Effectiveness of sleeve gastrectomy plus fundoplication versus sleeve gastrectomy alone for treatment of patients with severe obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a widely performed bariatric surgery, but it is associated with an increased risk of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) in the long term. The addition of fundoplication to laparoscopic SG may improve lower oesophageal sphincter function and reduce postoperative GERD. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of SG plus fundoplication (SG + F) versus SG alone for the treatment of patients with severe obesity (≥35 kg/m2). SETTING: Meta-analysis. METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched from inception until January 2023. Studies were included if they compared outcomes of SG + F versus SG in patients with severe obesity (≥35 kg/m2). The primary outcome was remission of GERD postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of excess weight loss, percentage of total weight loss, postoperative complication rate, operative time, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies with 539 subjects (212 SG + F and 327 SG alone) were included. The mean preoperative body mass index was 42.6 kg/m2. SG + F achieved higher remission of GERD compared with laparoscopic SG (odds ratio [OR] = 13.13; 95% CI, 3.54-48.73; I2 = 0%). However, the percentage of total weight loss was lower in the SG + F group (mean difference [MD] = -2.75, 95% CI, -4.28 to -1.23; I2 = 0%), whereas there was no difference in the percentage of excess weight loss (MD = -0.64; 95% CI, -20.62-19.34; I2 = 83%). There were higher postoperative complications in SG + F (OR = 2.56; 95% CI, 1.12-5.87; I2 = 0%) as well. There was no difference in operative time or length of stay between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: SG + F achieved better GERD remission but is associated with lesser weight loss and increased postoperative complications compared with SG alone. Further studies are required to ascertain the overall clinical benefit of SG + F for patients with severe obesity.

Rationale and Trial Protocol for a Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial to assess the Impact of a Concomitant Crural Repair during Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients with a Lax Gastroesophageal Junction without Frank Hiatal Hernia (REPAIR trial protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE). The role of crural repair during LSG is still controversial. The preoperative laxity of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), graded by the Hill's classification, is more predictive for postoperative GERD and EE after LSG than the presence of a hiatal hernia seen on endoscopy. Thus, the authors hypothesize that a concomitant crural repair in a specific subgroup of patients with a lax GEJ (Hill's III) may reduce the incidence of postoperative GERD and EE. METHODS: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients with Hill's III GEJ undergoing LSG will be randomized to a concomitant crural repair (experimental) versus LSG alone (control). Primary outcome measures will be presence of EE at 1-year. Secondary outcome measures will include proton pump inhibitor use, postoperative complications, operative time, blood loss, quality of life, GERD and gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: Conflicting crural repair results may be explained by differences in preoperative GEJ laxity. Patients with a frank hiatal hernia and patulous GEJ (Hill's IV) have a very high, while patients with an apposed GEJ (Hill's I, Hill's II) have a low incidence of postoperative GERD and EE respectively. Thus, the authors hypothesize that patients with a lax GEJ without frank hiatal hernia (Hill's III), might benefit from a crural repair. This study results can potentially highlight the clinical importance of preoperative endoscopic evaluation of the GEJ in all patients planned for LSG, to determine which subgroup patients may benefit from a crural repair. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05330910, Registered 15-April-2022).

Defining the optimal time to appendectomy: A step toward precision surgery.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the association between time from admission to appendectomy on perioperative outcomes in order to determine optimal time-to-surgery windows. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all the appendectomies performed between July 2018 to May 2020. We first compared the perioperative outcomes using preselected time-to-surgery cut-offs, then determined optimal safe windows for surgery, and finally identified subgroups of patients who may require early intervention. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-one appendectomies were performed in the time period. The patients with a time-to-surgery of ≥12 hours had a significantly longer length of stay (median 2 days [interquartile range 1-3] vs 3 days [interquartile range 2-4], mean difference = 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.32-1.17, P = .0006]) and higher 30-day readmission risk (odds ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.12-5.96, P = .0266) versus those with a time-to-surgery of <12 hours. These differences persisted when the time-to-surgery was dichotomized by <24 or ≥24 hours. A time-to-surgery beyond 25 hours was associated with a 3.34-fold increased odds of open conversion (P = .040), longer operation time (mean difference 15.8 mins, 95% confidence interval 3.4-28.3, P = .013) and longer postoperative length of stay (mean difference 10.3 hours, 95% confidence interval 3.4-20.2, P = .042) versus a time-to-surgery of <25 hours. The patients with time-to-surgery beyond 11 hours had a 1.35-fold increased odds of 30-day readmission (95% confidence interval 1.02-5.43, P = .046) compared with those who underwent appendectomy before 11 hours. Older patients, patients with American Society of Anesthesiologist score II to III, and individuals with long duration of preadmission symptoms had higher risk of prolonged operation time, open conversion, increased length of stay, and postoperative morbidity with increasing time-to-surgery. CONCLUSION: This study identified the safe windows for appendectomy to be 11 to 25 hours from admission for most perioperative outcomes. However, certain patient subgroups may be less tolerant of surgical delays.

