire was administered at baseline to patients on and off PPIs, and after placement of the device; patients served as their own controls. A partial response to PPIs was defined as a GERD-HRQL score of 10 or less on PPIs and a score of 15 or higher off PPIs, or a 6-point or more improvement when scores on vs off PPI were compared. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period, no device erosions, migrations, or malfunctions occurred. At baseline, the median GERD-HRQL scores were 27 in patients not taking PPIs and 11 in patients on PPIs; 5 years after device placement this score decreased to 4. All patients used PPIs at baseline; this value decreased to 15.3% at 5 years. Moderate or severe regurgitation occurred in 57% of subjects at baseline, but only 1.2% at 5 years. All patients reported the ability to belch and vomit if needed. Bothersome dysphagia was present in 5% at baseline and in 6% at 5 years. Bothersome gas-bloat was present in 52% at baseline and decreased to 8.3% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter with a magnetic device provides significant and sustained control of reflux, with minimal side effects or complications. No new safety risks emerged over a 5-year follow-up period. These findings validate the long-term safety and efficacy of the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for patients with GERD. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00776997.

Proton therapy posterior beam approach with pencil beam scanning for esophageal cancer : Clinical outcome, dosimetry, and feasibility.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy. METHODS: From February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V20; 10 vs. 17 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Proton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.

The use of crural relaxing incisions with biologic mesh reinforcement during laparoscopic repair of complex hiatal hernias.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair has a better chance of success if the hiatus is closed without tension. This study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of hiatal hernia recurrence in patients who undergo hiatal closure with diaphragmatic relaxing incisions? (2) Can biologic mesh be safely substituted for synthetic mesh as coverage of the relaxing incisions? METHODS: We identified all patients who underwent laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair at our institution between 2007 and 2013 and reviewed their clinical records. Radiologic recurrence was identified by an experienced radiologist and defined as the presence of any abdominal contents located above the diaphragm on esophagram. Clinical recurrence was defined as little or no improvement in symptoms, the development of a new symptom, or the need for medical, endoscopic, or surgical treatment of postoperative symptoms. RESULTS: A minimum of 6 months of radiologic and clinical follow-up was available for 146 (40 %) patients, including 16 with relaxing incisions. There were 66 (45 %) recurrent hernias detected on esophagram. There was no difference in the rate of recurrent hiatal hernia among the three groups: Primary closure of the hiatus (21/36 [58 %]), primary closure with biologic mesh reinforcement (36/94 [38 %]), and relaxing incision with biologic mesh reinforcement (9/16 [56 %]; p = 0.428). Two reoperations were performed on patients who underwent left relaxing incisions and developed symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias through the left relaxing incisions. There were no complications associated with use of biologic mesh at the hiatus. CONCLUSIONS: Rate of recurrent hiatal hernia is similar between patients who undergo diaphragmatic relaxing incisions and patients who undergo primary hiatal closure. Relaxing incisions can be safely performed on either crus; however, biologic mesh should not be used to patch a left-sided relaxing incision due to the risk of developing a diaphragmatic hernia.

Reducing Conduit Ischemia and Anastomotic Leaks in Transhiatal Esophagectomy: Six Principles.

BACKGROUND: Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) is an accepted approach for distal esophageal (DE) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Its reported weaknesses are limited loco-regional resection and high anastomotic leak rates. We have used laparoscopic assistance to perform a THE (LapTHE) as our preferred method of resection for GEJ and DE cancers for over 20 years. Our unique approach and experience may provide technical insights and perhaps superior outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent LapTHE for DE and GEJ malignancy over 10 years (2011-2020). We included 6 principles in our approach: (1) minimize dissection trauma using laparoscopy; (2) routine Kocher maneuver; (3) division of lesser sac adhesions exposing the entire gastroepiploic arcade; (4) gaining excess conduit mobility, allowing resection of proximal stomach, and performing the anastomosis with a well perfused stomach; (5) stapled side-to-side anastomosis; and (6) routine feeding jejunostomy and early oral diet. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the analysis. The median number of lymph nodes procured was 19 (range 5-49). Negative margins were achieved in all cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 98-100%). Median hospital stay was 7 days. Overall major complication rate was 24% (17-32%), 90-day mortality was 2.0% (0.4-5.8%), and reoperation was 5.4% (2.4-10%). Three patients (2.0%, 0.4-5.8%) developed anastomotic leaks. Median follow-up was 901 days (range 52-5240). Nine patients (6.1%, 2.8-11%) developed anastomotic strictures. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of LapTHE for DE and GEJ cancers and inclusion of these six operative principles allow for a low rate of anastomotic complications relative to national benchmarks.

Esophageal Motility Patterns in Paraesophageal Hernia Patients Compared to Sliding Hiatal Hernia: Bigger Is Not Better.

