Comparison of early post-operative complications in primary and revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and duodenal switch MBSAQIP-reported cases from 2015 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most performed bariatric surgery, though gastric bypass (GB) and duodenal switch (DS) remain common, especially as conversion/revision (C/R) procedures. This analysis compared early postoperative outcomes of primary and C/R laparoscopic SG to DS and GB; and primary procedures of each vs C/R counterparts. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) dataset was queried for SG, GB, and DS cases from 2015 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression calculated crude and adjusted odds ratios for surgical site infection (SSI), reoperation, and readmission at 30 days in two initial comparisons: (1) primary SG vs DS or GB and (2) C/R SG vs DS or GB. A secondary analysis compared primary GS, GB, or DS with C/R counterparts. Models were adjusted for confounding demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 755,968 primary cases, most were SG (72.8%), followed by GB (26.3%), then DS (0.9%). Compared to SG, GB and DS demonstrated higher odds of SSI (aOR 3.02 [2.84, 3.2]), readmission (aOR 1.97 [1.92, 2.03]), and reoperation (aOR 2.74 [2.62, 2.86]), respectively. Of 68,716 C/R cases, SG was most common (43.2%), followed by GB (37.5%), then DS (19.2%). C/R GB and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (aOR 2.28 [1.98, 2.62]), readmission (aOR 2.10 [1.94, 2.27]), and reoperation (aOR 2.3 [2.04, 2.59]) vs SG, respectively. C/R SG and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 2.09 [1.66, 2.63]; 1.63 [1.24, 2.14), readmission (OR 1.13 [1.02, 1.26]), and reoperation (OR 1.27 [1.06, 1.52]; 1.58 [1.24, 2.0]), vs primary procedures. C/R DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 1.23 [1.66, 2.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Early complications are comparable between GB and DS, and greater than SG. In C/R procedures, GB and DS demonstrate greater risk than SG. Overall, C/R procedures demonstrate greater risk of most, but not all, early postoperative complications.

Comparison of robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy outcomes in multiple staple line treatment modalities from 2015 to 2019: a 5-year propensity score-adjusted MBSAQIP® analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is an increasingly common approach to sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Staple line reinforcement (SLR) is well-discussed in laparoscopic SG literature, but not RSG- likely due to the absence of dedicated robotic SLR devices. However, most RSG cases report SLR. This retrospective analysis compares outcomes in RSG cases reporting (1) any staple line treatment (SLT) vs none and (2) SLR vs oversewing. METHODS: MBSAQIP was queried for adults who underwent RSG from 2015 to 2019. Open procedures, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, hand-assisted, single-incision, concurrent procedures, and illogical BMIs were excluded (n = 3444). Final sample included 52,354 patients. Two comparisons were made: SLT (n = 34,886) vs none (n = 17,468) and SLR (n = 22,217) vs oversew (n = 5620). We fitted multivariable regression models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and performed propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weight based on patient factors. RESULTS: Most RSG cases utilized SLT (66.6%). Cases with SLT had a reduced risk of organ space SSI (RR 0.68 [0.49, 0.94]), 30-day reoperation (RR 0.77 [0.64, 0.93]), 30-day re-intervention (RR 0.80 [0.67, 0.96]), sepsis (RR 0.58 [0.35, 0.96]), unplanned intubation (RR 0.59 [0.37, 0.93]), extended ventilator use (RR 0.46 [0.23, 0.91]), and renal failure (RR 0.40 [0.19, 0.82]) compared to no-treatment cases. In single-treatment cases (n = 27,837), most utilized SLR (79.8%). Cases with oversew had a higher risk of any SSI (RR 1.70 [1.19, 2.42]), superficial incisional SSI (RR 1.71 [1.06, 2.76]), septic shock (RR 6.47 [2.11, 19.87]), unplanned intubation (RR 2.18 [1.06, 4.47]), and extended ventilator use (> 48 h) (RR 4.55 [1.63, 12.71]) than SLR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest SLT in RSG is associated with reduced risk of some adverse outcomes vs no-treatment. Among SLT, SLR demonstrated lower risk than oversewing. However, risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest, and unplanned ICU admission were not significant.

