Sleeve gastrectomy as a surgical technique in bariatric surgery: Results of safety and effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness results of sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric technique. METHODS: Observational follow-up study of a cohort of patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy in our center between 2008 and 2017. A total of 223 patients were included: 166 as a primary technique (group 1) and 57 as a hypothetical first stage (group 2). RESULTS: In group 1, the postoperative morbidity is 12.6%, with a fistula rate of 4.2%; 5.4% required reoperation and mortality was 0.6%. In group 2, postoperative morbidity is 14%, with a fistula rate of 5.3%; 10.5% required reoperation and mortality was 5.3%. In group 1, 79.6% and 62.5% of patients at 2 and 5 years respectively managed to achieve a % EBMIL > 50%. In group 2, the second stage was completed only in 8 patients (14.0%). Of the patients who did not complete the second stage, 32.2% and 5.9% achieved a % EEBMIL > 100% at 2 and 5 years. Analyzing those who completed the second stage, the mean EEBMIL% was 90.5% and 93.4% at 2 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Sleeve gastrectomy is a safe technique in patients with BMI < 45 and effective in terms of weight loss in the short-medium term. In patients with BMI > 55, a preoperative optimization aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality is necessary, as well as adequately planning the second stage, without which it is clearly insufficient.

Gastrectomía vertical como técnica quirúrgica en cirugía bariátrica: análisis de resultados de seguridad y efectividad / Sleeve gastrectomy as a surgical technique in bariatric surgery: Results of safety and effectiveness

Introducción: El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar los resultados de seguridad y efectividad de la gastrectomía vertical como técnica bariátrica. Métodos: Estudio observacional de seguimiento de una cohorte de pacientes intervenidos de gastrectomía vertical en nuestro centro entre los años 2008 y 2017. Se incluyen en total de 223 pacientes: 166 como técnica primaria (grupo 1) y 57 como teórico primer tiempo (grupo 2). Resultados: En el grupo 1, la morbilidad postoperatoria es del 12,6%, siendo la tasa de fístula del 4,2%; un 5,4% precisó reintervención quirúrgica, y la mortalidad es del 0,6%. En el grupo 2, la morbilidad postoperatoria es del 14%, con una tasa de fístula del 5,3%; un 10,5% precisó reintervención quirúrgica y la mortalidad es del 5,3%. En el grupo 1, un 79,6 y un 62,5% de los pacientes a los 2 y 5 años, respectivamente, consiguen alcanzar un %EIMCP>50%. En el grupo 2, el segundo tiempo se completó únicamente en 8 pacientes (14,0%). De los pacientes que no completaron el segundo tiempo, el 32,2 y el 5,9% alcanzan un %EIMCPE>100% a 2 y 5 años. Analizando los pacientes que completaron el segundo tiempo, el %EIMCPE medio fue de 90,5 y 93,4% a los 2 y 5 años del mismo. Conclusiones: La gastrectomía vertical es una técnica segura en pacientes con IMC<45 y efectiva en cuanto a la pérdida de peso a corto-medio plazo. En pacientes con IMC>55 es necesario una optimización preoperatoria encaminada a reducir la morbimortalidad, así como planificar adecuadamente el segundo tiempo, sin el cual resulta claramente insuficiente.Palabras clave:ObesidadCirugía bariátricaGastrectomía verticalResultados de seguridad y efectividadEstándares de calidad (AU)

Introduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness results of sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric technique. Methods: Observational follow-up study of a cohort of patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy in our center between 2008 and 2017. A total of 223 patients were included: 166 as a primary technique (group 1) and 57 as a hypothetical first stage (group 2). Results: In group 1, the postoperative morbidity is 12.6%, with a fistula rate of 4.2%; 5.4% required reoperation and mortality was 0.6%. In group 2, postoperative morbidity is 14%, with a fistula rate of 5.3%; 10.5% required reoperation and mortality was 5.3%. In group 1, 79.6% and 62.5% of patients at 2 and 5 years respectively managed to achieve a % EBMIL>50%. In group 2, the second stage was completed only in 8 patients (14.0%). Of the patients who did not complete the second stage, 32.2% and 5.9% achieved a % EEBMIL>100% at 2 and 5 years. Analyzing those who completed the second stage, the mean EEBMIL% was 90.5% and 93.4% at 2 and 5 years. Conclusions: Sleeve gastrectomy is a safe technique in patients with BMI<45 and effective in terms of weight loss in the short-medium term. In patients with BMI>55, a preoperative optimization aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality is necessary, as well as adequately planning the second stage, without which it is clearly insufficient (AU)

