Propensity score-matched comparison of safety outcomes between high-risk and low-risk patients towards early hospital discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), a common treatment for symptomatic gallstones, has demonstrated safety in low-risk patients. However, existing data are scarce regarding the safety of LC in high-risk patients and the feasibility of early hospital discharge. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 2296 patients diagnosed with symptomatic gallstones who underwent LC at a tertiary care centre from January 2009 through December 2019. The authors employed propensity score matching to mitigate bias between groups. Statistical significance was set at P less than 0.05. Results: The median age of the patients was 56 years (range 46-67), with a mean BMI of 25.2±4.3 kg/m2. Patients were classified as: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I (19.7%), II (68.3%), III (12.0%), and IV (0%). ASA I-II included low surgical risk patients (88%) and ASA III-IV comprised high-risk patients (12%). The LC-related 30-day reoperative rate was 0.2% and the readmission rate was 0.87%. Nine patients (0.4%) sustained major bile duct injuries, resulting in a conversion rate of 2.4%. The postoperative mortality rate was 0.04%, and the mean hospitalization time was 3.5 days. Patients in the high-risk group with a history of acute cholecystitis exhibited greater estimated blood loss, longer operative times, and were significantly more likely to be in the longer-stay group. Conclusion: These findings suggest that LC can be conducted safely on high-risk patients, and early hospital discharge is achievable. However, specific factors, such as a history of acute cholecystitis, may result in prolonged hospitalization owing to increased blood loss and longer operative times.

Randomized controlled trial of intravenous sedation vs general anesthesia for esophageal dilation with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) is mostly diagnosed in its later stages, when patients present with dysphagia and weight loss. Esophageal dilation with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a common surgical procedure in patients with locally advanced ESCC because of tumor obstruction and enteral nutrition support during neoadjuvant or definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Esophageal dilation with PEG is widely performed under general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal intubation. AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the overall success rate of completing this procedure using intravenous (IV) sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) relative to GA and to compare its perioperative conditions, including procedure times, pain scores (visual analog scale), adverse events, and costs. SETTINGS: Songklanagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) of locally advanced ESCC patients who had dysphagia and needed esophageal dilation with PEG between January 2020 and December 2021. Esophageal dilation (using a Savary-Gilliard dilator) and PEG were performed using the pull technique. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to either the DEX group (n = 34) or the GA group (n = 36). All patients in both groups underwent successful surgery. The DEX group had a significantly shorter procedure time, lower procedure cost, and lower total hospital cost than the GA group. However, there were no significant between-group differences in pain scores or length of hospital stay. There were no serious adverse events in either group; however, the GA group had some incidences of sore throat, transient hoarseness, and atelectasis. CONCLUSION: This study found that IV sedation with DEX during esophageal dilation with PEG was as effective and safe as using GA.

