Search

Background: Acute incarcerated paraesophageal hernias (PEH) have historically been considered a surgical emergency. Emergent operations have a higher rate of morbidity and mortality compared to elective surgery. Our institution has adopted a strategy of initial conservative management in patients presenting with acute obstruction from an incarcerated PEH who are clinically stable. Patients are given at least 24 h for their symptoms to improve (selective nasogastric decompression). If symptoms resolve, contrast on an upper GI study passes to the small bowel, and liquids are tolerated, patients are discharged with planned interval repair. We sought to characterize the outcomes of this interval surgical strategy for incarcerated PEH. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients admitted to a single institution between October 2019 and September 2023 with an incarcerated PEH. Patients taken directly to surgery within 24 h were excluded. Results: A total of 45 patients admitted with obstruction from an incarcerated PEH were identified. Ten patients (22%) were taken urgently to surgery due to clinical instability and were excluded. Of the remaining 35 patients, 23 (66%) resolved their obstruction with conservative non-operative management and were offered planned interval PEH repair (successful conservative management). In the successful conservative management cohort, there was one unplanned readmission before interval PEH repair. Average time between discharge and repair was 25 days. Complication rates did not differ in those who failed and in those who had a successful conservative management result. The cumulative length of stay for those who succeeded in conservative management (including days for the interval surgery) was equivalent with those who underwent PEH repair during the index admission. Conclusion: A trial of conservative management in clinically stable patients with symptomatic incarcerated PEH appears to be safe and often avoids emergent repair without increasing perioperative complications or total days in the hospital.

Abstract: Background: Computer-based, virtual-reality laparoscopic surgical simulators have several advantages over traditional video trainers. One of these advantages is that performance can be evaluated using unique computer-derived metrics, which can be digitally archived for analysis at a time convenient to instructors. This study sought to determine whether the computer-derived metrics for a unique hybrid simulator correlated with laparoscopic surgical skill. Methods: For this study, 24 medical students (3rd year), 19 surgical residents (postgraduate years 1–5), and 3 attending surgeons were invited to perform four different tasks three times in a hybrid laparoscopic trainer (ProMIS). Instruction with minimal supervision occurred at a time convenient to each subject. The four tasks in order of complexity were laparoscopic orientation, object positioning, sharp dissection, and intracorporeal knot tying. The metrics automatically recorded were time, path length, and smoothness. The laparoscopic operative experience for each user was quantified using case logs. Results: A statistically significant correlation was observed between experience and performance for all three metrics for tasks 2 to 4 (p < 0.01). Smoothness was the only metric that correlated with the laparoscopic orientation task. Within tasks, time and smoothness correlated much more strongly with experience and to a similar degree. The strongest correlation was observed for the knot-tying task (r 2 = 0.60 for time and 0.59 smoothness). Conclusions: The computer-derived metrics measured by the hybrid trainer correlate with laparoscopic experience. These metrics are automatically calculated and stored. This may make skills assessment and training a more time-efficient endeavor for instructors and trainees alike. Further study is necessary to determine whether specific metrics are better indicators of actual skill.

Introduction: Obesity is an increasingly prevalent public health problem often associated with poorly controlled gastroesophageal reflux disease. Fundoplication has been shown to have limited long-term efficacy in patients with morbid obesity and does not address additional weight-related co-morbidities. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the gold standard operation for durable resolution of GERD in patients with obesity, and is also used as a salvage operation for GERD after prior foregut surgery. Surgeons report access to RYGB as surgical treatment for GERD is often limited by RYGB-specific benefit exclusions embedded within insurance policies, but the magnitude and scope of this problem is unknown. Methods: A 9-item survey evaluating surgeon practice and experience with insurance coverage for RYGB for GERD was developed and piloted by a SAGES Foregut Taskforce working group. This survey was then administered to surgeon members of the SAGES Foregut Taskforce and to surgeons participating in the SAGES Bariatrics and/or Foregut Facebook groups. Results: 187 surgeons completed the survey. 89% reported using the RYGB as an anti-reflux procedure. 44% and 26% used a BMI of 35 kg/m2and 30 kg/m2respectively as cutoff for the RYGB. 89% viewed RYGB as the procedure of choice for GERD after bariatric surgery. 69% reported using RYGB to address recurrent reflux secondary to failed fundoplication. 74% of responders experienced trouble with insurance coverage at least half the time RYGB was offered for GERD, and 8% reported they were never able to get approval for RYGB for GERD indications in their patient populations. Conclusion: For many patients, GERD and obesity are related diseases that are best addressed with RYGB. However, insurance coverage for RYGB for GERD is often limited by policies which run contrary to evidence-based medicine. Advocacy is critical to improve access to appropriate surgical care for GERD in patients with obesity.

