Search

Introduction: Robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is gaining popularity. Revisional MBS is associated with higher perioperative morbidity compared to primary MBS. The optimal surgical approach to minimize complications in these complex cases is unclear. The goal of this study was to assess robot utilization in revisional MBS and compare laparoscopic and robotic revisional MBS outcomes in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. Methods: A retrospective review of the MBSAQIP database was performed identifying revisional sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) cases from 2015 to 2022. Primary MBS, open/emergent cases, cases converted to another approach, and combined cases other than esophagogastroduodenoscopy were excluded. 30-Day outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic cases were compared using multivariate logistic regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables. Results: 41,404 Cases (14,474 SG; 26,930 RYGB) were identified. From 2015 to 2022, the percentage of revisional SG and RYGB cases performed robotically increased from 6.1% and 7.3% to 24.2% and 32.0% respectively. Laparoscopic SG had similar rates of overall morbidity, leak, bleeding, readmission, reoperation, and length of stay compared to robotic. Laparoscopic RYGB had significantly higher rates of overall morbidity (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p< 0.001, AOR 0.80 [0.70–0.93]), blood transfusion (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p< 0.05, AOR 0.74 [0.55–0.99]), superficial incisional SSI (1.2% vs. 0.4%, p< 0.001, AOR 0.30 [0.19–0.47]), and longer length of stay (1.87 vs. 1.76 days, p< 0.001) compared to robotic. Laparoscopic operative times were significantly shorter than robotic (SG: 86.4 ± 45.8 vs. 113.5 ± 51.7 min; RYGB: 130.7 ± 64.7 vs. 165.5 ± 66.8 min, p< 0.001). Conclusion: Robot utilization in revisional bariatric surgery is increasing. Robotic surgery has lower postoperative morbidity and shorter length of stay in revisional RYGB when compared to laparoscopic. Robotic platforms may have the capacity to improve the delivery of care for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery.

Introduction: Post-operative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a significant morbidity following sleeve gastrectomy (SG). We aim to evaluate the incidence and impact within a single center experience. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed identifying laparoscopic or robotic SG patients. Primary outcomes included weight loss, rates of post-operative GERD (de-novo or aggravated), and re-intervention. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients with (Group 1) and without (Group 2) post-operative GERD. De-novo GERD and aggravated was defined as persistent GERD complaints or new/increased PPI usage in GERD naive or prior GERD patients, respectively. Results: 392 patients were identified between 2014 and 2019. Average demographics: age 42.3 (18–84) years, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 1.12 (0–10), and body mass index (BMI) 47.7 (28–100). 98% were performed laparoscopically. Average excess weight loss (EWL) was 51.0% and 46.4% at 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Average follow up was 516 (6–2694) days. 69 (17%) patients developed post operative de-novo or aggravated GERD. Group 1 had significantly higher EWL at 9 months (57% vs 47%, p0.003). 13 (3%) patients required operative re-intervention for GERD and other morbidities: 4 RYGB conversions, 4 diagnostic laparoscopies, 3 HHR, 1 MSA placement. Group 1 had higher rates of post-operative intervention (14% vs 1%, p0.0001). Subanalysis demonstrated that Group 1 had elevated preoperative DeMeester scores on pH testing (34.8 vs 18.9, p0.03). De-novo GERD had an elevated post-operative total acid exposure when compared to aggravated GERD (12.7% vs 7.0% p0.03). No significant differences were found between preoperative endoscopy findings, pre and postoperative total acid exposure, post-operative DeMeester scores, and high-resolution manometry values regarding de-novo/aggravated GERD development. Conclusion: Preoperative DeMeester scores may serve as risk indicators regarding post-operative GERD. Outcomes such as reintervention remain elevated in post-operative GERD patients.

