Comparative analysis of sleeve conversions of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program 2020 Database.

BACKGROUND: Although the sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the dominant bariatric procedure, studies have shown conversion rates of up to 30%. These conversions are generally for weight regain (WR), insufficient weight loss (IWL) or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Before 2020, details on why conversions were being performed were not collected in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF). Now, the indication for sleeve conversion is noted in the PUF, allowing identification and reporting sleeve conversion reasons. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the reasons for SG conversions nationwide. SETTING: The 2020 MBSAQIP PUF. METHODS: The 2020 MBSAQIP PUF was examined to determine the reasons why SG were converted to other operations. The data field of "Revision/Conversion Final Indication" was used along with "Procedure type." Primary bariatric operations were excluded. Descriptive statistics were applied. Different reasons for conversion and operations were compared by preoperative characteristics and operative outcomes. RESULTS: There were 103,782 primary SG reported in the 2020 PUF. There were 7181 SG that were converted to other operations. The most common conversion (86.2%) was to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The main reason for SG conversion was GERD at 48.4%, followed by WR/IWL (41.9%). Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve patients differed significantly from RYGB patients in specific preoperative characteristics and operative outcomes. CONCLUSION: The most common procedure SG is converted to is the RYGB. GERD was the most common reason for SG conversion, followed by WR/IWL.

Does bioabsorbable mesh reduce hiatal hernia recurrence rates? A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The use of bioabsorbable mesh at the hiatus is controversial. Long-term data are scant. We evaluated the world literature and performed a meta-analysis to determine if these meshes were effective in reducing recurrence. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and ClinicalKey. We evaluated articles reporting on both Bio-A™ (polyglycolic acid:trimethylene carbonate-PGA:TMC) and Phasix™ (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-P4HB) used at the hiatus. The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to estimate the overall pooled treatment effect along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Similar analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes, i.e., recurrence rate, mean surgical time, mean hospital stays and mean follow-up duration between non-Mesh and Mesh group. The I2 statistic was computed to assess the heterogeneity in effect sizes across the studies. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies (12 mesh studies with 963 subjects and 9 non-mesh studies with 617 subjects) were included to conduct the meta-analysis. There was one article reporting outcomes on P4HB mesh (73 subjects) and 11 on PGA:TMC mesh (890 subjects). The bioabsorbable mesh group had a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to the non-mesh group (8% vs. 18%; 95%CI 0.08-0.17), pooled p-value < 0.0001. Surgery time was shorter in the mesh group compared to the non-mesh group (136.4 min vs. 150 min) but not statistically significant (p = 0.54). There tended to be a more extended follow-up period after surgery in the non-mesh group compared to the mesh group (27 vs. 25.8 months, range 10.8-54 months); but not statistically significant (ES: 27.4; 95%CI 21.6-33.3; p = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Hiatal hernia repair with bioabsorbable mesh is more effective at reducing hernia recurrence rate in the mid-term than simple suture cruroplasty. Further studies investigating the long-term outcomes and P4HB mesh are needed.

Does the use of bioabsorbable mesh for hiatal hernia repair at the time of bariatric surgery reduce recurrence rates? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anywhere from 16% to 37% of patients undergoing bariatric and metabolic surgery are estimated to have a hiatal hernia. To address the lack of long-term data showing the efficacy of bioabsorbable mesh in reducing the recurrence of hiatal hernia in patients who undergo bariatric surgery, we evaluated the world literature and performed a meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hiatal hernia recurrence rates after placement of bioabsorbable mesh in bariatric patients. SETTING: Meta-analysis of world literature. METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE with search terms including "hiatal hernia recurrence," "bariatric surgery," "bioabsorbable mesh," "Gore BIO-A," and "trimethylene carbonate." Analysis was conducted to compare surgical time, length of stay, recurrence rate, hernia size, and changes in body mass index before and after surgery between mesh-group (MG) and nonmesh (NM) patients. The meta-analysis was described using standardized mean difference, weighted mean difference, effect size, and 95% confidence interval (CI). An I2 statistic was computed to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 1351 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Four studies had both an MG and an NM group. There were 668 patients in the MG and 683 patients in the NM group. Hernia size noted in the NM group (7 cm2) was compared with that in the MG (6.5 cm2) (95% CI: 3.89-9.14; P = .86). The MG had fewer recurrences than the NM group (effect size, 2% versus 14%; 95% CI: -.26 to -.02; P = .027). The average follow-up was 28.8 months for the MG and 32.8 months for the NM group. CONCLUSION: Repair with bioabsorbable mesh at the time of the index bariatric surgery is more effective at reducing the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia than suture cruroplasty. Further studies investigating the long-term outcomes of bioabsorbable mesh placed at the time of bariatric surgery are needed.

Antibody-mediated rejection as a contributor to previously unexplained early liver allograft loss.

We analyzed 60 patients with idiopathic early allograft loss (defined as death or retransplantation at <90 days) to determine the relative contribution of preformed donor-specific human leukocyte antigen alloantibodies (DSAs) to this endpoint, and we defined strict criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in liver allografts. The inclusion criteria encompassed the availability of a pretransplant serum sample and both postreperfusion and follow-up tissue specimens for a blinded, retrospective re-review of histology and complement component 4d (C4d) staining. AMR was diagnosed on the basis of the presence of all 4 of the following strict criteria: (1) DSAs in serum, (2) histopathological evidence of diffuse microvascular injury/microvasculitis consistent with antibody-mediated injury, (3) diffuse C4d staining in the portal microvasculature with or without staining in the sinusoids or central veins in at least 1 sample, and (4) the exclusion of other causes of a similar type of injury. Patients thought to be experiencing definite AMR on the basis of routine histopathology alone showed the highest levels of DSA sensitization. Forty percent of patients with pretransplant DSAs with a pattern of bead saturation after serial dilutions developed AMR. Another multiparous female developed what appeared to be a strong recall response, which resulted in combined AMR and acute cellular rejection (ACR) causing graft failure. A contribution of DSAs to allograft failure could not be excluded for 3 additional patients who received marginal grafts. In conclusion, liver allograft recipients with preformed DSAs with a high mean fluorescence intensity despite dilution seem to be at risk for clinically significant allograft injury and possibly for loss from AMR, often in combination with ACR.