Search

Background: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals., Study Design: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications., Results: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) contributes to perioperative morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the utilization and outcome of severely obese patients with MetS who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Using the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, data were obtained for patients with MetS undergoing LSG or LRYGB. There were 29,588 MetS patients (LSG: 58.7% vs LRYGB: 41.3%). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (0.1% for LSG vs 0.2% for LRYGB, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.58, confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.05, P = 0.07) or length of stay between groups (2 ± 2 for LSG vs 2.2 ± 2 days for LRYGB, P = 0.40). Compared with LRYGB, LSG was associated with significantly shorter operative time (78 ± 39 vs 122 ± 54 minutes, P < 0.01), lower overall morbidity (2.3% vs 4.4%, AOR 0.53, CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.01), lower serious morbidity (1.5% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.64, CI 0.53-0.76, P < 0.01), lower 30-day reoperation (1.2% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.52, CI 0.43-0.63, P < 0.01), and lower 30-day readmission (4.2% vs 6.6%, AOR 0.62, CI 0.55-0.69, P < 0.01). In conclusion, LSG is the predominant operation being performed for severely obese patients with MetS, and its popularity may in part be related to its improved perioperative safety profile.

Background: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the procedure of choice for the treatment of morbid obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy is an alternative surgical option, but its utilization has been low. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contemporary outcomes of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) using a national database from accredited bariatric centers., Study Design: Using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, clinical data for patients who underwent RSG or LSG were examined. Emergent and revisional cases were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to compare the outcomes between RSG and LSG., Results: A total of 75,079 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy with 70,298 (93.6%) LSG and 4781 (6.4%) RSG. Preoperative sleep apnea and hypoalbumenia were significantly higher in the RSG group (P < 0.01). Mean length of stay was similar between RSG and LSG (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.17). Operative time was longer in the RSG group (102 ± 43 vs. 74 ± 36 min, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the RSG versus LSG group (0.02% vs. 0.01%, AOR 0.85; 95% CI 0.11-6.46, P = 0.88). However, RSG was associated with higher serious morbidity (1.1% vs. 0.8%, AOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86, P < 0.01), higher leak rate (1.5% vs. 0.5%, AOR 3.14; 95% CI 2.65-4.42, P < 0.01), and higher surgical site infection rate (0.7% vs. 0.4%, AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.08-2.23, P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Robotic sleeve gastrectomy has longer operative time and is associated with higher postoperative morbidity including leak and surgical site infections. Laparoscopy should continue to be the surgical approach of choice for sleeve gastrectomy.

Introduction: Gastric cardia cancer with involvement of the esophagus may require an esophagogastrectomy to obtain negative tumor margins. Multiple studies have shown that minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer [1-3]. We describe the technique of a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in a 55-year-old patient with a gastric cardia tumor., Methods: In the laparoscopic phase, diagnostic laparoscopy was negative for metastasis. The stomach and distal esophagus were mobilized. The stomach was divided distal to the tumor and a thin gastric conduit was created. The specimen was removed through an extended abdominal port. In the thoracoscopic phase, the esophagus was mobilized. To ensure adequate proximal margins the esophageal stump was divided 1 cm below the azygous vein. A gastroesophageal anastomosis was created using a circular stapler., Results: Total operative time was 210 min (laparoscopic time, 135 min; thoracoscopic time, 75 min). There were no intraoperative complications. Tumor margins were negative and there were 44 lymph nodes harvested. On postoperative day 2 the patient was transferred to the surgical floor and started on enteral feeds. On postoperative day 4 the esophagram was negative for leaks or obstruction. Patient was started on an oral diet and discharged on postoperative day 5. Final pathology revealed a T3N1M0 (stage III) gastric cardia tumor. The patient underwent adjuvant chemoradiation therapy and at 15 months postoperatively the patient was recurrence free., Conclusion: We recently reported our experience with 104 minimally invasive esophagectomy procedures, of which seven patients had a diagnosis of gastric cardia cancer [4]. The mean number lymph nodes harvested was 23 ± 12. Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagogastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cardia cancer is technically feasible and safe for large gastric cardia tumors.