BACKGROUND: In patients with paraesophageal hernias (PEH), the course of the esophagus is often altered, which may affect esophageal motility. High-resolution manometry (HRM) is frequently used to evaluate esophageal motor function prior to PEH repair. This study was performed to characterize esophageal motility disorders in patients with PEH as compared to sliding hiatal hernia and to determine how these findings affect operative decision-making. METHODS: Patients referred for HRM to a single institution from 2015 to 2019 were included in a prospectively maintained database. HRM studies were analyzed for the appearance of any esophageal motility disorder using the Chicago classification. PEH patients had confirmation of their diagnosis at the time of surgery, and the type of fundoplication performed was recorded. They were case-matched based on sex, age, and BMI to patients with sliding hiatal hernia who were referred for HRM in the same period. RESULTS: There were 306 patients diagnosed with a PEH who underwent repair. When compared to case-matched sliding hiatal hernia patients, PEH patients had higher rates of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) (p<.001) and lower rates of absent peristalsis (p=.048). Of those with ineffective motility (n=70), 41 (59%) had a partial or no fundoplication performed during PEH repair. CONCLUSION: PEH patients had higher rates of IEM compared to controls, possibly due to a chronically distorted esophageal lumen. Offering the appropriate operation hinges on understanding the involved anatomy and esophageal function of each individual. HRM is important to obtain preoperatively for optimizing patient and procedure selection in PEH repair.

A broad assessment of clinical outcomes after laparoscopic antireflux surgery.

OBJECTIVES: There is considerable discussion regarding "success" rates for laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS). We hypothesized that, in part, this was a reflection of the outcome variables used. We, therefore, defined 8 specific variables (within 3 categories) and assessed outcomes for each in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Four hundred patients (208 women; median age 52 years old) who underwent LARS at the University of Washington from 1993 to 2008 were given a comprehensive questionnaire to assess various aspects of their outcomes from LARS. In addition, we analyzed all functional studies and all endoscopies performed in these patients in our institution, whether the patients had symptoms or not, and compared the findings to all available preoperative values. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 92 (6-175) months. CONCLUSIONS: The success or failure of LARS cannot be defined in a single domain. A comprehensive analysis of outcomes requires categorization that includes symptom response, side-effects, patient's perception and objective measurement of acid exposure, mucosal integrity, and the need for additional medical or surgical treatment. Only then can patients and physicians better understand the role of LARS and make informed decisions.

Comprehensive evaluation of endoscopic fundoplication using the EsophyX™ device.

BACKGROUND: There are limited studies that evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic fundoplication (EF) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with the EsophyX™ device, especially with the most recent procedural iteration (TIF-2). This study was a prospective evaluation of our early experience with this device and procedure. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on 23 consecutive patients undergoing EF (March 2009 to August 2010). All patients completed a symptom questionnaire assessing frequency and severity of gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms, 24-h pH, and manometry studies preoperatively and were encouraged to repeat these at 6 months. RESULTS: All patients had abnormal pH studies and were on proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy prior to EF. Median age was 47 years (19-62 years), and six (23%) were male. Nine (41%) patients had Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2), and three (14%) had a small hiatal hernia (≤ 2 cm). The procedure was aborted in two patients for retained food. Three patients underwent subsequent laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for persistent or recurrent symptoms. Median hospitalization was 1 day, and there were no major perioperative complications. At 6 month follow-up, 19 (86%) patients completed a symptom questionnaire, and 14 (64%) and 11 (50%) patients underwent pH and manometry studies, respectively. There was a significant reduction in heartburn (P = 0.02), total percentage acid contact time (P = 0.002), DeMeester score (P = 0.002), and PPI use (P = 0.003). Overall, 8 out of 14 (57%) patients had abnormal pH studies and 11 out of 19 (58%) remained on PPI therapy at 6 months. CONCLUSION: EF with EsophyX™ is associated with significant reduction in heartburn and abnormal acid exposure at 6 months, although the majority of patients did not experience normalization of their pH studies and remained on PPI therapy. The procedure has an acceptable safety profile, but the question remains as to whether it is effective enough to warrant a place in the armamentarium for the treatment of GERD.

The safety of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernia.

BACKGROUND: Biologic mesh is widely used for repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias. Recently, there have been reports of complications after its implantation. We studied the course of a large group of patients who had undergone hiatal hernia repair with use of biologic mesh to determine the rate of immediate and late complications related to its use. METHODS: All patients who had biologic mesh placed at the hiatus and who had been followed for at least 1 year were included. Perioperative data were reviewed, and a questionnaire was administered, designed to identify symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, other symptoms such as dysphagia, and all other operative or endoscopic interventions that occurred after mesh implantation. In addition, postoperative radiologic and endoscopic studies were reviewed to assess signs of complications related to use of mesh. RESULTS: There were 126 patients eligible for the study. We were able to contact 73 of these patients, at median follow-up of 45 months. No mesh-related complications were found. The frequency and severity of heartburn, regurgitation, and dysphagia improved significantly compared with preoperative values, and 89% of the patients reported good to excellent results in terms of overall satisfaction. Six patients recorded worsening of dysphagia postoperatively, but after careful work-up and review of each individual case, no case seemed to be directly related to the mesh. No erosions, strictures, or other complications directly related to use of mesh were found. One patient required reoperation due to hiatal hernia recurrence with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Use of biologic mesh for laparoscopic repair of large, complicated hiatal hernias appears safe. There were no major complications related to the mesh, and overall satisfaction with the operation was very good.

