A comparison of the postoperative outcomes between intraoperative leak testing and no intraoperative leak testing for gastric cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative anastomotic leakage (PAL) is a serious complication of gastric cancer surgery. Although perioperative management has made considerable progress, anastomotic leakage (AL) cannot always be avoided. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether intraoperative leak testing (IOLT) can reduce the incidence of PAL and other postoperative outcomes in gastric cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical trials to assess the application of IOLT in gastric cancer surgery. All patients underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer surgery. Studies comparing the postoperative outcomes of IOLT and no intraoperative leak testing (NIOLT) were included. Quality assessment, heterogeneity, risk of bias, and the level of evidence of the included studies were evaluated. PAL, anastomotic-related complications, 30-day mortality, and reoperation rates were compared between the IOLT and NIOLT group.

RESULTS

Our literature search returned 721 results, from which six trials (a total of 1,666 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was low. The primary outcome was PAL. IOLT reduced the incidence of PAL [2.09% vs 6.68%; (RR = 0.31, 95% Cl 0.19-0.53, P < 0.0001]. Anastomotic-related complications, which included bleeding, leakage, and stricture, were significantly higher in the NIOLT group than in the IOLT group [3.24% VS 10.85%; RR = 0.30, 95% Cl 0.18-0.53, P < 0.0001]. Moreover, IOLT was associated with lower reoperation rates [0.94% vs 6.83%; RR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.43, P = 0.0002].

CONCLUSION

Considering the observed lower incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage (PAL), anastomotic-related complications, and reoperation rates, IOLT appears to be a promising option for gastric cancer surgery. It warrants further study before potential inclusion in future clinical guidelines.

Canadian consensus statement: enhanced recovery after surgery in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

In Canada, bariatric surgery continues to remain the most effective treatment for severe obesity and its comorbidities. As the number of bariatric surgeries continues to grow, the need for consensus guidelines for optimal perioperative care is imperative. In colorectal surgery, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols were created for this purpose. The objective of this review is to develop evidence-based ERAS guidelines for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

A literature search of the MEDLINE database was performed using ERAS-specific search terms. Recently published articles with a focus on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Quality of evidence and recommendations were evaluated using the GRADE assessment system.

RESULTS

Canadian bariatric surgeons from six provinces and ten bariatric centers performed a review of the evidence surrounding ERAS in bariatric surgery and created consensus guidelines for 14 essential ERAS elements. Our main recommendations were (1) to encourage participation in a presurgical weight loss program; (2) to abstain from tobacco and excessive alcohol; (3) low-calorie liquid diet for at least 2 weeks prior to surgery; (4) to avoid preanesthetic anxiolytics and long-acting opioids; (5) unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin prior to surgery; (6) antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin ± metronidazole; (7) reduced opioids during surgery; (8) surgeon preference regarding intraoperative leak testing; (9) nasogastric intubation needed only for Veress access; (10) to avoid abdominal drains and urinary catheters; (11) to prevent ileus by discontinuing intravenous fluids early; (12) postoperative analgesia with acetaminophen, short-term NSAIDS, and minimal opioids; (13) to resume full fluid diet on first postoperative day; (14) early telephone follow-up with full clinic follow-up at 3-4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of addressing these ERAS elements is to develop guidelines that can be implemented and practiced clinically. ERAS is an excellent model that improves surgical efficiency and acts as a common perioperative pathway. In the interim, this multimodal bariatric perioperative guideline serves as a common consensus point for Canadian bariatric surgeons.

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.

Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Staple line leak is a serious complication of sleeve gastrectomy. Intraoperative methylene blue and air leak tests are routinely used to evaluate for leak; however, the utility of these tests is controversial. We hypothesize that the practice of routine intraoperative leak testing is unnecessary during sleeve gastrectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was designed using a prospectively collected database of seven bariatric surgeons from two institutions. All patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy from March 2012 to November 2014 were included. The performance of intraoperative leak testing and the type of test (air or methylene blue) were based on surgeon preference. Data obtained included BMI, demographics, comorbidity, presence of intraoperative leak test, result of test, and type of test. The primary outcome was leak rate between the leak test (LT) and no leak test (NLT) groups. SAS version 9.4 was used for univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1550 sleeve gastrectomies were included; most were laparoscopic (99.8%), except for one converted and two open cases. Routine intraoperative leak tests were performed in 1329 (85.7%) cases, while 221 (14.3%) did not have LTs. Of the 1329 cases with LTs, there were no positive intraoperative results. Fifteen (1%) patients developed leaks, with no difference in leak rate between the LT and NLT groups (1 vs. 1%, p = 0.999). After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups with a propensity analysis, the observed lack of association between leak and intraoperative leak test remained. In this cohort, leaks presented at a mean of 17.3 days postoperatively (range 1-67 days). Two patients with staple line leaks underwent repeat intraoperative leak testing at leak presentation, and the tests remained negative.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative leak testing has no correlation with leak due to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and is not predictive of the later development of staple line leak.

Technical factors associated with anastomotic leak after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is one of the most serious complications after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Our objective was to examine the relationship between technical factors and incidence of clinically relevant anastomotic leak after RYGB in longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery (LABS). The setting of the study was 11 bariatric centers in the United States, university, and private practice.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, technical factors of surgery, and postoperative outcomes were assessed by trained researchers using standardized protocols. Correlation of surgical factors of patients undergoing RYGB (n = 4444) with the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak was assessed by univariate χ(2) analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-four participants (1.0%, 95% CI .7%-1.3%) experienced a clinically relevant anastomotic leak. Of these, 39 (89%) underwent abdominal reoperation and 3 (7%) died. Technical factors associated with anastomotic leak were open surgery (P<.0001), revision surgery (P<.0001), and use of an abdominal drain (P = .02). Provocative leak testing, method of gastrojejunostomy, and use of fibrin sealant were not associated with anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic leak after RYGB was rare (1.0%). Most cases required reintervention; however, the majority (93%) recovered from this event. Open surgery, revision surgery, and routine drain placement were associated with increased leak rate. Some of these findings may be due to differences in preoperative patient risk.

Endoscopy in the early postoperative setting after primary gastrointestinal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal anastomoses may require early evaluation and treatment via flexible endoscopic techniques when complications arise. There is reticence, however, to perform endoscopy given the applied mechanical forces. We aimed to identify the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic perforation or disruption resulting from endoscopy performed ≤6 weeks of anastomoses.

METHODS

Review of patients from 2002 to 2013 who underwent flexible endoscopy within 6 weeks of creation of gastrointestinal anastomosis. Exclusion criteria included intraoperative endoscopy, anastomotic perforation prior to endoscopy, and endoscopy remote from the anastomotic site. Data are presented as median (interquartile range; IQR) or percentages as appropriate.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients met our criteria (age 69 years [IQR 54-77], 54% men]). Endoscopy was performed at a median postoperative time of 18 days (IQR 8-30). Indications for endoscopy included bleeding (66%), obstruction (13%), pain (13%), concern for pancreatic duct leak (4%), and concern for ischemia (4%). Six patients underwent therapeutic endoscopic procedures including coagulation (8%), balloon dilation (8%), tube decompression (8%), and stent placement (4%). There were no anastomotic perforations or disruptions as a result of endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Despite theoretical risks of adverse events of flexible endoscopy in the early postoperative period, no endoscopic perforations or disruptions occurred in recently created surgical anastomoses.

