|
|
Introduction
This month’s issue features an interview with two frequent contributors to MISS E-News: Dr. Rami Lutfi, who is Clinical Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Dr. Jaime Ponce, who is Medical Director of the Bariatric Surgery Program at CHI Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga. Here Drs. Ponce and Lutfi share candid insights on a mix of topics, including the role of industry in surgery, the growth of bariatric endoscopy options and procedures—and the minimally invasive surgeon’s role within that arena, the growth and decline of specific bariatric procedures, and the future of revisional bariatric surgery.
I hope you also enjoy this month’s article recommendations from thought leaders in minimally invasive surgery, brought to you by leaders in surgical research and innovation. Thank you to Dr. Lutfi and Dr. Ponce for sharing their thoughts and opinions with us, and also to all of this month’s contributors!
|
|
|
Which bariatric procedures do you think will grow (or continue to grow) over the next few years and which do you think will decline (or continue to decline)?
Dr. Jaime Ponce: I think the present trends will continue, with the sleeve growing and bypass declining, but at a much slower pace than few years ago. Also, we will probably see an uptake on single anastomosis duodenal switch (SADI), both as a primary procedure in combination with sleeve as well as a revisional procedure for poor responders after a sleeve gastrectomy. Bariatric endoscopy will continue to add more tools and devices, and will grow, but at a slower rate since many of these procedures are not covered by insurance companies.
Dr. Rami Lutfi: I believe revisional surgery as a category will continue to grow as we learn more about the chronic progressive nature of obesity, and we improve options and outcomes of revising the common procedures. Therefore, the single anastomosis switch will start increasing (especially after ASMBS changed its status to a "standard" procedure) and gastric bypass will have a modest comeback (mostly as a revision for sleeves complicated by GERD).
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy will continue to increase in the short term (the appeal to the public being its simplicity, and to surgeons for its ease), but will plateau in the next few years and then decline partially as long-term effects of weight regain, hiatal hernias, and GERD become more evident to the public.
I do predict the growth of different innovative devices / bariatric endoscopy as the public seeks safer, reversible, and simple concepts. I do not see this growth competing with the surgical market share, but rather adding to the overall volume of procedures by attracting different categories/populations (lower BMI patients, and those with high BMI who would have not presented otherwise due to fear of surgery).
What do you foresee happening with revisional bariatric surgery?
Dr. Jaime Ponce: There will continue to be revisional surgery as a natural process for patients that need an escalation in therapy after lower response to primary procedures. The biggest expectation that I see is the potential recognition of single anastomosis duodenal switch that can be used as a revisional/escalation procedure for some of the sleeve patients that need more help.
Dr. Rami Lutfi: Increase. The numbers of annual procedures is steadily increasing along with the aging postoperative bariatric population. This only means an increase in the pool of weight regain patients. As the options for revision increase, the outcome improves, and the chronic progressive nature of the disease becomes a known and accepted concept for patients and insurance companies, I believe more patients will present for revision.
Having said that, while the stigma is changing, the limitations for access are not easing up. More and more insurance companies are adopting the "1 lifetime" surgery policy. This reflects the prediction of insurers about potential large increase in patients eligible and desiring to have a revision.
Finally, ASMBS is looking closer at revisional surgery. The society just "endorsed" single anastomosis duodenal switch, which is used by many as a revisional option. We are also carefully watching the data of bariatric endoscopic procedures that may have a place and grow as a safe alternative for revision.
What do you foresee happening with the growth of bariatric endoscopy options and procedures, and the minimally invasive surgeon’s role within that arena?
Dr. Jaime Ponce: Bariatric endoscopy will continue to grow at a slower pace. There will be more stomach space-occupying devices available (adjustable, procedure-less, etc.), better suturing devices, and more bowel techniques and devices with some metabolic effect that will help patients with mild to moderate obesity. I will continue to encourage all minimally invasive bariatric surgeons to become very familiar with endoscopic techniques, as these patients will need our help to embrace them into a program that can offer different options. I also think that bariatric gastroenterologists who have associations with comprehensive programs will be able to grow their practices with more devices and techniques in the future.
Dr. Rami Lutfi: This is maybe the most sensitive area over the last few few years as it may bring on the new challenge of "territorial" conflicts.
Bariatric surgeons have spent many decades defining best practices, pathways, and teams for the long-term care of the morbidly obese. Concepts of high volume and comprehensive teams proved safer and paved the path for Center of Excellence centers, which improved safety and outcomes of surgery. This is currently lacking (for the most part) outside the world of bariatric surgery.
While bariatric endoscopy is rapidly growing as a safe and effective (mostly short-term) modality for weight loss, its place, indication, reimbursement, accreditation, and long-term data are a few of the challenges ahead as we consider it a solid option in our "tool box."