Comparison of post-operative outcomes of large direct inguinal hernia repairs based on operative approach (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic) using the ACHQC (Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative) database.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic hernia repairs for direct, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs, with particular focus on 30-day morbidity surgical site infection (SSI); surgical site occurrence (SSO); SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, and recurrence. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was queried for patients undergoing elective, primary, > 3 cm medial, unilateral inguinal hernia repairs with an open (Lichtenstein), laparoscopic, or robotic operative approach. Preoperative demographics and patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcomes were studied. A 1-to-1 propensity score matching algorithm was used for each operative approach pair to reduce selection bias. RESULTS: There were 848 operations included: 297 were open, 285 laparoscopic, and 266 robotic hernia repairs. There was no evidence of a difference in primary endpoints at 30 days including SSI, SSO, SSI/SSO requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI), reoperation, readmission, or recurrence for any of the operative approach pairs (open vs. robotic, open vs. laparoscopic, robotic vs. laparoscopic). For the open vs. laparoscopic groups, QoL score at 30 day was lower (better) for laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery (OR 0.53 [0.31, 0.92], p = 0.03), but this difference did not hold at the 1-year survey (OR 1.37 [0.48, 3.92], p = 0.55). Similarly, patients who underwent robotic repair were more likely to have a higher (worse) 30-day QoL score (OR 2.01 [1.18, 3.42], p = 0.01), but no evidence of a difference at 1 year (OR 0.83 [0.3, 2.26] p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not reveal significant post-operative outcomes between open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for large medial inguinal hernias. Surgeons should continue to tailor operative approach based on patient needs and their own surgical expertise.

Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Comparison of Patient Outcomes, Satisfaction, and Quality of Life in a Single-Center Experience.

Background: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most common primary bariatric operation performed in the United States. Its relative technical ease, combined with a decreased risk for anatomic and malabsorptive complications make LSG an attractive option compared to laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) for many patients and surgeons. However, emerging evidence for progressive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after LSG, and the inferior weight loss in many studies, suggests that the enthusiasm for LSG requires reassessment. We hypothesized that patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) may be lower after LSG compared to LGB because of these differences. Methods: We distributed a survey querying weight-loss outcomes, complications, foregut symptoms, QoL, and overall satisfaction to patients who underwent bariatric operations at our institution between 2000 and 2020 and who had electronic mail contact information available. Mean follow-up was 2.75 ± 2.41 years for LGB patients and 3.37 ± 2.18 (P = .021) years for LSG patients. We compared these groups for weight-loss outcomes, changes in foregut symptoms, gastrointestinal QoL, postbariatric QoL, and overall satisfaction using appropriate statistical tests. Results: Among 323 respondents, 126 underwent LGB and 197 underwent LSG. LGB patients had larger body mass index (BMI) reduction than LSG patients (-17.16 ± 9.07 kg/m2 versus -14.87 ± 7.4 kg/m2, P = .023). LGB patients reported less reflux (P = .003), with decreased heartburn (P < .0001) and regurgitation (P = .0027). However, a greater proportion of LGB patients reported at least one complication (P = .025). Despite this, more LGB patients reported satisfaction (92.86%) than LSG patients (73.6%). Conclusion: LGB patients are significantly more likely to be satisfied than LSG patients. Factors contributing to the higher level of satisfaction include less GERD and better BMI decrease.

Correlating actual one-year weight loss with predicted weight loss by the MBSAQIP: bariatric surgical risk/benefit calculator.