Management of Recurrent Paraesophageal Hernia.

Introduction: Recurrent paraesophageal hernias (rPEH) represent a clinical and surgical challenge. Even with a relatively high incidence, most of them are minimally symptomatic, and the need for reoperation is low. For those patients who are candidates for surgery, laparoscopic revision is a feasible and safe technique although there are other treatment options available. Methods: This article provides an overview of the definition, mechanisms of recurrence, epidemiology, clinical presentation, and indications for treatment of rPEH, as well as an overview of the surgical management options and a description of the technical principles of the repair and/or resection. Results: Surgeons should consider multiple factors when deciding the appropriate treatment of patients with rPEH, and all of them require a complete and comprehensive evaluation. The surgical options need to be individualized and include a redo PEH repair and revisional fundoplication, a partial or total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction, or an esophagectomy. There are key steps during the surgical repair that contribute to a successful operation and also auxiliary techniques that can improve postoperative outcomes. After laparoscopic redo most patients have improvement of their symptoms and an acceptable rate of perioperative complications when they are performed by experienced foregut surgeons. In obese patients with rPEH, bariatric surgery can be the best treatment option. Conclusions: Laparoscopic reoperative management should be considered in symptomatic patients who are not controlled with maximal nonoperative therapy, after a thorough work-up and appropriate counseling. In cases with multiple hernia repairs, it is important to consider alternative operations.

Use and Safety of Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy for Achalasia in the US.

Importance: Several professional practice guidelines recommend per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) as a potential first-line therapy for the management of achalasia, yet payers remain hesitant to reimburse for the procedure owing to unanswered questions regarding safety. Objective: To evaluate the use, safety, health care utilization, and costs associated with the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia relative to laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and pneumatic dilation (PD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective national cohort study of commercially insured patients, aged 18 to 63 years, who underwent index intervention for achalasia with either LHM, PD, or POEM in the US between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. Patient data were obtained from a national commercial claims database. Included in the study were patients with at least 12 months of enrollment after index treatment and a minimum of 6 months of continuous enrollment before their index procedure. Patients 64 years or older were excluded to avoid underestimation of health care claims from enrollment in Medicare supplemental insurance. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in the proportion of annual procedures performed for achalasia were evaluated over time. The frequency of severe procedure-related adverse events, including perforation, pneumothorax, bleeding, and death, were compared. Negative binomial regression was used to compare the incidence rates of subsequent diagnostic testing, reintervention, and unplanned hospitalization. Generalized linear models were used to compare differences in 1-year health-related expenditures across procedures. Results: This cohort study included a total of 1921 patients (median [IQR] age: LHM group, 48 [37-56] years; 737 men [51%]; PD group, 51 [41-58] years; 168 men [52%]; POEM group, 50 [40-57] years; 80 men [56%]). The use of POEM increased 19-fold over the study period, from 1.1% (95% CI, 0.2%-3.2%) of procedures in 2010 to 18.9% in 2017 (95% CI, 13.6%-25.3%; P = .01). Adverse events were rare and did not differ between procedures. Compared with LHM, POEM was associated with more subsequent diagnostic testing (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.6) and reinterventions (IRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3). When compared with PD, POEM was associated with more subsequent diagnostic testing (IRR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8) but fewer reinterventions (IRR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6). The total 1-year health care costs were similar between POEM and LHM, but significantly lower for PD (mean cost difference, $7674; 95% CI, $657-$14 692). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that POEM was associated with higher health care utilization compared with LHM and lower subsequent health care utilization but higher costs compared with PD. The use of POEM is increasing rapidly; payers should recognize the totality of evidence and current treatment guidelines as they consider reimbursement for POEM. Patients should be informed of the trade-offs between approaches when considering treatment.

Video. Laparoscopic repair of congenital bilateral Morgagni hernia.

Morgagni hernia is a rare type of congenital diaphragmatic hernia found in the anterior aspect of the diaphragm. It typically presents in the pediatric population and rarely is diagnosed in adults. Only 3% of diaphragmatic hernias are the Morgagni type, and only 4% of these are found to present bilaterally. Surgical repair of Morgagni hernia has been performed through various approaches including open, laparoscopic, thoracotomy, and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), all with and without mesh. The optimal method of surgical repair is not known due to the rarity of this condition and the limitations of setting up a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate the different methods. Laparoscopic repair with mesh has been described with good short-term results. Few case reports exist in the world literature describing laparoscopic repair of a bilateral Morgagni hernia with mesh. At the University of Washington, the authors present a video showing their technique for laparoscopic repair of a congenital, bilateral Morgagni type hernia with mesh.