Background: The legalization of cannabis in several states has led to increased documented use in the population. Bariatric surgery patients are no exception with estimates of anywhere from 6 to 8%. Cannabis is known to be associated with increased appetite, mood disorders, hyperphagia, and rarely, hyperemesis, which can potentially affect post-surgical weight loss. We aim to study the differences in bariatric surgery outcomes between cannabis users and non-users. Methods: A retrospective review identified patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Patients were divided into two groups, cannabis users (CU) and non-cannabis users (non-CU). Cannabis users (defined as using at least once weekly) and a group of non-users were called to obtain additional information. Primary outcome was weight loss. Secondary outcomes included incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of stay (LOS), readmission, and need for additional intervention. Results: A cohort of 364 sleeve gastrectomy patients met inclusion criteria, 31 (8.5%) CU and 333 (91.5%) non-CU. There was no difference in EWL between CU and non-CU at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, and 2 years. However, the CU group trended towards greater EWL at 3 years (52.9% vs. 38.1%, p= 0.094) and at 5 years (49.8% vs. 32.7%, p= 0.068). There were no significant differences between CU and non-CU with respect to either incidence or severity of PONV at one year after surgery or longer follow-up. Conclusion: Cannabis users did not experience inferior weight loss after bariatric surgery despite common assumptions that appetite stimulation can lead to suboptimal weight loss outcomes. Our findings add to other work challenging this dogma. Larger, long-term, multicenter studies are warranted.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most common elective abdominal surgery in the USA, with over 750,000 performed annually. Fluorescent cholangiography (FC) using indocyanine green dye (ICG) permits identification of extrahepatic biliary structures to facilitate dissection without requiring cystic duct cannulation. Achieving the “critical view of safety” with assistance of ICG cholangiogram may support identification of anatomy, safely reduce conversion to open procedures, and decrease operative time. We assess the utility of FC with respect to anatomic visualization during LC and its effects on patient outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single academic center from 2013 to 2019. Exclusion criteria were primary open and single incision cholecystectomy. Patient factors included age, sex, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Outcomes included operative time, conversion to open procedure, length of stay (LOS), mortality rate, and 30-day complications. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine independent predictors for open conversion. Results: A total of 1389 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 69.8% were female; mean age 48.6 years (range 15–94), average BMI 29.4 kg/m2(13.3–55.6). 989 patients (71.2%) underwent LC without fluorescence and 400 (28.8%) underwent FC with ICG. 30-day mortality detected 2 cases in the non-ICG group and zero with ICG. ICG reduced operative time by 26.47 min per case (p< 0.0001). For patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, operative duration for ICG vs non-ICG groups was 75.57 vs 104.9 min respectively (p< 0.0001). ICG required conversion to open at a rate of 1.5%, while non-ICG converted at a rate of 8.5% (p< 0.0001). Conversion rate remained significant with multivariable analysis (OR 0.212, p= 0.001). A total of 19 cases were aborted (1.35%), 8 in the ICG group (1.96%) and 11 in the non-ICG group (1.10%), these cases were not included in LC totals. Average LOS was 0.69 vs 1.54 days in the ICG compared to non-ICG LCs (p< 0.0001), respectively. Injuries were more common in the non-ICG group, with 9 patients sustaining Strasberg class A injuries in the non-ICG group and 2 in the ICG group. 1 CBDI occurred in the non-ICG group. There was no significant difference in 30-day complication rates between groups. Conclusion: ICG cholangiography is a non-invasive adjunct to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, leading to improved patient outcomes with respect to operative times, decreased conversion to open procedures, and shorter length of hospitalization. Fluorescence cholangiography improves visualization of biliary anatomy, thereby decreasing rate of CBDI, Strasberg A injuries, and mortality. These findings support ICG as standard of care during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Introduction: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) offers a minimally invasive anti-reflux alternative to fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. The most common side effect of MSA is dysphagia, which may require dilation or even device removal. The incidence of dysphagia may be reduced by MSA sizing and preoperative motility studies. Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative maneuver during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) that assesses peristaltic reserve. We evaluated factors predicting development of dysphagia following MSA. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients undergoing MSA. Preoperative work-up included barium swallow, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and esophageal manometry. Peristaltic augmentation was defined as a ratio > 1 of the distal contractile integral (DCI) following MRS and the mean DCI of the 10 baseline wet swallows during manometry. Demographics, MSA implant size, and postoperative symptom data were gathered on all patients. Results: Sixty-eight patients underwent MSA. Mean age was 51.7 years, average BMI was 25.8 kg/m2. 15 (22.1%) of patients had severe dysphagia requiring endoscopic dilation. Peristaltic augmentation with MRS was significantly higher in patients without dysphagia (46.1% vs 6.3% p= 0.026). 33.3% of patients requiring dilatation exhibited complete absence of smooth muscle contraction following MRS (DCI = 0). The ratio of the DCI of MRS/wet swallows predicting dysphagia following MSA was 0.56. Patients with a small (12–14 beads) versus a larger MSA implant (15–17 beads) had a significantly higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (58.5% vs 30.0% p= 0.026). Conclusion: Adequate peristaltic reserve and larger device size correlate with decreased incidence of dysphagia following MSA implantation without compromising the anti-reflux barrier. Routine assessment of peristaltic reserve during preoperative HRM should be considered prior to MSA placement.

