A Prospective Multicenter Standard of Care Study of Outpatient Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

A global shift is occurring as hospital procedures move to ambulatory surgical settings. Surgeons have performed outpatient sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in bariatric surgery since 2010. However, prospective trials are needed to ensure its safety before widespread adoption. PURPOSE: The study aimed to present a comprehensive report on the prospective data collection of 30-day outcomes of outpatient primary laparoscopic SG (LSG). This trial seeks to assess whether outpatient LSG is non-inferior to hospital-based surgery in selected patients who meet the outpatient surgery criteria set by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is funded by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and has been approved by the Advarra Institutional Review Board (Pro00055990). Cognizant of the necessity for a prospective approach, data collection commenced after patients underwent primary LSG procedures, spanning from August 2021 to September 2022, at six medical centers across the USA. Data centralization was facilitated through ArborMetrix. Each center has its own enhanced recovery protocols, and no attempt was made to standardize the protocols. RESULTS: The analysis included 365 patients with a mean preoperative BMI of 43.7 ± 5.7 kg/m2. Rates for 30-day complications, reoperations, readmissions, emergency department visits, and urgent care visits were low: 1.6%, .5%, .2%, .2%, and 0%, respectively. Two patients (0.5%) experienced grade IIIb complications. There were no mortalities or leaks reported. CONCLUSION: The prospective cohort study suggests that same-day discharge following LSG seems safe in highly selected patients at experienced US centers.

Postoperative outcomes for sleeve gastrectomy patients with positive pH-defined GERD.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a possible side effect of sleeve gastrectomy (SG). However, procedure selection for patients with GERD and risk factors for morbidity after bypass surgeries is complex. For patients with a preoperative GERD diagnosis, literature related to worsening postoperative symptoms is discordant. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of SG on patients with pre-operative GERD confirmed through pH testing. SETTING: University Hospital, United States. METHODS: This was a single-center case-series. SG patients with preoperative pH testing were compared based on DeMeester scoring. Preoperative demographics, endoscopy results, need for conversion surgery, and changes in gastrointestinal quality of life (GIQLI) scores were compared. Two-sample independent t-tests assuming unequal variances were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Twenty SG patients had preoperative pH testing. Nine patients were GERD positive; median DeMeester score 26.7 (22.1-31.15). Eleven patients were GERD negative, with a median DeMeester score of 9.0 (4.5-13.1). The two groups had similar median BMI, preoperative endoscopic findings and use of GERD medications. Concurrent hiatal hernia repair was performed in 22% of GERD positive vs. 36% of GERD negative patients, (p = 0.512). Two patients in the GERD positive cohort required conversion to gastric bypass (22%), while none in the GERD negative cohort did. No significant postoperative differences were noted in GIQLI, heartburn, or regurgitation symptoms. CONCLUSION: Objective pH testing may allow the differentiation of patients who would be higher risk for need for conversion to gastric bypass. For patients with mild symptoms, but negative pH testing, SG may represent a durable option.

Survey of the 2020 Fellowship Council application and match process and the impact of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The interview process represents a necessary but potentially resource intensive process from applicant and program perspectives. This study aimed to identify opinions of the 2020 Fellowship Council (FC) application and match process and in-cycle transition to virtual interviews due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Surveys were developed to assess the interview process and were distributed by the FC to all applicants and fellowship programs. Completion was voluntary and data (median [IQR] reported) were anonymous. RESULTS: Applicant response was 53%. Applicants submitted 27.5 (13.25-40) applications, were offered 10 (4-17) interviews, and ranked 10 (5-15) programs. Due to COVID-19, 74% of interview plans changed. Applicants completed 30% of their planned in-person interviews. For decision-making, 90% felt that in-person and 81% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Expected cost was $4750 ($2000-$6000) vs. actual cost $1000 ($250-$2250), (p < 0.05). Expected missed work-days were 10 (5-16) versus actual 3 (0-6.25) (p < 0.05). For future interviews, 44% of applicants preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 29% preferred virtual only, and 18% preferred in-person only. Program response was 38%. Programs received 60 (43-85.5) applications, offered 20 (15-26) interviews, completed 16 (12.5-21) interviews, and ranked 14 (10-18) candidates. For decision-making, 92% of programs felt in-person versus 71% virtual interviews were sufficiently informative. Person-hours were greater for in-person 48 (27.5-80) versus virtual 24 (9-40) interviews (p < 0.05). For future interviews, 38% of programs preferred in-person after virtual pre-interviews, 31% preferred in-person only, and 21% preferred virtual only. CONCLUSION: Despite pandemic changes, 81% of applicants and 71% of programs felt they gained sufficient information from virtual sessions to create rank lists. Virtual interviews had lower costs and fewer missed work-days for applicants and decreased resource usage for programs. The majority of both groups preferred either solely virtual or virtual pre-interview followed by in-person interview formats. Virtual interviews should be incorporated into future fellowship application cycles.

E2f6-mediated repression of the meiotic Stag3 and Smc1ß genes during early embryonic development requires Ezh2 and not the de novo methyltransferase Dnmt3b.

The E2f6 transcriptional repressor is an E2F-family member essential for the silencing of a group of meiosis-specific genes in somatic tissues. Although E2f6 has been shown to associate with both polycomb repressive complexes (PRC) and the methyltransferase Dnmt3b, the cross-talk between these repressive machineries during E2f6-mediated gene silencing has not been clearly demonstrated yet. In particular, it remains largely undetermined when and how E2f6 establishes repression of meiotic genes during embryonic development. We demonstrate here that the inactivation of a group of E2f6 targeted genes, including Stag3 and Smc1ß, first occurs at the transition from mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to epiblast stem cells (EpiSCs), which represent pre- and post-implantation stages, respectively. This process was accompanied by de novo methylation of their promoters. Of interest, despite a clear difference in DNA methylation status, E2f6 was similarly bound to the proximal promoter regions both in ESCs and EpiSCs. Neither E2f6 nor Dnmt3b overexpression in ESCs decreased meiotic gene expression or increased DNA methylation, indicating that additional factors are required for E2f6-mediated repression during the transition. When the SET domain of Ezh2, a core subunit of the PRC2 complex, was deleted, however, repression of Stag3 and Smc1ß during embryoid body differentiation was largely impaired, indicating that the event required the enzymatic activity of Ezh2. In addition, repression of Stag3 and Smc1ß occurred in the absence of Dnmt3b. The data presented here suggest a primary role of PRC2 in E2f6-mediated gene silencing of the meiotic genes.