Background: Routine opioid use in surgical patients has received attention given the opioid epidemic and a renewed focus on the dangers and drawbacks of opioids in the postoperative setting. Little is known about opioid use in bariatric surgery, especially in the inpatient setting. We hypothesize that a standardized opioid-sparing protocol reduces postoperative inpatient opioid use in bariatric surgery patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of bariatric surgery patients at a single institution. From March to September 2019, a standardized intraoperative and postoperative opioid-sparing protocol was designed and implemented along with an educational program for patients regarding safe pain management. Inpatient opioid utilization in patients undergoing surgery in the preintervention phase between April and March 2019 was compared to patients from a postintervention phase of October 2019 to December 2020. Opioid utilization was measured in morphine milliequivalents (MME). Results: A total of 359 patients were included; 192 preintervention and 167 postintervention. Patients were similar demographically. For all patients, mean age was 44.1 years, mean BMI 49.2 kg/m2, and 80% were female. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was performed in 48%, laparoscopic gastric bypass in 34%, robotic sleeve gastrectomy in 17%, and robotic gastric bypass in 1%. In the postintervention phase inpatient opioid utilization was significantly lower [median 134.8 [79.0–240.8] MME preintervention vs. 61.5 [35.5–150.0] MME postintervention (p&lt; 0.001)]. MME prescribed at discharge decreased from a median of 300 MME preintervention to 75 MME postintervention (p&lt; 0.001). In the postintervention phase, 16% of patients did not receive an opioid prescription at discharge compared to 0% preintervention (p&lt; 0.001). When examining by procedure, statistically significant reductions in opioid utilization were seen for each operation. Conclusion: Implementation of a standardized intraoperative and postoperative multimodal pain regimen and educational program significantly reduces inpatient opioid utilization in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Graphical abstract:

Background: The da Vinciskills simulation curriculum has been validated in the literature. The updated simulator, SimNow, features restructured exercises that have not been formally validated. The purpose of this study is to validate the SimNowresident robotic basic simulation curriculum. This study also consists of a qualitative assessment that gives greater insight into the learner’s experience completing the robotic curriculum. Methods: There were 18 participants in this study: 6 novices, 6 competent surgeons, and 6 expert surgeons. The curriculum comprised 5 exercises; participants completed three consecutive scored trials. Computer-derived performance metrics were recorded. The NASA Task Load Index survey was used to assess subjective mental workload. Subjects were asked a series of open-ended questions regarding their experience that were recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified using an inductive method, and themes were generated. Results: Performance metrics were significantly different between novice versus competent and expert surgeons. There was no significant difference in any score metric between competent and expert surgeons. On average, overall score percentages for competent and expert surgeons were between 90.4 and 92.8% versus 70.5% for novices (p= 0.02 and p= 0.01). Expert surgeons perceived a higher level of performance completing the exercises than novice surgeons (15.8 vs. 45.8, p= 0.02). Participants noted a similar robotic experience, utilizing efficiency of motion and visual field skills. Participants agreed on exercise strengths, exercise weaknesses, and software limitations. Competent and expert surgeons were better able to assess the exercises’ clinical application. Conclusions: The SimNowcurriculum is a valid simulation training as part of a general surgery resident robotic curriculum. The curriculum distinguishes between novices compared to competent and expert surgeons, but not between competent and expert surgeons. Clinical training level does not affect the experience and mental workload using the robotic simulator, except for competent and expert surgeons’ ability to better assess clinical application. Graphical abstract:

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. Methods: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. Results: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. Conclusion: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon–patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

Background: Frailty is a measure of physiologic reserve and correlates with surgical outcomes in the elderly. Patients who present with giant paraesophageal hernias (PEH) are typically older than 65. We defined ‘giant’ as a PEH with 50% or more of the stomach in the chest. We hypothesized that frailty correlates with 30-day complications, length of stay, and discharge destination following laparoscopic giant PEH repair. Methods: Patients older than 65 to undergo primary laparoscopic repair of a giant PEH at a single academic medical center between 2015 and 2022 were included. Hernia size was determined by preoperative imaging. Frailty was assessed clinically prior to surgery using the modified Frailty Index (mFI), an 11-item instrument that counts clinical deficits associated with frailty. A score ≥ 3 was considered frail. A major complication was a Clavien grade IIIB or higher. Results: Of the 162 patients included in the study, mean age was 74.4 ± 7.2, and 66% of patients were female (n= 128). The mFI was ≥ 3 in 37 patients (22.8%). Frail patients were older (78 ± 7.9 vs. 73 ± 6.6 years, p= 0.02). There was no difference in overall complication rate (40.5% vs. 29.6%, p= 0.22) or major complication rate (8.1% vs. 4.8%, p= 0.20) between frail and non-frail patients. Functionally impaired patients (METS &lt; 4) were more likely to develop a major complication (17.9% vs. 3.0%, p&lt; 0.01). Average length of stay was 2.4 days, and frail patients experienced a longer mean hospital stay (2.5 ± 0.2 vs. 2.3 ± 1.8, p= 0.03). Frail patients were more likely to be discharged to a destination other than home. Conclusion: Increased frailty as assessed by the mFI is correlated with length of stay and discharge destination following laparoscopic repair of giant PEH in patients > 65. Complication rates were comparable for both frail and non-frail cohorts.

Introduction: Hiatal hernia recurrence following surgical repair is common. We sought to define the most common anatomic location and mechanism for hiatal failure to inform technical strategies to decrease recurrence rates. Methods: Retrospective chart review and video analysis were performed for all recurrent hiatal hernia operations performed by a single surgeon between January 2013 and April 2020. Hiatal recurrences were defined by anatomic quadrants. Recurrences on both left and right on either the anterior or posterior portion of the hiatus were simply classified as ‘anterior’ or ‘posterior’, respectively. Three or more quadrants were defined as circumferential. Mechanism of recurrence was defined as disruption of the previous repair or dilation of the hiatus. Results: There were 130 patients to meet criteria. Median time to reoperation from previous hiatal repair was 60 months (IQR19.5–132). First-time recurrent repairs accounted for 74%, second time 18%, and three or more previous repairs for 8% of analyzed procedures. Mesh had been placed at the hiatus in a previous operation in 16%. All reoperative cases were completed laparoscopically. Video analysis revealed anterior recurrences were most common (67%), followed by circumferential (29%). There were two with left-anterior recurrence (1.5%), two posterior recurrence (1.5%), and one right-sided recurrence. The mechanism of recurrence was dilation in 74% and disruption in 26%. Disruption as a mechanism was most common in circumferential hiatal failures. Neither the prior number of hiatal surgeries nor the presence of mesh at the time of reoperation correlated with anatomic recurrence location or mechanism. Reoperations in patients with hiatal disruption occurred after a shorter interval when compared to hiatal dilation. Conclusion: The most common location and mechanism for hiatal hernia recurrence is anterior dilation of the hiatus. Outcomes following techniques designed to reinforce the anterior hiatus and perhaps to prevent hiatal dilation should be explored.

