Intraoperative endoscopy prevents technical defect related leaks in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A randomized control trial

Comparison of the postoperative outcome with and without intraoperative leak testing for sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 469 588 cases

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative staple line leakage (SLL) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a rare but serious complication. Many surgeons routinely test anastomosis with an intraoperative leak test (IOLT) as part of the SG procedure. This meta-analysis aims to determine whether an IOLT plays a role in reducing the rate of postoperative staple line related complications in patients who underwent SG.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, Web of science, the Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for clinical studies assessing the application of IOLT in SG. The primary endpoint was the development of postoperative SLL. Secondary endpoints included the postoperative bleeding, 30 days mortality rates, and 30 days readmission rates.

RESULTS

Six studies totaling 469 588 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our review found that the SLL rate was 0.38% (1221/ 324 264) in the IOLT group and 0.31% (453/ 145 324) in the no intraoperative leak test (NIOLT) group. Postoperative SLL decreased in the NIOLT group compared with the IOLT group (OR=1.27; 95% CI: 1.14-1.42, P =0.000). Postoperative bleeding was fewer in the IOLT group than that in the NIOLT group (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.87, P =0.000). There was no significant difference between the IOLT group and the NIOLT group regarding 30 days mortality rates and 30 days readmission rates ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

IOLT was correlated with an increase in SLL when included as a part of the SG procedure. However, IOLT was associated with a lower rate of postoperative bleeding. Thus, IOLT should be considered in SG in the situation of suspected postoperative bleeding.

Endoscopic Management of Surgical Complications of Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery, although highly effective, may lead to several surgical complications like ulceration, strictures, leaks, and fistulas. Newer endoscopic tools have emerged as safe and effective therapeutic options for these conditions. This article reviews post-bariatric surgery complications and the role of endoscopy in their management.

Does endoscopy at the time of revisional bariatric surgery decrease complication rates? an analysis of the NSQIP database

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy is performed routinely during bariatric surgery. It is often used for provocative testing and intraluminal inspection during Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Recent publications would indicate about one-quarter of bariatric cases are performed with concurrent endoscopy, resulting in a slight increase in time but no increase in complications within 30 days compared with cases where no endoscopy is performed. Do these results persist for endoscopy during revisional bariatric surgery (RBS)?

METHODS

An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Initiative Program (NSQIP) was conducted for the years 2005-2017. Seventeen postoperative outcomes were analyzed in this database. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was completed for 13 patient comorbidities and demographics. A McNemar's test for paired categorical variables and a paired t-test for continuous variables were completed, with a significant P value of 0.05. The results were reported as the frequency and percentage for categorical variables and the mean (± standard deviation) for continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 7249 RBS cases were identified. After propensity score matching for patient comorbidities and demographics 2329 cases remained. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed in 375 (16%) of these patients. There were no differences in complication rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to non-revisional bariatric surgery, there is no difference in 30-day postoperative complications when endoscopy is performed in RBS. Endoscopy is performed in about one-sixth of RBS cases.

The utility of intraoperative endoscopy to assist novice surgeons in the detection of gastric stenosis during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a commonly performed bariatric surgery. Gastric stenosis and leaks are 2 major complications associated with LSG and revision surgery might be needed. Herein, we report our experience of intraoperative endoscopy (IOE) to evaluate stenosis and leaks during LSG.

METHODS

LSG was performed by three surgeons. Patients who underwent LSG and IOE between January 2016 and March 2020 were enrolled and assigned to two groups: group 1 (1st-30th LSG case for each surgeon) and group 2 (> 30th LSG for each surgeon). Patients' anthropometric and biochemical data pre- and post-LSG, as well as IOE findings and follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy records were reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 352 patients were enrolled including 90 patients in group 1 and 262 patients in group 2. Three out of 352 patients (0.9%) were found to have stenosis by IOE, which was related to tightly gastropexy stitch or reinforcement stitch, all of which were in group 1. Stenosis was resolved after removal of the stitch during LSG. The incidence of gastric stenosis detected by IOE was 3.3% (3/90) and 0% (0/262) in group 1 and group 2, respectively (P = 0.003). No leakage was found in this study and no patient developed clinical or endoscopic stenosis after LSG.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence showed that IOE can help detect gastric stenosis during LSG, especially for novice surgeons, and the stenosis could be resolved during operation.

