Search

In this case report we describe a 38-year old female patient admitted to the emergency department with acute abdomen and sepsis. Broad-spectrum antibiotics were started. Abdominal imaging was inconclusive, exploratory laparoscopy showed four-quadrant peritonitis. No provoking factor could be withheld. Due to clinical deterioration the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit. Blood cultures showed the presence of group A streptococcus, and clindamycin was associated. She recovered, and could be discharged after several days. Peritonitis caused by group A Streptococcus pyogenes is rare in healthy individuals, and occurs mostly in middle-aged women. There is no consensus regarding surgical treatment but surgical exploration is often necessary to exclude secondary peritonitis. Treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive measurements remain the cornerstone in patient management. Association of clindamycin has been shown to reduce mortality. There is inconclusive evidence to support Intravenous polyspecific immunoglobulin G (IVIG) therapy in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) was developed to overcome the technical challenges of a minimally invasive (ultra-) low anterior resection. This new technique has recently come under careful scrutiny as technical pitfalls were reported, in specific relation to the transanal approach. Patients are at risk for urologic lesions. Moreover, carbon dioxide embolism is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. The benefit of TaTME from an oncological point of view has neither been clarified. Hypothetically, better visualization of the lower rectum could lead to better dissection and total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens, resulting in better oncologic results. Up until now, retrospective multicenter reports seem to show that short-term oncologic results are not inferior after TaTME as compared with after laparoscopic TME. Alarming reports have however been published from Norway suggesting a high incidence and particular multifocal pattern of early local recurrence. In this article, a balanced overview is given of the most important technical pitfalls and oncological concerns arising with this new procedure., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS)., Background: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS., Methods: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years., Results: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ± 10 years, 8.4 ± 5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ± 7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation., Conclusion: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement: Prof. Peterli reports consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work. Prof. Bueter reports personal fees from Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Prof. Himpens reports personal fees from Ethicon, personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr. Dillemans reports consulting fees from Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work. Prof. Lannoo reports an unrestricted grant from Medtronic. The other authors have no commercial associations to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Internal herniation (IH) is a well-known complication after laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB). Diagnosing and managing IH can be challenging. This retrospective cohort study aimed to achieve a greater understanding of symptomatology, diagnostic tools, complications, risk of IH recurrence, and symptom relief in IH patients., Methods: We included patients who underwent LGB surgery at our institution between 2011 and 2015. Mesenteric defects were not preventively closed during LGB. We focused on LGB patients who underwent surgical intervention(s) for suspected IH during a 7-year study period. We studied patient characteristics, (predictive) symptoms and signs, abdominal imaging, operative findings, post-operative course, and risk of (recurrent) IH., Results: A total of 1588 patients were included. In total, 243 patients underwent IH-related diagnostic laparoscopy. Radiating pain to the back (OR 2.45, p = .03), post-prandial pain (OR 3.23, p = .00), and leukocytosis (OR 15.53, p = .01) were identified as predictors of IH. The estimated risk of IH-related diagnostic laparoscopy was 16% at 3 years post-LGB, and the risk of confirmed IH was 12%. The estimated risk of diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected recurrent IH was 10% at 5 years post-LGB. In patients who underwent secondary mesenteric defects closure, post-operative symptom relief was reported in 84%., Conclusion: This study demonstrates a considerable risk of developing IH after LGB without preventive closure of the mesenteric defects. We emphasize the value of diagnostic laparoscopy to achieve symptom relief in patients with suspicion of IH. Preoperative diagnosis of IH can be improved by being watchful of specific symptoms and signs which can predict the intra-operative presence of IH.

Background: Common bile duct (CBD) stones can be managed by either endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). The aim of this survey was to document the management of CBD stones by European-African HPB Association (E-AHPBA) members., Methods: All 331 members of the E-AHPBA were invited by personal email to participate to an online survey., Results: Ninety-three (28%) surgeons replied within 2 months. Responding surgeons were attending surgeons (84%), working as HPB surgeons (75%) in academic hospitals (73%). In patients with clinically suspected CBD stones, MRCP was the preferred diagnostic test for 61% of respondents. LCBDE was the preferred therapeutic strategy for 11 (12%) respondents only. Previous gastric surgery was an absolute contraindication to ERCP for 47% of respondents. Absence of CBD dilation was considered an absolute contraindication for LCBDE in 24% of respondents. Yearly caseload exceeded 10 patients for only 30% of 56 centers performing LCBDE. The transcystic approach was preferred by 39% of surgeons performing LCBDE. There was considerable variation amongst respondents with regard to type and duration of drainage, bile duct closure technique and follow-up after LCBDE., Conclusion: Indications for single-stage LCBDE are not standardized and do not appear well established across E-AHPBA members., (Copyright © 2016 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)