Background: Evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate amount of opioid medications to prescribe following bariatric surgery are lacking. We sought to determine our current opioid-prescribing practices, patient utilization, and satisfaction with pain control following elective bariatric surgery. Methods: A retrospective chart review and phone survey were conducted on patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) from April 2018 to March 2019 at a single academic medical center. Opioid medications were converted to morphine milligram equivalents provided (MMEs). Results: In total, 192 patients met inclusion criteria. The median amount of opioid medication prescribed on discharge was 300 oral MMEs, although there was a significant difference between the MMEs prescribed to patients with and without chronic opioid therapy (median 300 MMEs opioid naïve vs. 375 MMEs chronic opioid therapy, p= 0.01). Significantly fewer SG patients required a refill of their opioid medication compared to RYGB (8.3% vs. 23.9%, p= 0.003). Of the 192 patients, 87 (45.3%) completed the phone survey. Fifty-six patients (64%) reported that they took half or less of the initially prescribed opioids. Of the patients with leftover medication, 36% reported that they did not dispose of the medication. Overall understanding of pain control options after surgery was significantly lower in patients who felt they were prescribed “too little” opioids (p= 0.01), patients requiring refills (p= 0.02), and patients who were not satisfied with their pain control (p= 0.02). Conclusion: There is a gap between the amount of opioid medication prescribed and taken by patients following bariatric surgery in our practice. Patients who were least satisfied with their pain control reported knowledge gaps about pain control options that were more significant than patients who were more satisfied. Future initiatives should focus on the reduction of opioids prescribed to bariatric surgery patients post-operatively and on opioid education for patients.

Introduction: The Endoluminal Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (Endoflip™) is a balloon-based catheter that provides real-time, objective feedback regarding the distensibility of any sphincter in the gastrointestinal tract. Usage of the Functional Lumen Imaging Probe (FLIP) has not been standardized, which has limited the interpretation and generalizability of published data. The purpose of this consensus statement is to provide a standardized protocol for obtaining FLIP measurements in order to create a more uniform approach to data collection. Methods: Five expert foregut surgeons, all of whom utilize the FLIP system in their daily practice, convened on March 19, 2019, to create a standardized protocol for obtaining FLIP measurements during hiatal hernia repair and fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. Existing literature was presented and reviewed. Each step of the protocol was discussed in detail until a unanimous consensus was reached. Results: A standardized protocol was developed for obtaining FLIP measurements during hiatal hernia repair and fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. Conclusion: The FLIP impedance planimetry system is the only technology available that provides surgeons an objective way to assess the tightness of a fundoplication or adequacy of a myotomy during an operation. While considerable research remains to correlate FLIP measurements to patient outcomes, this consensus statement will provide standardization of data collection among FLIP users that will enhance the understanding of future study results.

Background: Laparoscopic fundoplication is the current gold standard for medically refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease. Over a 10-year period following surgery, 5–10% of primary laparoscopic fundoplication patients undergo reoperative surgery. Our objective was to compare the symptomatic outcomes and morbidity of primary and reoperative fundoplication procedures. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic primary or reoperative fundoplication between 2011 and 2017. A single surgeon with a more than 10-year experience in reoperative foregut surgery performed all procedures. Patients in both groups completed the GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) survey prior to surgery and postoperatively. Outcomes were reflected by the composite GERD-HRQL scores (0 to 50, with lower scores representing a better GERD-related quality of life), which were compared between groups postoperatively. Demographics, perioperative data, and complications were compared. Patient data were analyzed using Chi-Square tests and outcomes were analyzed using independent samples ttests and Mann–Whitney Utests. Results: There were 136 primary and 82 reoperative fundoplications. Prior to surgery, GERD-HRQL scores were similar for primary and reoperative patients. Both groups experienced significant improvement in GERD-related quality of life at 2 years, although this improvement was greater in primary patients (8.7?±?7.8 primary vs. 14.3?±?13.6 reoperative, p?=?0.02). Operative time and length of stay were longer following reoperative cases. The rate of moderate to severe 30-day complications requiring radiologic, endoscopic, or surgical intervention was similar (2.9% primary vs. 1.2% reoperative, p?=?0.65). Conclusions: Patients who undergo reoperative fundoplication experience a significant improvement in their GERD-related symptoms, although not to the degree seen in primary antireflux surgery patients. Perioperative morbidity rates following reoperative and primary procedures can be similar in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