Impact of preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients undergoing bariatric surgery and development of a model to predict clinically significant abnormal endoscopic findings.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery can help surgeons detect abnormalities in the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract that may require a change in surgical plan. However, the need for EGD before bariatric surgery is controversial. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the prevalence of UGI abnormalities and evaluate the predictive factors of abnormal findings that require a change in surgical plan or cause a delay in surgical treatment in patients undergoing bariatric surgery and develop a prediction model. METHODS: The medical records from January 2012 to July 2020 were retrospectively reviewed in patients who underwent EGD before bariatric surgery. The EGD findings were classified into four groups based on their effects on management. Group 1 had normal findings. Group 2 had abnormal findings that did not require a change in surgical management. Group 3 had abnormal findings that required a change in the surgical plan or caused a delay in surgical treatment. Group 4 had contraindications to surgery. Predictive factors for Groups 3 and 4 were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. A model visualized as a nomogram was developed based on significant factors. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 461 patient records (63.8% female) were reviewed. The mean age was 35.1 ± 11.2 years and the mean BMI was 47.7 ± 8.7 kg/m2. The prevalence of endoscopic findings in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 42.5%, 35.6%, 21.9%, and 0%, respectively. The most common abnormal findings were non-erosive gastritis (31.2%) followed by Helicobacter pylori infection (18.7%) and hiatal hernia (10.2%). Male sex and NSAID use were significantly associated with detection of lesions in Group 3 either on univariate or multivariate analysis, while type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was a significant protective factor on multivariate analysis. On subgroup analysis in patients ≥ 40 years old, multivariate analysis revealed age, BMI, and NSAID use were significantly associated with the detection of lesions in Group 3, while T2DM was still a significant protective factor. A nomogram to predict lesions in Group 3 for this subgroup was developed and showed good discrimination (C-statistics 0.737, 95% CI 0.721‒0.752). CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of abnormal endoscopic findings was observed in Thai patients who are undergoing bariatric surgery. Preoperative EGD screening is helpful in detecting UGI abnormalities that require a change in the surgical decision plan. The new nomogram may help rational utilization of EGD prior to bariatric surgery.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is a pervasive type of malignancy that accounts for one-third of colorectal cancers worldwide. Several studies have assessed the use of laparoscopic surgery as a treatment option. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding its oncological safety. METHODS: This retrospective study included 270 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer who underwent either laparoscopic resection (LR, n = 93) or open resection (OR, n = 177) in an academic medical center. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), whereas the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. We performed propensity score analyses and compared outcomes. Univariate survival analyses using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard regression models were also conducted. RESULTS: In the propensity score matching analyses, 93 LR- and 93 OR-matched patients were compared. The overall median follow-up time was 3.95 years (range, 1.98‒5.55 years). The 3-year OS was similar between the groups (LR 79.1% vs OR 79.2%, p = 0.82). Meanwhile, the DFS rate was also comparable between the groups (LR 77.8% vs OR 73.2%, p = 0.53). No significant differences in operative blood loss or hospital stay between the groups were observed (150 vs 150 mL, p = 0.74; 9 vs 10 days, p = 0.077, respectively). Also, no difference was found in postoperative complications between the groups (p = 0.23). However, LR was associated with a longer operative time than OR (455 vs 356 min, p < 0.001) and the number of lymph nodes harvested in LR was slightly fewer than OR (10 vs 11, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: LR of rectal cancer is safe, feasible, and comparable to standard OR in terms of the oncologic outcomes. However, LR required longer operative times. A well-designed prospective study with a large number of participants and long follow-up period is needed to show significant differences between the two groups.
.

Effects of intraoperative leak testing on postoperative leak-related outcomes after primary bariatric surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative leak test (IOLT) is commonly performed to evaluate the integrity of an anastomosis or staple line during bariatric surgery. However, the utility of IOLT is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of IOLT on postoperative leak-related outcomes after primary bariatric surgery. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program-accredited centers. METHODS: The 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement databases were analyzed for sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPDDS) to determine the postoperative anastomotic/staple line leak (A/SL) and leak-related outcomes. RESULTS: Data for a total of 265,309 patients who underwent SG (69.6%), RYGB (29.7%), or BPDDS (.8%) were analyzed. IOLT was performed in 81.9% of all patients. Overall A/SL, mortality rate in patients with leakage, and 30-day leak-related mortality were .28%, .1%, and .003%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the IOLT and non-IOLT groups in terms of A/SL, 30-day mortality in patients with leakage, 30-day leak-related mortality, readmission, reoperation, intervention, or organ/space surgical site infection. However, the rate of 30-day leak-related intervention in BPDDS was significantly lower in the IOLT group compared to the non-IOLT group (.18% versus 1.15%, P = .01). Whether IOLT was performed endoscopically or nonendoscopically had no effect on the rate of postoperative leaks. Overall mean operative time increased by 19.1 minutes (9.5, 11.9, and 21.2 min for SG, RYGB, and BPDDS, respectively) when IOLT was performed. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of postoperative A/SL and leak-related morbidity was low. This study provided no evidence of either benefit or harm from IOLT in patients who underwent SG, RYGB, or BPDDS.

Effectiveness, Compliance, and Acceptability of Preoperative Weight Loss with a Liquid Very Low-Calorie Diet Before Bariatric Surgery in Real Practice.