Sleeve gastrectomy as a surgical technique in bariatric surgery: Results of safety and effectiveness. / Gastrectomía vertical como técnica quirúrgica en cirugía bariátrica: análisis de resultados de seguridad y efectividad.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness results of sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric technique. METHODS: Observational follow-up study of a cohort of patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy in our center between 2008 and 2017. A total of 223 patients were included: 166 as a primary technique (group 1) and 57 as a hypothetical first stage (group 2). RESULTS: In group 1, the postoperative morbidity is 12.6%, with a fistula rate of 4.2%; 5.4% required reoperation and mortality was 0.6%. In group 2, postoperative morbidity is 14%, with a fistula rate of 5.3%; 10.5% required reoperation and mortality was 5.3%. In group 1, 79.6% and 62.5% of patients at 2 and 5 years respectively managed to achieve a % EBMIL>50%. In group 2, the second stage was completed only in 8 patients (14.0%). Of the patients who did not complete the second stage, 32.2% and 5.9% achieved a % EEBMIL>100% at 2 and 5 years. Analyzing those who completed the second stage, the mean EEBMIL% was 90.5% and 93.4% at 2 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Sleeve gastrectomy is a safe technique in patients with BMI<45 and effective in terms of weight loss in the short-medium term. In patients with BMI>55, a preoperative optimization aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality is necessary, as well as adequately planning the second stage, without which it is clearly insufficient.

Herniación transhiatal del colon postesofagectomía / Post-esophagectomy hiatal hernia of the colon

No disponible

Cirugía mínimamente invasiva y robótica en el tratamiento quirúrgico de las neoplasias de la unión esofagogástrica / Minimally invasive and robotic surgery in the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer

La cirugía mínimamente invasiva permite el tratamiento de los tumores de la unión esofagogástrica en condiciones de seguridad, reduciendo las complicaciones respiratorias y parietales y mejorando la recuperación postoperatoria, manteniendo además los principios de la cirugía oncológica que permitan obtener unos resultados óptimos de efectividad a largo plazo. Para ello, es necesario un volumen de actividad suficiente y avanzar en la curva de aprendizaje de forma tutelada, para poder garantizar una resección R0 y una linfadenectomía adecuada. La mínima invasión no puede ser un objetivo en sí misma. En caso de gastrectomía total, el riesgo de afectación del margen proximal obliga a verificarlo mediante biopsia intraoperatoria, sin descartar la cirugía abierta de entrada. Por su parte, la esofagectomía mínimamente invasiva se ha ido imponiendo progresivamente. Su principal dificultad, la anastomosis intratorácica, puede realizarse mediante una sutura laterolateral mecánica o manualmente asistida por robot, gracias a la visión tridimensional y a la versatilidad del instrumental

Minimally invasive surgery provides for the treatment of esophagogastric junction tumors under safe conditions, reducing respiratory and abdominal wall complications. Recovery is improved, while maintaining the oncological principles of surgery to obtain an optimal long-term outcome. It is important to have a sufficient volume of activity to progress along the learning curve with close expert supervision in order to guarantee R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy. Minimal invasiveness ought not become an objective in itself. Should total gastrectomy be performed, the risk of a positive proximal margin makes intraoperative biopsy compulsory, without ruling out a primary open approach. Meanwhile, minimally invasive esophagectomy has been gaining ground. Its main difficulty, the intrathoracic anastomosis, can be safely carried out either with a mechanical side-to-side suture or a robot-assisted manual suture, thanks to the 3-D vision and versatility of the instruments

Minimally invasive and robotic surgery in the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer. / Cirugía mínimamente invasiva y robótica en el tratamiento quirúrgico de las neoplasias de la unión esofagogástrica.

Minimally invasive surgery provides for the treatment of esophagogastric junction tumors under safe conditions, reducing respiratory and abdominal wall complications. Recovery is improved, while maintaining the oncological principles of surgery to obtain an optimal long-term outcome. It is important to have a sufficient volume of activity to progress along the learning curve with close expert supervision in order to guarantee R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy. Minimal invasiveness ought not become an objective in itself. Should total gastrectomy be performed, the risk of a positive proximal margin makes intraoperative biopsy compulsory, without ruling out a primary open approach. Meanwhile, minimally invasive esophagectomy has been gaining ground. Its main difficulty, the intrathoracic anastomosis, can be safely carried out either with a mechanical side-to-side suture or a robot-assisted manual suture, thanks to the 3-D vision and versatility of the instruments.

Contribution of robotics to minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Robot-assisted surgery has the advantages of a three-dimensional view, versatility of instruments and better ergonomics. It allows fine dissection and difficult anastomoses in deep fields. Based on our experience, we try to define what are the main contributions of robotics to minimally invasive esophagectomy. From December 2009 to July 2012, we performed 24 minimally invasive esophagectomies (9 transhiatal, 5 Ivor-Lewis and 10 three-field), 16 of them robotically (8, 5 and 3, respectively). Eighteen patients (18/24 = 75 %) received neoadjuvant therapy. Nine patients (9/24 = 37.5 %) had symptomatic complications: 4 anastomotic leaks treated conservatively, one staple failure of the gastric plasty needing reoperation, one biliary peritonitis secondary to a gangrenous cholecystitis, one intrathoracic gastric migration after the only nonresectable case, one chylothorax and one patient with major cardiopulmonary complications. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 12 ± 7. Median length of stay was 14 ± 13.5 days. Thirty-day mortality was nil. Complications were not related to the robot itself but to the complexity of both the technique and the patient. Although we found no advantages for the use of robotics during threefield minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic mediastinal dissection during transhiatal esophagectomy can be performed safely under direct vision. Moreover, hand-sewn robotic-assisted technique in the prone position is promising and maybe the simplest way to carry out thoracic anastomosis during Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.