Is staple line oversewing in patients on chronic anticoagulation during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy necessary? Propensity score matching analysis using the 2015-2018 MBSAQIP.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased incidence of post-operative bleeding in patients on chronic anticoagulation (CAC). This incited some surgeons to oversew the sleeve staple line as a potentially preventive measure for post-operative bleeding. However, there is no clear evidence to assess the effectiveness of staple line oversewing during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in patients with CAC. METHODS: Using the 2015-2018 metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program database, patients between ages 18 and 65 who underwent LSG were included. To investigate the role of CAC, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) between the CAC and non-CAC patients. Then, to explore the impact of oversewing, we focused on the CAC patients and divided them into 2 subgroups: oversewing versus non-oversewing. PSM was also performed to compare both subgroups. To avoid confounders, both PSM analyses were performed using 22 preoperative characteristics. 30-day postoperative outcomes including bleeding and blood transfusion requirement were assessed. RESULTS: 402,826 patients underwent LSG. 9148 patients (2.3%) were on CAC. In the CAC cohort (8843 matched cases), the anticoagulated patients showed significant increase in postoperative bleeding (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < 0.001), blood transfusion requirements (1.7% vs. 0.7%; P < 0.001), unplanned ICU admissions (2.0% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.001), interventions (2.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.015), and readmissions (6.2% vs. 4.7%; P < 0.001). 1939 (21.2%) patients on CAC underwent oversewing during the LSG. The operative time was significantly longer in these patients (87.11 ± 40 vs. 76.19 ± 37; P < 0.001). Patients who underwent oversewing showed similar results in 30-day outcomes as those who did not, with no statistical difference, including postoperative bleeding (1.0% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.8) and blood transfusion requirements (1.4% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.9). CONCLUSION: Incidences of post-operative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements are higher in patients on CAC during the LSG. Oversewing the sleeve staple line leads to longer operative times without additional benefit in 30-day outcomes.

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.