Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy with Anterior Fundoplication Improves Frequency and Severity of Symptoms of Achalasia, Regardless of Preoperative Severity Determined by Esophagography.

This study was undertaken to determine whether postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic Heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication could be predicted by preoperative findings on esophagography. Preoperative barium esophagograms of 135 patients undergoing laparoscopic Heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication were reviewed. The number of esophageal curves, esophageal width, and angulation of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) were determined; correlations between these determined parameters and symptoms were assessed using linear regression analysis. The number of esophageal curves correlated with the preoperative frequency of dysphagia, vomiting, chest pain, regurgitation, and heartburn. The width of the esophagus negatively correlated with the preoperative frequency of regurgitation. The angulation of the GEJ did not correlate with preoperative symptoms. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication significantly reduced the frequency and severity of all symptoms, regardless of the number of esophageal curves, esophageal width, or angulation of the GEJ. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication provides dramatic palliation for achalasia. More esophageal curves on preoperative esophagography correlate well with the frequency of a broad range of preoperative symptoms, including the frequency of dysphagia and regurgitation. Patients experience dramatically improved frequency and severity of symptoms after laparoscopic Heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication for achalasia regardless of the number of esophageal curves, esophageal width, or the angulation of the GEJ. Findings on barium esophagogram, in evaluating achalasia, should not deter the application of laparosocopic Heller myotomy with anterior fundoplication.

Sulfonylureas (not metformin) improve survival of patients with diabetes and resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma have an increased propensity for diabetes. Recent studies suggest patients with diabetes and pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with metformin have increased survival. This study was undertaken to determine whether metformin use is associated with increased survival in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1991 to 2013 were included in this study. Survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Median data are reported. Significance was accepted with 95% probability. RESULTS: Of 414 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 132 (32%) were diabetic. Of patients with diabetes, 35 (27%) were diet-controlled, 34 (26%) were treated with insulin alone, 18 (14%) were treated with metformin alone, 14 (10%) were treated with sulfonylureas alone, 7 (5%) were taking sulfonylureas with insulin, and 24 (18%) patients were taking metformin with sulfonylureas and/or insulin. Patients with/without diabetes not taking sulfonylureas had survival of 16.4 months compared with patients taking sulfonylureas who achieved survival of 27.5 months after undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking sulfonylureas with or without other therapy had improved survival compared with patients not taking sulfonylureas after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Metformin does not seem to be beneficial for patients with resectable disease, but may be beneficial for patients with unresectable and/or metastatic disease as shown in prior studies. The use of sulfonylureas is associated with a survival benefit for patients undergoing resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Tumor staging and margin status continue to be the overriding predictors of survival in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, not metformin therapy.

High-volume surgeons vs high-volume hospitals: are best outcomes more due to who or where?

BACKGROUND: High-volume hospitals are purported to provide "best" outcomes. We undertook this study to evaluate the outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy when high-volume surgeons relocate to a low-volume hospital (ie, no pancreaticoduodenectomies in >5 years). METHODS: Outcomes after the last 50 pancreaticoduodenectomies undertaken at a high-volume hospital in 2012 (ie, before relocation) were compared with the outcomes after the first 50 pancreaticoduodenectomies undertaken at a low-volume hospital (ie, after relocation) in 2012 to 2013. RESULTS: Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomies at a high-volume vs a low-volume hospital were not different by age or sex. Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at the low-volume hospital had shorter operations with less blood loss, spent less time in the intensive care unit, and had shorter length of stay (P < .05 for each); 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The salutary benefits of undertaking pancreaticoduodenectomy at a high-volume hospital are transferred to a low-volume hospital when high-volume surgeons relocate. The "best" results follow high-volume surgeons.