The Hill's Classification Is Useful to Predict the Development of Postoperative Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Erosive Esophagitis After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the commonest bariatric procedures. However, it is associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and erosive esophagitis (EE). This study aims to assess the impact of various preoperative clinical and endoscopic characteristics on the development of postoperative GERD and EE. METHODS: This study is a single-institution retrospective cohort study involving all patients who underwent LSG. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify preoperative parameters that were significantly associated with the development of postoperative GERD and EE, at up to 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: At up to 1-year follow-up, out of 127 patients, only preoperative endoscopic presence of a hiatal hernia noted on axial length (p=0.024) and the Hill's classification of the gastroesophageal junction (p<0.001) were significantly associated with the development of postoperative GERD. Similarly, at 1-year follow-up endoscopy, the presence of a hiatal hernia (p=0.041) and the Hill's classification (p=0.001) were associated with postoperative EE. On the multivariate analysis, compared to patients with a Hill's I flap valve, Hill's II patients were more likely to develop postoperative GERD (OR 7.13, 95% CI: 1.69-29.98, p=0.007), and Hill's III patients were more likely to develop postoperative GERD (OR 20.84, 95% CI: 3.98-109.13, p<0.001) and EE (OR 34.49, 95% CI: 1.08-1105.36, p=0.045). All patients with Hill's IV developed postoperative GERD and EE in this study. CONCLUSION: Postoperative GERD and EE remain an important limitation following LSG. Proper preoperative assessment using the Hill's classification can help to accurately predict patients at risk of postoperative GERD and EE.

Can venous base excess replace arterial base excess as a marker of early shock and a predictor of survival in trauma?

INTRODUCTION: Arterial base excess is an established marker of shock and predictor of survival in trauma patients. However, venous blood is more quickly and easily obtained. This study aimed to determine if venous base excess could replace arterial base excess as a marker in trauma patients at presentation and if venous base excess is predictive of survival at 24 hours and one week. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 394 trauma patients presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary hospital over a 17-month period. Data on base excess at presentation, vital signs, shock index (SI), injury severity score (ISS), and mortality at 24 hours and one week was collected and analysed. RESULTS: Arterial and venous blood gas tests were performed on 260 and 134 patients, respectively. Patients were stratified into groups based on their SI and ISS for analysis. There was no statistical difference between mean venous blood gas and arterial blood gas levels at presentation when SI > 0.7, regardless of ISS (p > 0.05). The mortality rate was 4.57%. Both venous and arterial base excess was lower in nonsurvivors compared to survivors (p < 0.05). However, at 24 hours and one week, the difference in base excess values at presentation between survivors and nonsurvivors was greater when using venous base excess compared to arterial base excess (11.53 vs. 4.28 and 11.41 vs. 2.66, respectively). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, venous base excess can replace arterial base excess in trauma patients as a means of identifying and prognosticating early shock.

Para-oesophageal and parahiatal hernias in an Asian acute care tertiary hospital: an underappreciated surgical condition.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of hiatal hernias and para-oesophageal hernias (PEHs) is lower in Asian populations than in Western populations. Progressive herniation can result in giant PEHs, which are associated with significant morbidity. This article presents the experience of an Asian acute care tertiary hospital in the management of giant PEH and parahiatal hernia. METHODS: Surgical records dated between January 2003 and January 2013 from the Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent surgical repair for giant PEH or parahiatal hernia during the study period. Open surgery was performed for four patients with giant PEH who presented emergently, while elective laparoscopic repair was performed for six patients with either giant PEH or parahiatal hernia (which were preoperatively diagnosed as PEH). Anterior 180° partial fundoplication was performed in eight patients, and mesh reinforcement was used in six patients. The electively repaired patients had minimal or no symptoms during presentation. Gastric volvulus was observed in five patients. There were no cases of mortality. The median follow-up duration was 16.3 months. There were no cases of mesh erosion, complaints of dysphagia or recurrence of PEH in all patients. CONCLUSION: Giant PEH and parahiatal hernia are underdiagnosed in Asia. Most patients with giant PEH or parahiatal hernia are asymptomatic; they often present emergently or are incidentally diagnosed. Although surgical outcomes are favourable even with a delayed diagnosis, there should be greater emphasis on early diagnosis and elective repair of these hernias.