Introduction: Standard of care for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and surgical resection 4–8 weeks after completion of nCRT. It is recommended that the CRT to surgery interval not exceed 90 days. Many patients do not undergo surgery within this timeframe due to patient/physician preference, complete clinical response, or poor performance status. Select patients are offered salvage esophagectomy (SE), defined in two ways: resection for recurrent/persistent disease after complete response to definitive CRT (dCRT) or esophagectomy performed > 90 days after completion of nCRT. Salvage esophagectomy reportedly has higher postoperative morbidity and poor survival outcomes. In this study, we assessed outcomes, overall, and disease-free survival of patients undergoing salvage esophagectomy by both definitions (recurrent/persistent disease after dCRT and/or > 90 days), compared to planned (resection after nCRT/within 90 days) esophagectomy (PE). Materials and methods: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at a single institution from 2009 to 2019. Esophagectomy for benign disease and patients who did not receive nCRT were excluded. Outcomes included postoperative complications, length of stay (LOS), disease-free survival, and overall survival. Results: 97 patients underwent minimally invasive esophageal resection for esophageal carcinoma. 89.7% of patients were male. Mean age was 64.9 years (range 36–85 years). 94.8% of patients had adenocarcinoma, with 16 transthoracic and 81 transhiatal approaches. On comparing planned esophagectomy (n= 87) to esophagectomy after dCRT failure (n= 10), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p= 0.73), disease-free survival (p= 0.32), 30-day or major complication rate, anastomotic leak, or LOS. Similarly, when comparing esophagectomy < 90 days after CRT (n= 62) to > 90 days after CRT completion (n= 35), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p= 0.39), disease-free survival (p= 0.71), 30-day or major complication rate, LOS, or anastomotic leak rate between groups. In this comparison, local recurrence was noted to be elevated with SE as compared to PE (64.3% vs. 25.0%, p= 0.04). Conclusion: Overall survival and disease-free survival were equivalent between SE and PE. Local recurrence was noted to be increased with SE, though this did not appear to affect survival. Although planned esophagectomy remains the standard of care, salvage esophagectomy has comparable outcomes and is appropriate for selected patients.

Background: Opioid use in the U.S. has increased dramatically over the last 15 years, recently being declared a public health emergency. Opioid use is associated with esophageal dysmotility lending to a confusing clinical picture compared to true achalasia. Patients exhibit symptoms and elicit diagnostic results consistent with esophageal motility disorders, in particular type III achalasia. Modified therapeutic strategies and outcomes become challenging. Differentiating true achalasia from opioid-induced achalasia is critical. Conventional surgical interventions, i.e., myotomy, are ineffective in the absence of true achalasia. We assess the utility of esophageal muscle layer mapping with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in distinguishing primary from opioid-induced achalasia. Methods: From 2016 to 2019, patients with abnormal manometry and suspected achalasia underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and EUS mapping of esophageal round muscle layer thickness. Maximum round layer thickness and length of round muscle layer thickness > 1.8 mm were collected and compared between opioid users and non-opioid users using Wilcoxon Rank sum test. Results: 45 patients were included: 12 opioid users, 33 non-opioid users. Mean age 56.8 years (range 24–93), 53.3% male patients. Mean BMI in the opioid-induced achalasia group was 30.2 kg/m2, mean BMI in the primary achalasia group 26.8 kg/m2(p= 0.11). In comparing endoscopic maximum round layer thickness between groups, non-opioid patients had a thicker round muscle layer (2.7 mm vs 1.8 mm, p= 0.05). Length of abnormally thickened esophageal muscle (greater than 1.8 mm) also differed between the two groups; patients on opioids had a shorter length of thickening (4.0 cm vs 0.0 cm, p= 0.04). Intervention rate was higher in the non-opioid group (p= 0.79). Of the patients that underwent therapeutic intervention, symptom resolution was higher in the non-opioid group (p= 0.002), while re-intervention post-procedure for persistent symptomatology was elevated in the opioid subset (p= 0.06). Patients in the opioid group were less likely to undergo invasive treatment (Heller). As of 2017 all interventions in the opioid group have been endoscopic. Conclusion: Endoscopic ultrasound is an essential tool that has improved our treatment algorithm for suspected achalasia in patients with chronic opioid usage. Incorporation of EUS findings into treatment approach may prevent unnecessary surgery in opioid users.

