Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic approach to concurrent bariatric surgery and hiatal hernia repair: propensity score matching analysis using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP.

BACKGROUND: Up to 37% of class three obesity patients have a Hiatal Hernia (HH). Most of the existent HHs get repaired at the time of bariatric surgery. Although the robotic platform might offer potential technical advantages over traditional laparoscopy, the clinical outcomes of the concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair comparing robotic vs laparoscopic approaches have not been reported. METHODS: Using the 2015-2018 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, patients between 18 and 65 year old who underwent Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with concurrent HH repair were identified. Demographic, operative, and 30-day postoperative outcomes data were compared between laparoscopic and robotic groups. To adjust for potential confounders, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. RESULTS: 75,034 patients underwent SG (n = 61,458) or RYGB (n = 13,576) with concurrent HH repair. The operative time was significantly longer in the Robotic-assisted compared to the laparoscopic approach both for SG (102.31 ± 44 vs. 75.27 ± 37; P < 0.001) and for RYGB (163.48 ± 65 vs. 132.87 ± 57; P < 0.001). In the SG cohort (4639 matched cases), the robotic approach showed similar results in 30 day outcomes as in the laparoscopic approach, with no statistical difference. Conversely, for the RYGB cohort (1502 matched cases), the robotic approach showed significantly fewer requirements for blood transfusions (0.3% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.001), fewer anastomotic leaks (0.2% vs. 0.8%; P = 0.035), and less postoperative bleeding (0.4% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Robotic concurrent bariatric surgery and HH repair leads to similar overall clinical outcomes as the laparoscopic approach despite longer operative times. Furthermore, the robotic approach is associated with reduced blood transfusion and anastomotic leak incidence in the RYGB group.

Management of early PEG tube dislodgement: simultaneous endoscopic closure of gastric wall defect and PEG replacement.

A 53-year-old man with dysphagia underwent uneventful placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for long-term enteral feeding access. 11 hours after the procedure, it was discovered that he had accidentally dislodged the feeding tube. On physical examination, he was found to have a benign abdomen without evidence of peritonitis or sepsis. He was observed overnight with serial abdominal examinations and nasogastric decompression. In the morning, he was taken back to the endoscopy suite where endoscopic clips were employed to close the gastric wall defect and a PEG tube was replaced at an adjacent site. The patient was fed 24 hours thereafter and discharged from the hospital 48 hours after the procedure. Early accidental removal of a PEG tube in patients without sepsis or peritonitis can be safely treated with simultaneous endoscopic closure of the gastrotomy and PEG tube replacement, resulting in earlier enteral feeding and shorter hospital stay.