How to examine anastomotic integrity intraoperatively in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy? Methylene blue testing prevents technical defect-related anastomotic leaks

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative methylene blue testing (IMBT), air leak testing, or endoscopy is used to assess the anastomotic integrity of esophagojejunostomy during open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy has been widely used to treat gastric cancer in the last few decades. However, reports on testing anastomotic integrity in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy are limited.

AIM

To explore the effects of IMBT on the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leaks (PALs) and identify the risk factors for PALs in totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.

METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2019, patients who underwent totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at the Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether or not they experienced an IMBT, the patients were divided into an IMBT group and a control group. If the IMBT was positive, an intraoperative suture was required to reinforce the anastomosis. The difference in the incidence of PALs was compared, and the risk factors were investigated.

RESULTS

This study consisted of 513 patients, 211 in the IMBT group and 302 in the control group. Positive IMBT was shown in seven patients (3.3%) in the IMBT group, and no PAL occurred in these patients after suture reinforcement. Multivariate analysis showed that risk factors for predicting positive IMBT were body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m² (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.357, P = 0.009), operation time > 4 h (HR = 55.881, P = 0.002), and insufficient surgical experience (HR = 15.286, P = 0.010). Moreover, 15 patients (2.9%) developed PALs in 513 patients, and the rates of PALs were significantly lower in the IMBT group than in the control group [2 of 211 patients (0.9%) vs 13 of 302 patients (4.3%), P = 0.0026]. Further analysis demonstrated that preoperative complications (HR = 13.128, P = 0.017), totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (HR = 9.075, P = 0.043), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 7.150, P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for PALs.

CONCLUSION

IMBT is an effective method to evaluate the integrity of anastomosis during totally laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, thus preventing technical defect-related anastomotic leaks. Preoperative complications, totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are independent risk factors for PALs.

Clinical Significance of Intra-operative Gastroscopy for Tumor Localization in Totally Laparoscopic Partial Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Tumor localization during totally laparoscopic gastrectomy is challenging owing to the invisibility of tumors on the serosal surface. We aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of intra-operative gastroscopy in totally laparoscopic partial gastrectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed 1084 gastric cancer patients who underwent either intra- or extracorporeal partial gastrectomy between 2014 and 2018. The intracorporeal group with intra-operative gastroscopy (intra-operative gastroscopy group, n = 187), the intracorporeal group without intra-operative gastroscopy (non-intra-operative gastroscopy group, n = 267), and the extracorporeal group (n = 630) were evaluated for the adequacy of surgical resection margins. We assessed whether total gastrectomy could be avoided according to the performance of intra-operative gastroscopy if the tumor was located within 3-5 cm away from the gastroesophageal junction.

RESULTS

The proximal margin positivity was lesser in the intra-operative gastroscopy group than in the non-intra-operative gastroscopy group (0% versus 2.2%; P = 0.045) but similar to that in the extracorporeal group (0% versus 0.6%; P = 0.579). The number of cases with proximal resection margins < 1 cm was lower in the intra-operative gastroscopy group than in the non-intra-operative gastroscopy group (3.7% versus 9.4%; P = 0.025) but comparable with that in the extracorporeal group (3.7% versus 4.1%; P = 0.815). Among 94 patients with lesions located within 3-5 cm apart from the gastroesophageal junction, the intra-operative gastroscopy group (n = 47) had fewer patients who underwent total gastrectomy than the non-intra-operative gastroscopy group (n = 47) (12.8% versus 44.7%; P = 0.001). Intra-operative gastroscopy was the only independent factor that prevented total gastrectomy (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intra-operative gastroscopy can provide margin safety during intracorporeal partial gastrectomy, avoiding unnecessary total gastrectomy.

Endoscopy Used as Provocative Testing in Bariatric Surgery: An Analysis of the Texas Public Use Data File

Background

Many bariatric surgeons test the anastomosis and staple lines with some sort of provocative test. This can take the form of an air leak test with a nasogastric tube with methylene blue dye or with an endoscopy. The State Department of Health Statistics in Texas tracks outcomes using the Texas Public Use Data File (PUDF).

Methods

We queried the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDFs for 2013 to 2017 to examine the number of bariatric surgeries with endoscopy performed at the same time. We used the International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification Version 9 (ICD-9-CM) and ICD-10 procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology for Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and endoscopy, and the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnosis codes for morbid obesity.