Introduction: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are commonly performed bariatric procedures in obesity management. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in this population has reported rates of 23–100%. GERD after LSG has been noted with recent studies demonstrating de novo reflux or symptom exacerbation despite weight loss. Fundoplication is not an option, and medically refractory GERD after LSG is usually treated with conversion to RYGB. GERD post-RYGB is a unique entity, and management poses a clinical and technical challenge. We evaluate safety and effectiveness of magnetic sphincter augmentation after bariatric surgery. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed identifying patients that underwent LINX placement for refractory GERD after LSG, LRYGB, or duodenal switch across three institutions. Outcomes included complications, length of stay, PPI use, GERD-HRQL scores, and patient overall satisfaction. Results: From March 2014 through June 2018, 13 identified patients underwent LINX placement after bariatric surgery: 8 LSG, 4 LRYGB, and 1 duodenal switch. The patients were 77% female, with mean age 43 and average BMI 30.1. Average pre-operative DeMeester score was 24.8. Pre-operatively, 5 patients were on daily PPI, 6 on BID PPI, and 1 on PPI + H2 blocker. We noted decreased medication usage post-operatively, with 4 patients taking daily PPI, and 9 off medication completely. A GERD-HRQL score was obtained pre- and post-operatively in 6 patients with average reduction from 25 to 8.5 (pvalue 0.002). Two patients experienced complications requiring endoscopic dilation after LINX placement. 100% of patients reported overall satisfaction post procedure. Conclusion: LINX placement is a safe, effective treatment option for surgical management of refractory GERD after bariatric surgery. It can relieve symptoms and obviate the requirement of high-dose medical management. Magnetic lower esophageal sphincter augmentation should be another tool in the surgeon’s toolbox for managing reflux after bariatric surgery in select patients.

Introduction: Chronic anemia is a common, coinciding or presenting diagnosis in patients with paraesophageal hernia (PEH). Presence of endoscopically identified ulcerations frequently prompts surgical consultation in the otherwise asymptomatic patient with anemia. Rates of anemia resolution following paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) often exceed the prevalence of such lesions in the study population. A defined algorithm remains elusive. This study aims to characterize resolution of anemia after PEHR with respect to endoscopic diagnosis. Materials and methods: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients with PEH and anemia undergoing PEHR from 2007 to 2018 was performed. Anemia was determined by preoperative labs: Hgb < 12 mg/dl in females, Hgb < 13 mg/dl in males, or patients with ongoing iron supplementation. Improvement of post-operative anemia was assessed by post-operative hemoglobin values and continued necessity of iron supplementation. Results: Among 56 identified patients, 45 were female (80.4%). Forty patients (71.4%) were anemic by hemoglobin value, 16 patients (28.6%) required iron supplementation. Mean age was 65.1 years, with mean BMI of 27.7 kg/m2. One case was a Type IV PEH and the rest Type III. 32 (64.0%) had potential source of anemia: 16 (32.0%) Cameron lesions, 6 (12.0%) gastric ulcers, 12 (24.0%) gastritis. 10 (20.0%) had esophagitis and 4 (8%) Barrett’s esophagus. 18 (36%) PEH patients had normal preoperative EGD. Median follow-up was 160 days. Anemia resolution occurred in 46.4% of patients. Of the 16 patients with pre-procedure Cameron lesions, 10 (63%) had resolution of anemia. Patients with esophagitis did not achieve resolution. 72.2% (13/18) of patients with no lesions on EGD had anemia resolution (p= 0.03). Conclusion: Patients with PEH and identifiable ulcerations showed 50% resolution of anemia after hernia repair. Patients without identifiable lesions on endoscopy demonstrated statistically significant resolution of anemia in 72.2% of cases. Anemia associated with PEH adds an indication for surgical repair with curative intent.