OBJECTIVE: A preoperative very low-calorie diet (VLCD) is a common method to reduce weight before bariatric surgery. However, patient compliance and acceptability are not always known. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness, compliance, and acceptability of our regimen in a metropolitan academic quaternary care center. METHODS: Patients with a BMI < 50 kg/m2 and a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 were instructed to be on a liquid VLCD for 1 week and 2 weeks, respectively. The primary outcome was the amount of weight loss. Secondary outcomes were patient compliance and acceptability of either regimen using a questionnaire for hunger, satisfaction, desire, and deviation for solids. RESULTS: The study included 128 patients. Ninety-four patients were in the BMI < 50 kg/m2 group, and 34 patients were in the BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 group. The BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 group had a greater percentage of total weight loss (mean ± SD) than that of the BMI < 50 kg/m2 group without statistical differences (4.4 ± 1.3% vs. 3.8 ± 1.6%, p = 0.072). There were no statistical differences between the groups in terms of hunger, satisfaction with a liquid diet, or satisfaction of eating over drinking. However, hunger sensation (median [IQR]) tended to be higher in the BMI < 50 kg/m2 group than that in the BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 group (2 [2] vs. 2 [2, 3]; p = 0.06). There was no statistical difference in the percentage of patient compliance between the groups (75.5% [n = 71] vs. 61.8% [n = 21], p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative liquid VLCD provided a modest amount of weight loss and showed a high rate of patient compliance and acceptability.

Impact of vagus nerve integrity testing on surgical management in patients with previous operations with potential risk of vagal injury.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic and foregut operations can cause vagal nerve injury resulting in delayed gastric emptying or gastroparesis. However, the cause of gastroparesis in these patients is not always from a vagal injury. We hypothesize that vagal nerve integrity (VNI) testing may better define who has vagal nerve dysfunction. This information may change subsequent operations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of VNI testing in patients with prior thoracic or gastric surgery. METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2017, patients who had previous operations with the potential risk of vagal injury and had VNI testing were reviewed. Excluded patients were those with no plan for a second operation or the second operation was only for gastroparesis. The main outcome was the percentage of operations altered due to the results of VNI testing. RESULTS: Twelve patients (eight females) were included. Ages ranged from 37 to 77 years. VNI results were compatible with vagal injury in eight patients (67%). VNI test results altered subsequent operative plans in 41.7% (5/12). Pyloroplasty was done in addition to fundoplication in two patients. Plans for hiatal hernia repair with or without redo-fundoplication in three patients were changed by an additional pyloroplasty in one patient and partial gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction in two patients. All patients who had secondary surgery had resolution of symptoms and improvement in objective testing. CONCLUSION: The addition of VNI testing in patients with a previous potential risk of vagal nerve injury may help the surgeon select the appropriate secondary operation.

Loop Duodenojejunal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy: Comparative Study with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with a BMI <35 kg/m(2), First Year Results.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has shown good diabetes remission in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but long-term complications were observed. We developed loop duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (LDJB-SG) to achieve diabetes remission and avoid the drawbacks of RYGB. We compare 1-year results between LDJB-SG and RYGB with body mass index (BMI) <35 kg/m(2) of T2DM patients. METHODS: We conducted a case-matched study of BMI < 35 kg/m(2) T2DM patients who underwent RYGB and LDJB-SG matching on age, BMI, and duration of diabetes. The 1-year surgical results were compared. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included from March 2010 to August 2012. Thirty patients underwent RYGB and 30 underwent LDJB-SG. The operative time (mean ± SD) and length of stay (median [IQR]) were significantly longer in the LDJB-SG group than in the RYGB group (127.0 ± 40.2 vs. 105.0 ± 64.7 min and 3[3, 4] vs. 3[2, 3] days, respectively). There were no statistical differences between the groups in the mean BMI, fasting plasma glucose, and %HbA1c either at baseline or at 1 year. However, these parameters dropped significantly from the preoperative values (p < 0.01). The level of HOMA-%B at 1 year was significantly higher in the LDJB-SG group than in the RYGB group (p = 0.004). The resolution of comorbidities was similar. Late complications seemed higher in the RYGB group (12 vs. 5, p = 0.08). There were no deaths, but two patients in each group required reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: LDJB-SG was comparable to RYGB in terms of weight loss, glycemic control, and comorbidity resolution in BMI <35 kg/m(2) T2DM patients in the short-term.