I do not view bariatric endoscopy though as a challenge or threat, but rather an exciting opportunity to us to "diversify" our options, serve those with lower BMIs, and attract many of the 99% who are currently too afraid to come for a surgical consultation.
Do you consider industry to have a largely positive impact on our surgical specialty (in terms of being a major supporter of efforts in education and research)?
Dr. Jaime Ponce: Industry has always played a big role in education and research support, both for their specific devices and tools as well as for the field in general. If we look back on history, a lot of the bariatric programs created 10 to 20 years ago were developed with the assistance of major industry. Many surgeons and their multidisciplinary staff were given support for developing programs and training. Also, most of the device companies have to have a comprehensive training on their devices. In addition to education, industry has also participated in major research; for example, some of the randomized controlled trials that established the superiority of metabolic surgery to treat type 2 diabetes in obese patients were supported in part by industry.
Dr. Rami Lutfi: Surgery in general is a craft that depends on tools to be perfected. Minimally invasive surgery specifically is heavily dependent on technology to be offered in a safe and effective way. This makes industry a natural partner.
In addition, the weight loss industry has been very robust in its rapid evolution of different devices (and medications) to promote weight loss.
With all that being said, and despite best intentions, today financial support from industry is becoming harder due to many reasons. Economics, the recent increase in industry tax, rules and regulations, and other factors have limited and hindered the historical financial support from industry.
I still believe, however, that industry has played a very positive role historically, and will continue, even if in a more limited way, to be a partner in many different ways with our surgeons and societies.
|
|
|
Suggested Readings
|
Colon
|
|
Article: Telementoring of surgeons: a systematic review. Erridge S, Yeung DKT, Patel HRH, Purkayastha S. Surg Innov. 2019 Feb;26(1):95-111.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30465477
Dr. Steven Wexner: In this era of increased emphasis on productivity, potentially increased difficulties in cost of travel, and issues with local credentialing and licensing, alternatives to safe implementation of new techniques have emerged. One of the most exciting methods of helping to ensure safe surgical training is telementoring. Telementoring allows the expert and the learner to potentially be in locations between which there is a tremendous geographic difference. It allows transcendence of time zones and is potentially a much more cost effective manner of education. In order to assess the impact of telementoring, Erridge and coworkers performed a systematic review in which they identified 66 studies, 48% of which had been performed with general surgery procedures. Telementoring occurred within hospitals in 33% of studies, outside the hospital but within the country in 36% of cases, and outside of the country in 30% of cases. While 64 of the 66 assessed studies utilized both audio and video, 38 of the 66 studies also employed telestration. None of the studies identified worse postoperative outcomes in the telementoring situation. The authors concluded that their review revealed a similar safety and efficacy profile was achieved when on-sight mentoring compared to telementoring. They also surmise that as technological advances continue, this method of mentoring and introducing new procedures might become more widespread in use.
|
|
|
Hernia
|
|
Article: Robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Soliman BG, Nguyen DT, Chan EY, Chihara RK, Meisenbach LM, Graviss EA, Kim MP. Surg Endosc. 2019 Aug 5. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/31385076/
Dr. Ajita Prabhu: This article takes a retrospective look at laparoscopic versus robotic hiatal hernia repair. This is a good article to learn from in terms of interpreting literature. The authors state as their conclusion that they believe they have better outcomes with the robotic approach, and that the robotic approach is not inferior to the laparoscopic approach. I would challenge readers to push themselves to interpret these results critically. While the difference between length of stay reached statistical significance here, is there a clinically meaningful difference between 1.3 days length of stay versus 1.8? Also, because it’s a retrospective study, they don’t really give any disease-specific quality-of-life data. This is a good example of an article that should be interpreted and quoted with caution.
|
|
Endoscopy/General
|
|
Article: Short-term outcomes of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty in 1000 consecutive patients. Alqahtani A, Al-Darwish A, Mahmoud AE, et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun;89(6):1132-1138. Epub 2018 Dec 19.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30578757/
Dr. Manoel Galvao Neto: The endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a promising novel endobariatric therapy (EBT) that has demonstrated good results in case series, with around 15-20% total weight loss and a good safety profile of around 2% of serious adverse events (SAE) in up to 2 years of follow-up. This recent article by Alqahtani et al from Saudi Arabia demonstrates endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) in clinical practice on a large series reproducing the previous published results.
|
|
|
Bariatric
|
|
Article: Gastro esophageal reflux disease after sleeve gastrectomy: a real issue and future perspectives. Lee WJ, Almalki O. Am J General GI Surg. 2018; 1(1):1001.
