Nissen Sleeve (N-Sleeve) operation: preliminary results of a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most frequently performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Despite its impressive results, there is a growing concern about the relationship between SG and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). OBJECTIVES: We present our pilot study of patients operated with a Nissen anti-reflux valve added to a standard SG. SETTING: University hospital in Montpellier, France. METHODS: A prospective monocentric study including 25 consecutive patients operated with a laparoscopic Nissen-Sleeve (N-Sleeve) gastrectomy was carried out between September 2013 and March 2014. Inclusion criteria were indication for bariatric surgery for patients with GERD (Montreal's definition and classification). All patients were followed postoperatively for 1 year. RESULTS: There were 13 (54%) females and 12 (46%) males with mean age of 41±12 (20-65) years. Mean body mass index was 42±4.8 (35-53) kg/m2. Preoperatively, all patients had esophageal syndromes. Twenty-three (92%) patients had typical symptoms of GERD, but 2 were asymptomatic; however, they had esophageal injury. Esophagitis grade I-III presented in 10 (40%) patients and Barrett's esophagus in 8 (32%) cases. Two (8%) patients also had extraesophageal syndrome represented by asthma. Nineteen (76%) patients previously took proton pump inhibitors, regularly and 22 (88%) had experienced a hiatal hernia. There was no conversion to the open technique. Operative time was 84±13 (54-106) minutes. There were no deaths. Complications included one case of staple line bleeding and one Nissen valve perforation without recognized ischemia. No staple line failure was observed. Three months after N-Sleeve, 19 (76%) patients remained asymptomatic without proton pump inhibitor use. At 6 months and 1 year, 3 (12%) patients were still experiencing reflux. Excess weight loss at 1 year was 58±23%, total weight loss was 27±10%, and body mass index change was -11±4 kg/m². CONCLUSION: The N-Sleeve seems to be a safe procedure that provides an adequate reflux control with no clear interference on the expected bariatric results of a standard SG.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) for Sphincter-Saving Surgery: Is There Any Difference in the Transanal TME Rectal Approach? : A Single-Center Series of 120 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND: Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME), a novel way for minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, was shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) has drawn contradictory disputes, especially concerning operative high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare R-TME and L-TME on the rectal technical approach. METHODS: Between October 2009 and March 2013, a total of 120 consecutive rectal carcinomas, operated for sphincter-saving procedure, were enrolled. The patient population included the last 60 laparoscopic procedures and the first 60 robotic surgeries (six hybrid approaches, then 54 full robotic surgeries). There were no exclusions. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the R-TME and L-TME groups. Outcomes were equivalent for blood loss (200 vs. 100 mL), postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 11 days), conversion rate (3.2 vs. 4.8 %), lymph nodes yield (15 vs. 19), no positive distal margin (0 %), positive radial margin (6.4 vs. 9.3 %), diverting ileostomy (73 vs. 58 %) and severe morbidity (28 vs. 20 %). Significant differences were found for median operative time (274 vs. 228 min; p = 0.003) and proctectomy performed via transanal approach (1.7 vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.004). The R-TME operative time curve stabilized to 245 min after the first 25 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal cancer, R-TME may be as feasible and safe as L-TME in terms of technique. In our practice and for difficult cases, R-TME allows complete rectal dissection by an abdominal approach, while L-TME requires a transanal approach.