Results

There were 74,075 SG reported in the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDF for the years 2013-2017. Of the SG performed, 5,521 (7.4%) had an intraoperative endoscopy. For the 19,192 LRYGB reported, 1640 (8.6%) underwent LRYGB + endoscopy. This was broken down by SG only vs SG + endoscopy and LRYGB only vs LRYGB + endoscopy. Overall, SG + endoscopy had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) vs LRYGB + endoscopy at 1.74 d vs 2.34 d (P < .001) and a significantly less cost of $71,685 vs $91,093 (P < .001).

Conclusions

A small percentage of SG and LRYGB patients underwent endoscopy for provocative testing over the study period. Provocative testing with endoscopy costs more for SG and LRYGB and was associated with a shorter LOS.

Combined endoscopy/laparoscopy/percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, hybrid techniques in gastrointestinal and biliary diseases

In recent years, a wide range of gastrointestinal endoscopy techniques have been developed, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Although ESD and ERCP have an important role in gastrointestinal and biliary diseases, each technique has its limitations. Hybrid techniques that combine endoscopic and surgical procedures have emerged that have the advantages of different procedures and negate their limitations at the same time. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery and modified laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery combine ESD and laparoscopic techniques to resect submucosal tumors with minimum resection area. Air leak test by intraoperative endoscopy can effectively identify a mechanically insufficient anastomosis and decrease the complication rate. The rendezvous technique that combines percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopy can be performed as a rescue approach for the treatment of biliary obstruction, stenosis and bile duct injuries. For patients with simultaneous presence of stones in the gallbladder and the common bile duct, the laparo-endoscopic rendezvous technique can perform ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the same time and reduces the risk of pancreatic injury caused by ERCP. Biliobiliary and bilioenteric anastomosis using magnetic compression anastomosis is another choice for biliary obstruction. The most common used approach to deliver the magnets is by percutaneous-peroral tract. Laparoscopic-assisted ERCP is a safe and highly effective therapy for patients who develop biliary diseases after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Does intraoperative endoscopy decrease complications after bariatric surgery? Analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative endoscopy (IOE) has been proposed to decrease serious complications following bariatric surgeries such as leaks, bleeding, and stenosis. Such complications can lead to sepsis and eventually can be fatal. We aim to compare major postoperative complications in patients with and without IOE.

METHODS

Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database years 2011 till 2016 were used to identify laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) patients. We compared outcomes of IOE and non-IOE using bivariate and multivariate analysis. Thirty-day outcomes included sepsis, organ space infection, unplanned reoperations, unplanned readmissions, prolonged hospital stay, bleeding, and mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 62,805 cases of LSG and 50,047 cases of LRYGB, 17.9%, and 19.7% had IOE, respectively. Endoscopy-assisted LSG was associated with a decrease in sepsis [0.37% vs. 0.21%, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.55 (0.36, 0.84)], unplanned reoperation [0.58% vs. 0.38%, AOR = 0.61 (0.44, 0.85)], prolonged hospital stay [14.9% vs. 14.0%, AOR = 0.87 (0.82, 0.92)], and composite complications [1.43% vs. 1.17%, AOR = 0.78 (0.65, 0.94)]. Outcomes after LRYGB were similar in both groups, except for decreased prolonged hospital stay with IOE [22.4% vs. 20.6%, AOR = 0.89 (0.84, 0.94)].

CONCLUSIONS

IOE is generally underutilized in baraitric procedures. IOE is associated with decreased risk of postoperative complications particularly sepsis, unplanned reoperations, prolonged hospital stay, and composite complications after LSG; and hospital stay after LRYGB. Large multicenter prospective studies are needed to explore the benefits of IOE in bariatric surgery, particularly the intermediate or long-term benefits.

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage following gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) is a serious complication of total or proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer, with a reported incidence of 2.1-14.6% and mortality of up to 50%. EJAL is an independent prognostic factor for the poor survival of gastric cancer patients. Meticulous surgical techniques, experience with anastomotic devices, and a thorough understanding of various risk factors and preventive measures are essential and early diagnosis is critical for preventing EJAL-related death. Patients with suspected EJAL must be evaluated promptly, but contrast swallow is not recommended. There is no standard treatment strategy for EJAL, although conservative treatment with drainage and nutritional support is the most common approach. Effective endoscopic treatments have been reported but need further validation. Surgical treatment is associated with high mortality but should be considered to prevent death from suboptimal EJAL management, for patients with severe sepsis or when conservative treatment has failed.