Studies have shown conflicting data with regard to the volume and outcome relationship for gastrectomy. Using the University HealthSystem Consortium national database, we examined the influence of the hospital's volume of gastrectomy on outcomes at academic centers between 2004 and 2008. Outcome measures, including length of stay, 30-day readmission, morbidity, and in-hospital mortality, were compared among high- (13 or greater), medium- (6 to 12), and low-volume (five or less) hospitals. There were 10 high- (n = 593 cases), 36 medium- (n = 1076 cases), and 75 low-volume (n = 500 cases) hospitals. There were no significant differences between high- and low-volume hospitals with regard to length of stay, overall complications, 30-day readmission rate, and in-hospital mortality (2.4 vs 4.4%, respectively, P = 0.06). Despite the small number of gastrectomies performed at the low-volume hospitals, these same hospitals performed a large number of other types of gastric surgery such as gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity (102 cases/year). Within the context of academic medical centers, lower annual volume of gastrectomy for neoplasm is not a predictor of poor outcomes which may be explained by the gastric operative experience derived from other types of gastric surgery.

A leak after an esophagectomy can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. The treatment options for postoperative leaks include reoperation with pleural drainage and placement of T-tube drainage catheter to control the gastrointestinal leak or complete gastrointestinal diversion, depending on the extent of the leak and tissue viability of the gastric conduit. Both these options require an invasive reoperation. In selected cases, endoscopic deployment of a covered esophageal stent may be an effective minimally invasive option in the management of an esophageal leak. This report describes the indications and techniques for management of an esophageal leak using the natural orifice for drainage of a mediastinal abscess and deployment of an esophageal stent.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has recently been added to the list of appropriate weight loss operations presently performed by bariatric surgeons. The sleeve gastrectomy is routinely performed using five and up to seven laparoscopic trocars with enlargement of one of the trocar sites for extraction of the gastric specimen. We describe a case of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy performed through a single laparoscopic incision.

Experience in surgical resection of benign tumor of the esophagus is limited. Authors performed a chart review of 5 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgical resection of benign esophageal tumor. Main outcome measures included operative approaches, tumor's location and size, and outcomes. Tumor location were middle esophagus (n = 1), distal esophagus (n = 2), and gastroesophageal junction (n = 2). There were 4 females with a mean age of 55 years. Surgical approaches included thoracoscopic enucleation (n = 1), laparoscopic enucleation (n = 1), and laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy (n = 3). There were no open conversions. Mean operative time for enucleation was 127 minutes and 240 minutes for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Mean hospital stay was 5.8 days. There were no major or minor complications. Three patients developed stomal stenosis. The 30-day mortality was zero. Surgical pathology showed leiomyoma in 3 patients and gastrointestinal stromal tumor in 2 patients. Tumor size ranged from 1.1 to 10.5 cm. There has been no tumor recurrence at a mean follow-up of 14 months. Minimally invasive surgical enucleation or esophagogastrectomy for benign esophageal tumor is feasible and safe. The optimal approaches should be tailored based on the location and size of the tumor.

Esophagectomy can be associated with significant peri-operative morbidity such as leaks and strictures. Gastric ischemia as a result of gastric devascularization is one of the several contributing factors that may play a role in development of these complications. In an attempt to improve gastric tissue perfusion, a technique of gastric ischemic conditioning was proposed. For patients with esophageal cancer and at the time of laparoscopic staging, partial gastric devascularization is achieved by division of the left gastric vessels. Esophagectomy is subsequently performed several days after the gastric ischemic conditioning procedure. Our experience showed that preoperative ligation of left gastric vessels prior to esophagogastrectomy is technically feasible and safe and may decrease ischemic complications such as leaks and strictures.

Enthusiasm for minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasing. When feasible, the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy with construction of an intrathoracic anastomosis is favored. A potential catastrophic consequence of an intrathoracic anastomosis is a postoperative leak. In this review, the authors summarize the current understanding of the pathophysiology and the management of intrathoracic leak using minimally invasive surgical techniques.