http://www.remedypublications.com/annals-of-clinical-surgery/articles/pdfs_folder/ajggis-v1-id1001.pdf
Dr. Flavia Soto: This article was brought to my attention during the last Obesity Weekend in Chicago while discussing “GERD, Barrett’s and Sleeve Gastrectomy: Separating Fact from Fiction.” Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most common procedures performed within the US and the world. Bariatric surgeons inevitably face the issue of GERD and obesity before and after weight loss surgery. 50% of morbidly obese patients have associated GERD and require medication before surgery. On the other hand, there are a significant proportion of patients that develop GERD. This range of 16% to 35% is based on different reports. Some technique errors causing anatomy defects prone to GERD development were identified and consensus for SG technique was achieved. However, de novo GERD after SG may not be avoided because SG creates an intra-gastric high-pressure system, which is prone to GERD development. Thus, the true incidence of de novo GERD after SG and accompanied Barrett’s esophagus remains to be decided. A good old gastric bypass is always a good option for the patient with intractable GERD. At the same time, the cause of de novo GERD after SG should be continually investigated.
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
Introduction
This month’s issue features an interview with two frequent contributors to MISS E-News, Dr. Benjamin Poulose and Dr. Shirin Towfigh. For the first time in its history, the Americas Hernia Society hosted a panel that included representatives from industry, surgeons, lawyers, insurance companies, scientists, patients and patient advocacy groups, the FDA, and the AHSQC to discuss the current state of safety in hernia meshes. Addressing questions about long-term safety and application, this panel was historic in its breadth of perspectives that were all shared across one platform, and in its goal of using shared intelligence and opinions from various stakeholders to find solutions to this patient safety-related debate. Benjamin Poulose created this panel as this year’s Program Chair, and Shirin Towfigh participated as part of the panel with her expert hernia surgeon perspective.
I hope you also enjoy this month’s article recommendations from thought leaders in minimally invasive surgery, brought to you by leaders in surgical research and innovation. Thank you to these doctors for sharing their thoughts and opinions with us, and also to all of this month’s contributors!
|
|
|
It appears this meeting was the first of its kind in the hernia surgery world. What was the impetus for this meeting and why was it unique?
Dr. Shirin Towfigh: I defer to Dr. Poulose to expand on this one, but will comment: the Americas Hernias Society (AHS) is committed to the improvement of hernia care. I applaud them for being the first surgical society to directly address the needs of hernia patients and not only address the surgeons’ needs.
It started in 2018 when the AHS hosted a patient advocacy focus group at its annual meeting in Miami. That meeting brought together many stakeholders to openly share their concerns about hernia mesh. Those in attendance included representatives, including the following: patients, patient advocacy groups, surgeons, nursing, AHSQC, legal, and the FDA. It was the first of its kind to bring so many to the table to address their issues in an open and honest manner.
As program chair, Dr. Poulose took the initiative this year to revive “the great hernia mesh debate” sessions we used to have years ago and flip it into a more modern and relevant discussion about hernia mesh. As President, Dr. Adrales supported using the platform of the AHS to address a controversial and potentially divisive topic.
Mesh problems have become a public issue. Many are aware of the strong movement against pelvic mesh. This has spread to hernia mesh as well. Commercials and advertisements for hernia lawsuits can be seen everywhere.
I believe that until recently, the surgical community has done a poor job of directly addressing this issue. Our conferences focused on hernia repair techniques and outcomes such as hernia recurrence. Chronic pain, mesh infection, meshoma, fistulas, neuralgia, and other mesh-related complications have been treated as a given complication intrinsic to hernia repair. Use of mesh is promoted and considered standard for pretty much every hernia repair, regardless of size and patient factors.
This year at the annual AHS meeting, the topic of hernia mesh was addressed head-on by a panel of stakeholders, including representatives of the plaintiffs and defendants in hernia mesh lawsuits, surgeons, and scientists knowledgeable about the properties of mesh implants.
I found the panel discussion to be quite eye-opening. The audience was packed. Insightful questions were fielded from the audience. We had a diverse audience that included not only surgeons, but also mesh industry leaders, trial lawyers and patient advocates.
Dr. Benjamin Poulouse: The reason for this session was fairly simple: as surgeons who implant these devices, we need to ensure that the devices themselves and the techniques used to implant them are safe for our patients. Although generally that is true, there are still many disturbing unknowns. For example, we don’t really know the long-term complication rates associated with any types of meshes, yet all of these are approved for use in patients for the rest of their lives. This is unacceptable and is reflective of the lack of an effective post-market surveillance system in this country for these devices. Patients think someone is out there ensuring they are safe, but this may not necessarily be true. We also need to better explore non-mesh-based repairs to see in what situations they are just as good as mesh-based repairs.
Who decided who will attend and what the agenda will be?
Dr. Poulose: As program chair for the 2019 AHS Annual Meeting, I decided it was time that this society start tackling some long-overdue challenging ground with respect to mesh. I had the opportunity to work with an excellent Program Committee that helped develop the speakers. We wanted to involve as many stakeholders as possible for the meeting to have a wide breadth of input. Dr. Gina Adrales, President of the AHS at the time, was supportive of this direction and we ended up with one of the best sessions ever related to hernia in any meeting of recent memory.