Routine drain placement in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an expanded retrospective comparative study of 755 patients and review of the literature

Routine drain use after laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is still practiced by many bariatric surgeons. After a patient in our program experienced intestinal obstruction secondary to a drain, we reevaluated our practice and hypothesized drains would be of no benefit and potentially harmful after LRYGB. Retrospective record review of all patients undergoing LRYGB from August 2005 to August 2009 was performed. As we changed our practice in December 2006, we have two comparable groups: one with a drain placed at surgery and one without. All operations were otherwise performed in an identical fashion by three fellowship-trained university surgeons. We compared outcomes between the two groups, particularly regarding gastrojejunal (GJ) leaks. Jejunojejunal (JJ) leaks, unlikely to be captured by these drains, were not studied. A total of 755 LRYGBs were performed during the study period, the first 272 patients with routine drains and the subsequent 483 without. Demographics were statistically similar between the two groups. There were four GJ leaks in the drain group (1.47%) and three in the nondrain group (0.62%). Among the drain patients, two required operation and two were treated nonoperatively. Among the nondrain patients, two required operation and one was treated nonoperatively. The leak and reoperation rates between the groups were not statistically different (p = 0.154 and p = 0.514). Routine drains likely have no benefit after LRYGB. Clinical parameters such as tachycardia, fever, oliguria, and increasing abdominal pain should guide further investigation for and treatment of a leak.

Revisional bariatric surgery

With the increase in bariatric surgical procedures, an increase in revision operations is expected. A thorough preoperative work-up is essential to formulate an appropriate revision strategy. Outcomes vary according to the primary operation and chosen approach to revision. Recent studies have shown acceptably low complication rates and good weight loss with the associated health benefits. Although there is no direct evidence in the form of randomized studies indicating which patients with inadequate weight loss or weight regain will benefit most from revision, or to support one particular revision approach rather than another, it is possible to develop general, effective strategies.

[Recommendations for the peri-operative management of bariatric surgery patients: results of a national survey]

To standardise possible peri-operative bariatric surgery protocols, a survey was prepared to be filled in by members of the Spanish Society for Obesity (Sociedad Española de Cirugía de la Obesidad) (SECO), and to approve it at the XII National Congress. A total of 47 members of SECO from 14 autonomous communities responded, and it unanimously approved by the Congress. As highly recommended peri-operative procedures, were proposed: full laboratory analysis (98%) with an endocrine study (90%), ECG (96%), chest x-ray (98%), an oesophageal-gastric imaging test (endoscopy or gastro-duodenal transit study (98%), antibiotic prophylaxis (92%) and use of low molecular weight heparins pre-operatively (96%), and for 2 weeks (83%). Pre-surgical, abdominal ultrasound (86%), spirometry (80%), diet (88%) and psychological study (76%), and during surgery, use of elastic stockings (76%), leak tests (92%) and drainages (90%), were established as advisable procedures.

Intraoperative endoscopy for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: leak test and beyond

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to determine the role of intraoperative endoscopy in identifying gastrojejunostomy leak in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRNYGB) and to define other roles that can be achieved by this diagnostic maneuver.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent LRNYGB at both Cleveland Clinic (USA) and Adan Hospital (Kuwait) was undertaken. All operations were performed by 2 surgeons (B.C. and F.A.).We analyzed the following parameters in the patients: mean age, estimated blood loss, average hospital stay, the number of patients who had intraoperative leaks, and those who developed intraoperative pouch bleeding.

RESULTS

Between July 2004 and January 2009, 290 patients (244 women-85% and 46 men-15%) were operated upon with a mean age of 42 years (range: 19 to 61 y). The average body mass index was 48 kg/m2 (range: 35 to 65 kg/m2), and the average American Society of Anesthesiology classification of 3 (range: 2 to 4). Mean estimated blood loss of 95 mL (range: 27 to 310 mL) and the mean operative time was 165 minutes (range: 102 to 348 min). The average hospital stay was 3 days (range: 2 to 13 d). Eleven patients (3.7%) developed intraoperative leaks that were controlled intraoperatively. Ten patients (3.4%) developed intraoperative pouch bleeding, in 6 of them the bleeding vessel was controlled laparascopically. No documented postoperative leak in this series of patients. One patient (0.34%) underwent diagnostic laparoscopy for clinical suspicion of a leak which could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative endoscopy for LRNYGBP may reduce the leak rate postoperatively and also, may minimize postoperative endoscopy and surgical intervention for gastrointestinal bleeding.