Laparoscopic management of pathologic gastroesophageal reflux after sleeve gastrectomy using the magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device-a Video Vignette.

PURPOSE: The development of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been shown to be not infrequent after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Management may vary from medical therapy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) conversion. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) device has been shown to be a promising option with excellent results. The purpose of this video was to demonstrate the laparoscopic management of post-LSG GERD with MSA device implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An intraoperative video has been edited to demonstrate the MSA device placement after LSG for the treatment of pathologic GERD. RESULTS: The procedure started with the lysis of the perigastric adhesions to free the distal esophagus circumferentially. The posterior vagus nerve was identified, and a small window was created between the posterior esophageal wall anteriorly and the vagus nerve posteriorly. A hiatoplasty was performed using two non-resorbable interrupted 2.0 Prolene® sutures. The system's sizer was placed to measure the junctional circumference. A 15-mm MSA device was implanted. CONCLUSION: MSA device placement seems technically feasible and safe with promising results in term of improved LES resting pressure and esophageal acid exposure. While future studies are necessary to corroborate these preliminary indications, MSA device may possibly become a valid option in surgeon armamentarium.

Staple Line Reinforcement During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Staple line reinforcement (SLR) during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the most commonly utilized techniques for SLR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare no reinforcement (NR), suture oversewing (SR), glue reinforcement (GR), bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement (Gore® Seamguard®) (GoR), and clips reinforcement (CR). Risk Ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used as pooled effect size measures. RESULTS: Overall, 3994 patients (17 RCTs) were included. Of those, 1641 (41.1%) underwent NR, 1507 (37.7%) SR, 689 (17.2%) GR, 107 (2.7%) GoR, and 50 (1.3%) CR. SR was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding (RR=0.51; 95% CrI 0.31-0.88), staple line leak (RR=0.56; 95% CrI 0.32-0.99), and overall complications (RR=0.50; 95% CrI 0.30-0.88) compared to NR while no differences were found vs. GR, GoR, and CR. Operative time was significantly longer for SR (WMD=16.2; 95% CrI 10.8-21.7), GR (WMD=15.0; 95% CrI 7.7-22.4), and GoR (WMD=15.5; 95% CrI 5.6-25.4) compared to NR. Among treatments, there were no significant differences for surgical site infection (SSI), sleeve stenosis, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SR seems associated with a reduced risk of bleeding, leak, and overall complications compared to NR while no differences were found vs. GR, GoR, and CR. Data regarding GoR and CR are limited while further trials reporting outcomes for these techniques are warranted.

Techniques for reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for cancer: updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The choice of the best reconstruction technique after distal gastrectomy (DG) remains controversial and still not defined. The purpose was to perform a comprehensive evaluation within the major type of intestinal reconstruction after DG for gastric cancer. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare Billroth I (BI), Billroth II (BII), Billroth II Braun (BII Braun), Roux-en-Y (RY), and Uncut Roux-en-Y (URY). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures while 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (1456 patients) were included. Of these, 448 (33.7%) underwent BI, 220 (15.1%) BII, 114 BII Braun (7.8%), 533 (36.6%) RY, and 141 URY (9.6%). No significant differences were found among treatments for 30-day mortality, anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and overall complications. At 12-month follow-up, RY was associated with a significantly reduced risk of remnant gastritis compared to BI (RR=0.56; 95% Crl 0.35-0.76) and BII reconstruction (RR=0.47; 95% Crl 0.22-0.97). Similarly, despite the lack of statistical significance, RY seems associated with a trend toward reduced endoscopically proven esophagitis compared to BI (RR=0.58; 95% Crl 0.24-1.51) and bile reflux compared to BI (RR=0.48; 95% Crl 0.17-1.41), BII (RR=0.74; 95% Crl 0.20-2.81), and BII Braun (RR=0.65; 95% Crl 0.30-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis shows that there are five main options for intestinal anastomosis after DG. All techniques seem equally safe with comparable anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, overall morbidity, and short-term outcomes. In the short-term follow-up (12 months), RY seems associated with a reduced risk of remnant gastritis and a trend toward a reduced risk of bile reflux and esophagitis.

Three-field versus two-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A long-term survival meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, controversy exists regarding the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy, while conclusive evidence regarding the advantages of 3-field versus 2-field lymphadenectomy remains controversial. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of 3-field lymphadenectomy versus 2-field lymphadenectomy on overall survival. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses were computed to compare 3-field lymphadenectomy versus 2-field lymphadenectomy in the setting of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Risk ratio, weighted mean difference, hazard ratio, and restricted mean survival time difference were used as pooled effect size measures. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (3,431 patients) were included. Overall, 1,664 (48.8%) patients underwent 3-field lymphadenectomy, and 1,767 (51.5%) underwent 2-field lymphadenectomy. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly improved 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.71-0.90; P < .001). The restricted mean survival time difference showed a statistically significant difference between 3-field lymphadenectomy versus 2-field lymphadenectomy up to 48 months (1.6 months; P = .04), however, no significant differences were found at 60-month follow-up (1.2 months; P = .14). No significant differences were found in term of postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, chylothorax, and recurrent nerve palsy. CONCLUSION: For resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, 3-field lymphadenectomy seems associated with a slight trend toward improved 5-year overall survival; however, its clinical benefit remains limited.