Long-term Outcomes Favor Duodenum-preserving Pancreatic Head Resection over Pylorus-preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Chronic Pancreatitis: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the long-term outcomes of DPPHR versus PPPD in patients with chronic pancreatitis. A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases on all studies published between January 1991 and January 2013 reporting intermediate and long-term outcomes after DPPHR and PPPD for chronic pancreatitis. Long-term outcomes of interest were complete pain relief, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency. Other outcomes of interest included perioperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). Ten studies were included comprising of 569 patients. There was no significant difference in complete pain relief (P = 0.24), endocrine insufficiency (P = 0.15), and perioperative morbidity (P = 0.13) between DPPHR and PPPD. However, quality of life (P < 0.00001), professional rehabilitation (P = 0.004), exocrine insufficiency (P = 0.005), and LOS (P = 0.00001) were significantly better for patients undergoing DPPHR compared with PPPD. In conclusion, there is no significant difference in endocrine insufficiency, postoperative pain relief, and perioperative morbidity for patients undergoing DPPHR versus PPPD. Improved intermediate and long-term outcomes including LOS, quality of life, professional rehabilitation, and preservation of exocrine function make DPPHR a more favorable approach than PPPD for patients with chronic pancreatitis.

Transoral incisionless fundoplication: is it as safe and efficacious as a Nissen or Toupet fundoplication?

Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) was U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved in 2007 to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), but comparative data are lacking. This study was undertaken to compare outcomes for patients with GERD undergoing TIF versus laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplications. We undertook a case-controlled study of three cohorts of 20 patients undergoing TIF or laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplications from 2010 to 2013 controlling for age, body mass index, and preoperative DeMeester scores. All patients were prospectively followed. Median data are reported. Patients undergoing TIF had significantly shorter operative times (in minutes: 71 vs 119 and 85, respectively, P < 0.001) and length of stay (in days: 1, 2, and 1, respectively, P < 0.001). No matter the approach, patients reported dramatic and similar reduction in symptom frequency and severity (e.g., heartburn 8 to 0, P < 0.05). At follow-up, 83 per cent of patients after TIF, 80 per cent after Nissen, or 92 per cent after Toupet fundoplications had symptoms less than once per month (P = 0.12). TIF leads to dramatic symptom resolution, similar when compared with Nissen or Toupet fundoplications. TIF promotes shorter operative times and lengths of stay. Patient satisfaction and effective palliation of symptoms show that TIF is safe and efficacious in comparison to Nissen and Toupet fundoplications and support its continued application and evaluation.

External pancreatic duct stent reduces pancreatic fistula: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula formation (POPF) remains one of the most common and detrimental complications following pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ). The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy of external pancreatic duct stent placement in preventing POPF formation following PJ. METHODS: The primary end-point was the incidence of POPF formation following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in the presence and absence of external stent placement. Secondary outcomes examined were the incidence of perioperative mortality, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative wound infection, operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Four trials were included comprising 416 patients. External pancreatic duct stenting was found to reduce the incidence of both any grade POPF formation (OR 0.37, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.58, p = 0.0001) and clinically significant (grade B or C) POPF formation (OR 0.50, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.84, p = 0.0009) following PD. The use of an external stent was also found to significantly lessen length of hospital stay (SMD -0.39, 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.15, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has shown that external pancreatic duct stenting is indeed efficacious in the incidence of both any grade as well as clinically significant POPF formation following PD. Length of hospital stay was also found to be significantly less by external duct stenting.

Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) vs. conventional laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD: is there a difference?

BACKGROUND: This report details our experience with laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) fundoplication for GERD and provides a comparison to earlier contiguous patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic fundoplication. METHODS: With institutional review board approval, symptoms before and after LESS fundoplications and conventional laparoscopic fundoplications were scored by patients. Outcomes after 130 consecutive LESS fundoplications were compared to 130 contiguous consecutive outcomes after conventional laparoscopic fundoplications. RESULTS: Patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic vs. LESS fundoplication were very similar. There were no conversions to "open" operations and no notable complications with LESS fundoplication. Symptom reduction was broad and dramatic for patients undergoing LESS or conventional laparoscopic fundoplication; 96 % of patients who underwent LESS fundoplication scored their incision as ≥8 (1 = revolting to 10 = beautiful). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to conventional laparoscopy, LESS surgery provides excellent resolution of symptoms without an apparent scar. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, LESS fundoplication is as safe with similar symptom improvement and superior cosmesis.