BACKGROUND: The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery has released a Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator, an online tool with which patients and providers can input patient preoperative information and predict their 1-year weight loss. We seek to validate our institutional data with the national database and investigated patient factors that influence lack of treatment effect after bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all prospectively collected data of bariatric surgeries performed at Yale New Haven Hospital from 2017 to 2018 was conducted. By entering data into the MBSAQIP Calculator, the 1-year predicted Body Mass Index was calculated and compared to the actual weight loss. Statistical analysis was performed using an unpaired t-test with Welch's correction (Prism 8, GraphPad). RESULTS: The average difference between the actual and predicted weight loss at 1-year for 327 patients was 3.6 BMI points. When the actual weight loss was compared to predicted BMI at 1 year, a high correlation was found (R = 0.6, P = 0.003). We examined the outliers with a comparison of weight loss for those patients who's BMI fell within 5 points of the predicted versus those whose BMI recorded above 5. It was discovered those patients who had higher than 5 BMI points than predicted, had higher preoperative BMI (46.1 vs 43.6, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The MBSAQIP calculator is a useful tool to guide surgeons with decision-making and informed consent. Our institution's 1-year weight loss data correlated closely with that predicted. From the outliers, we found that patients who did not meet the predicted weight loss had significantly higher preoperative BMI. This may alter preoperative discussions with class 3 or over obese patients regarding expected weight loss and warrant investigations with the national database to develop modifications of the calculator.

Short-Term Outcomes of Conversion of Failed Gastric Banding to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is associated with high long-term failure rates, often requiring conversion to an alternative bariatric procedure. The most efficacious procedure after failed LAGB is subject to debate. Our objective was to compare 12-month weight loss following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) vs. laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) performed for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after LAGB. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Medline for English language studies comparing weight loss after a conversion surgery for failed gastric banding. We examined studies with patients who had at least 1-year follow-up and included conversions to both LSG and LRYGB. A fixed effects model was created, and variance measures were calculated to measure heterogeneity. Both were analyzed for significance. All statistical analyses were conducted with the "meta" package in R 3.3.2. RESULTS: The initial search produced 17 studies. Six studies, consisting of 205 LSG and 232 LRYGB patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Heterogeneity among studies was high (Q = 23.1; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in weight loss after 12 months between the groups (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: It remains unknown which conversion procedure is more appropriate to perform after a failed gastric band in order to achieve the highest weight loss potential. In our meta-analysis, there was no difference in weight loss after 12 months in patients who were converted to LSG or LRYGB. Further studies and longer follow-up comparisons are required before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Elevated vitamin D receptor levels in genetic hypercalciuric stone-forming rats are associated with downregulation of Snail.

Patients with idiopathic hypercalciuria (IH) and genetic hypercalciuric stone-forming (GHS) rats, an animal model of IH, are both characterized by normal serum Ca, hypercalciuria, Ca nephrolithiasis, reduced renal Ca reabsorption, and increased bone resorption. Serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)(2)D] levels are elevated or normal in IH and are normal in GHS rats. In GHS rats, vitamin D receptor (VDR) protein levels are elevated in intestinal, kidney, and bone cells, and in IH, peripheral blood monocyte VDR levels are high. The high VDR is thought to amplify the target-tissue actions of normal circulating 1,25(OH)(2)D levels to increase Ca transport. The aim of this study was to elucidate the molecular mechanisms whereby Snail may contribute to the high VDR levels in GHS rats. In the study, Snail gene expression and protein levels were lower in GHS rat tissues and inversely correlated with VDR gene expression and protein levels in intestine and kidney cells. In human kidney and colon cell lines, ChIP assays revealed endogenous Snail binding close to specific E-box sequences within the human VDR promoter region, whereas only one E-box specifically bound Snail in the rat promoter. Snail binding to rat VDR promoter E-box regions was reduced in GHS compared with normal control intestine and was accompanied by hyperacetylation of histone H(3). These results provide evidence that elevated VDR in GHS rats likely occurs because of derepression resulting from reduced Snail binding to the VDR promoter and hyperacetylation of histone H(3).