Introduction: The evaluation and treatment of post-operative nausea in bariatric surgery patients has not been standardized. In this patient population, nausea can have a significant impact on quality outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to determine the impact of nausea on post-operative outcomes in bariatric surgery patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients who underwent a primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2014 and 2017 at a single institution. Patients with post-operative nausea were identified. Post-operative nausea was defined as patients who had nausea that was documented by multiple providers, and which interfered with their oral intake. Demographic variables were identified for patients with and without documented nausea. Univariate analyses were performed to determine the impact of post-operative nausea on patients’ length of stay, readmissions, reoperations, and overall complications. Results: There were 449 primary bariatric surgery patients in the study period, 197 (43.9%) LRYGB and 252 (56.1%) LSG. Of these patients, 160 (35.6%) had documented post-operative nausea. Demographic factors that contributed to post-operative nausea included African-American race and undergoing a LSG (p= 0.004 and p= 0.01, respectively). Patients who underwent a LSG had a 2.0 times increased risk of post-operative nausea compared to LRYGB (p= 0.01). Patients with documented nausea had a statistically significant increased length of stay (2.4 ± 1.9 days vs. 1.6 ± 1.0 days; p≤ 0.01). Documented nausea patients had an increased incidence of Emergency Department visits within 30 days post-operatively (p= 0.02). Conclusions: Post-operative nausea was more likely in patients who underwent a sleeve gastrectomy. Gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy patients with documented nausea had an increased length of stay and Emergency Department visits. These results highlight the need for a metric to more accurately measure post-operative nausea, as well as a standardized anti-emetic treatment pathway to improve quality outcomes.

Background: Despite the increasing obesity prevalence among American adults, relatively few qualified patients proceed to bariatric surgery. Suggested explanations include referral barriers for weight loss management at primary care provider (PCP) visits. This study aims to assess the referral and practice patterns of PCPs treating patients with obesity. Our goal is to understand treatment barriers in order to implement targeted interventions that enhance quality of care. Methods: A 39-question electronic survey was emailed to PCPs at a single academic institution with community physicians. Questions explored providers’ demographics, referral patterns, and knowledge of pathophysiologic obesity mechanisms and bariatric surgery qualifications. Frequency and univariate analyses were performed and compared providers’ demographics, positions, and BMIs between referring providers and non-referring providers. Results: Of 121 surveys distributed, we achieved a 33.9% response rate (n= 41). 78.0% stated that > 15% of their patients in the preceding year were classified as obese. PCPs indicated initiating weight loss management conversations &lt; 50% of the time with 48.8% of patients. Provider-identified barriers to discussing weight loss surgery included being unsure if patient’s insurance would cover the procedure or if patients would qualify (24.4% vs. 19.5%). In addition, 43.9% of providers felt that the risks of bariatric surgery outweigh the benefits. Conclusion: Despite a large percentage of patients cared for by PCPs being classified as obese, few providers initiate discussions on weight loss options with potentially eligible surgical candidates. The barriers identified indicate an opportunity for improved education on patient qualifications, strategies for streamlining conversations and referrals, and reinforcement of the safety of surgical weight loss. Providers’ desire for this education demonstrates an opportunity to work toward minimizing the referral gap by increasing patient conversations about these topics.

Background: Laparoscopic fundoplication is the treatment of choice for medically refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Surgeons seek to create a competent valve at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) but are careful to construct a ‘floppy’ fundoplication that is not too tight to minimize side effects. The endoscopic functional luminal-imaging probe (EndoFLIP®) uses impedance planimetry to assess the GEJ intraoperatively. We sought to determine if EndoFLIP variables are associated with symptomatic outcomes following fundoplication. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively maintained data on subjects who underwent primary laparoscopic fundoplication at a single institution between 2014 and 2018. All patients met standard indications for antireflux surgery. Minimum diameter (Dmin), cross-sectional area (CSA), intra-bag pressure, and distensibility index of the GEJ were obtained at 30 mL volumes. GERD Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) surveys were administered pre- and postoperatively. Patients were excluded if they underwent fundoplication without EndoFLIP assessment or if they did not complete a postop GERD-HRQL survey. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine if EndoFLIP measurements were correlated with symptomatic outcomes. Results: Forty-three patients met inclusion criteria. The change in Dmin and CSA measures during fundoplication were associated with daily or more frequent heartburn at 6 or more months postop. A decrease in Dmin of 0.15 mm or less (AUC = 0.718, sensitivity: 71%, specificity: 69%) and a decrease in CSA of 1.5 mm2or less (AUC = 0.728, sensitivity: 71%, specificity: 70%) were associated with severe heartburn. Conclusions: GEJ opening dynamics attained by EndoFLIP appear to be associated with symptomatic outcomes. When the Dmin and CSA do not decrease by a defined threshold, heartburn is more likely to be severe at 6 or more months postoperatively. This suggests that the fundoplication may not be tight enough to prevent persistent or recurrent GERD.

Background: The majority of patients who undergo a laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have a structural (hiatal hernia, shortened lower esophageal sphincter [LES]) or functional (weak LES) defect of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). We hypothesized that the symptomatic outcomes of fundoplication in patients with a competent GEJ prior to surgery are inferior to those with an incompetent GEJ. Methods: This is a retrospective review of prospectively maintained data on subjects who underwent primary laparoscopic fundoplication (Nissen or Toupet) for medically refractory and confirmed GERD. Three esophageal manometry variables were used to determine GEJ competency: (1) hiatal hernia (normal = no hernia), (2) total lower esophageal sphincter length (normal ≥ 2.43 cm), and (3) lower esophageal sphincter pressure (normal = 15.0–43.7 mmHg). Patients in the competent group had normal values for all 3 variables. Symptomatic outcomes were assessed with the GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) survey administered pre- and postoperatively, and then compared both intragroup, intergroup, and by procedure. Results: A total of 78 patients met inclusion criteria—17 competent GEJ and 61 incompetent GEJ patients. GERD-HRQL scores improved in the incompetent cohort at all intervals out to 2 years postoperatively. GERD-HRQL improved in the competent cohort at 2 months, with no difference at 6 months or 2 years postoperatively compared to preoperative scores. Competent GEJ patients receiving a Nissen fundoplication had a higher rate of additional procedures (endoscopy with or without dilation, pH studies) following surgery to address recurrent or persistent GERD symptoms compared to Toupet. Conclusions: GERD patients with a competent GEJ report a lower GERD-HRQL with more frequent and severe reflux symptoms up to 2 years post-fundoplication. Competent GEJ patients receiving a Nissen fundoplication are more likely to have additional procedures to address symptoms following surgery. Surgeons should approach patients with a competent GEJ and medically refractory GERD with caution.

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of CRP in early identification of post-operative complications after bariatric surgery. The ability of this marker to acutely predict post-operative complications in bariatric surgery patients has not been determined. A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients who underwent a primary and revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2013 and 2017 at a single institution. Patients were identified using the prospective Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. CRP levels were drawn on post-operative day one per standard protocol. Univariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive impact of CRP levels on post-operative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. There were 275 patients who underwent bariatric surgery, 222 primary and 53 revisional. Of the 275 patients, 36 (13.1%) had a complication. Bariatric surgery patients with a post-operative complication had higher CRP levels compared to those who did not (4.8 ± 4.6 vs. 2.9 ± 2.0; p= 0.02). A CRP ≥ 5 mg/dL had a sensitivity for a complication of 27% and a specificity of 88%. There was no difference in CRP levels for patients with a 30-day reoperation or readmission. There were no mortalities. Bariatric surgery patients with elevated post-operative CRP levels are at increased risk for 30-day complications. The low sensitivity of a CRP ≥ 5 mg/dL suggests that a normal CRP level alone does not rule out the possibility of a post-operative complication. However, with its high specificity, there should be an elevated clinical suspicion of a post-operative complication in patients with a CRP ≥ 5 mg/dL.

There is little consensus on the ideal anatomical placement of bio-absorbable mesh. We hypothesized that retro-rectus placement of bio-absorbable mesh would significantly reduce recurrence rates when compared to intraperitoneal mesh placement. A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent open complex ventral hernia repair using bio-absorbable mesh (Bio-A, Gore, Flagstaff, AZ). Patient demographics and Centers for Disease Control wound type were collected. A total of 81 patients were included. Seventy-four (91.4%) of these hernia repairs had mesh in the retro-rectus position, while 7 (8.6%) had intraperitoneal mesh placement. Patient demographics, including preoperative comorbidities, did not differ between groups. The retro-rectus group trended to have larger hernia defects (156.2 cm2) compared to the intraperitoneal group (63.9 cm2) (p= 0.058). Overall complications (e.g., dehiscence, wound drainage, cellulitis, sepsis) were also similar in both groups of patients. Recurrence rates in the retro-rectus and intraperitoneal group were 8.1% and 42.9%, respectively (p= 0.005). When evaluating only patients with CDC class 1 wounds, the recurrence rate in the retro-rectus group was 8.2% and the intraperitoneal group was 50% (p= 0.02). Overall, the average patient follow-up was 22 months and did not differ between groups. Both the retro-rectus and intraperitoneal groups indicated a significant (p< 0.05) improvement in quality of life from baseline. No long-term (> 7 days) antibiotics were used and no mesh implants were removed during the study. Patients who underwent open complex ventral hernia repairs with bio-absorbable mesh in the retro-rectus position experienced lower overall complication rates than those with intraperitoneal mesh placement. Despite a larger hernia defect in the retro-rectus group, recurrence rates were significantly reduced with retro-rectus placement of mesh compared to intraperitoneal placement. In addition, recurrence rates using bio-absorbable mesh in clean wounds are comparable to previously published recurrence rates with permanent mesh.

In symptomatic patients after failed fundoplication, reoperation is considered. In complex or obese patients, Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be the best operation. We sought to characterize the outcomes of patients with failed fundoplication to undergo salvage RYGB, and to compare these outcomes to patients undergoing reoperative fundoplication. A prospectively maintained database was queried for procedures performed at a single institution from 2011 to 2017. GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) surveys were administered at defined intervals. Thirty-six patients underwent salvage RYGB and 84 patients underwent reoperative fundoplication. The RYGB cohort had a higher BMI (35.5 ± 6.8 vs. 28.7 ± 5.3, p< 0.01), more gastroparesis (52.8% vs. 9.5%, p< 0.01), more esophagitis (42.9% vs. 20.2%, p= 0.01), and more prior fundoplications (1.9 vs. 1.2, p< 0.01). The incidence of gastroparesis and esophagitis was directly related to the number of failed fundoplications (p< 0.05). Operative times were longer with RYGB (332.7 ± 131.5 vs. 200.0 ± 67.6 min, p< 0.01) as was length of stay (4.3 ± 3.4 vs. 2.8 ± 1.5 days, p= 0.02), incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ Grade 3 (19.4% vs. 4.8%, p= 0.01), 30-day reoperation (11.1% vs. 1.2%, p= 0.01), and 30-day readmission (32.4% vs. 11.9%, p< 0.01). In five patients with three or more prior fundoplication attempts, an esophagojejunostomy was necessary. If these patients are excluded, there was no difference for RYGB with gastrojejunostomy compared to reoperative fundoplication for complications, reoperations, or readmissions. GERD-HRQL scores were similar prior to surgery in both cohorts and improved significantly and to a similar degree on long-term follow-up. In a complex cohort of patients with high rates of obesity and numerous failed previous fundoplication attempts, conversion to RYGB results in good symptomatic outcomes. Patients with three or more previous fundoplication attempts are more likely to require esophagojejunostomy. Complication rates in this subset of patients appear to be quite high.