What was the general tone of the meeting among the various stakeholders who have different interests?
Dr. Shirin Towfigh: The session was quite well received overall. I still get complimentary feedback about the session from those who attended. The session seemed to have moved many in the audience, among all the stakeholders. The meeting was reported back to patient groups on social media.
Dr. Poulose: Overall it was a very positive tone. Pretty much everyone agrees that the status quo simply cannot continue without meaningful change. Even if it is something as simple as ensuring all hernia-related implants in patients are followed adequately in the long-term, that is a start.
In terms of outcome, what were the takeaways from it, in terms of goals and action items?
Dr. Shirin Towfigh: The issue of hernia mesh is quite complex. We don’t know enough about why some patients get hurt from mesh, so the goal of the panel session was not to solve any problem on its first attempt to address the problem.
As part of the panel, we discussed that one of the main pitfalls of mesh use is the lack of robust long-term mesh-based outcomes—which is necessary in order to focus our efforts in an evidence-based manner. We have no mesh implant registry. The majority of surgeons do not report mesh-related complications to any depot. The AHSQC is a quality collaborative attempting to fill this gap; many of us surgeons are members who log in our hernia repair operations, including mesh details. However, we need many times more surgeons to participate in the AHSQC—which is free to any AHS member. Finally, patients are not reporting their outcomes, either. The AHSQC has a patient portal that relies on their feedback, and many are not responding.
We discussed the ideal situation of a national hernia mesh registry. This would be similar to cancer registries and registries for cardiac and other high-risk devices. The leading obstruction to such a registry is cost. Meaningful registries are very costly and there is no mandate to enroll in them. No private entity could afford running a registry and provide valuable data. Also, the registry should not be managed by the hernia mesh industry.
The most important result of the session was that it got surgeons to think about this problem perhaps more seriously than they may have in the past. It is my belief that we can do more to address our patients’ needs. I made a comment in my presentation that our patients who are hurt from hernia mesh are screaming for our help. We must show that we hear them and then work toward improving their lives and those of future patients by addressing their needs. We should all agree that mesh repair is not perfect and can be improved. I see too many surgeons denying patients alternative options to mesh repair, telling patients their mesh is not the cause of their problem, then being unable to treat the patients’ complications, and not referring their patients to other surgeons who do treat these problems. Many are lost in the system, referred to pain management though they may have a surgical problem, and/or provided no hope for improved quality of life. We can do better.
I also feel that we are overusing hernia mesh. Almost every hernia has shown better outcomes with mesh repair. That is evidence that is not debatable. But perhaps we don’t need to offer the repair with the lowest recurrence, for example, to everyone. A tailored approach may help reduce mesh-related complications by not using mesh in certain at-risk patients or to repair small, low risk hernias. Not every nail requires a hammer.
My personal opinion, which I shared with the audience, is that we need the mesh industry to work with surgeons who see the bulk of mesh-related complications and redesign mesh that has a lower likelihood of contributing to complications, such as erosion, meshoma, entrapment, obstruction, fistula, chronic pain, and inflammatory reactions.
The one silver lining of all of these hernia mesh lawsuits and anti-mesh groups is that it is forcing the surgical population and mesh industry to address these difficult and poorly understood issues. The more we can address the elephant in the room, the more likely we are to improve hernia care.
Dr. Poulose: I agree with Dr. Towfigh’s comments. The goal of this session was to get surgeons motivated to be advocates for their patients. Support any and all efforts that try to chip away at the problem of lack of surveillance for these products. Also, we wanted to send a clear message to our patients and also the FDA: surgeons are motivated to help and not just accept the current situation. In large part due to the energy from this session, the AHSQC is working with the FDA under a public-private partnership called MDEpiNet (Medical Device Epidemiology Network). This partnership brings together professional societies, the FDA, industry, and patients to ensure implanted products are safely evaluated before they are implanted and adequately followed afterward. Despite hernia meshes and other products being implanted in patients for the past several decades, these safety efforts are just beginning. The first Abdominal Core Health Coordinated Registry Network meeting will be held at FDA headquarters on October 2nd of this year. We will continue the energy of the discussion held at AHS 2019 and translate this into more actionable items to ultimately make hernia repair as safe as possible for patients in the short and long term.
|
|
|
Suggested Readings
|
Foregut
|
|
Article: Article: Meta-analysis of clinical outcome after treatment for achalasia based on manometric subtypes. Andolfi C, Fisichella PM. Br J Surg. 2019 Mar;106(4):332-341.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30690706
Dr. Luke Funk: The optimal surgical approach for each achalasia subtype (Chicago type I, 2, and 3) identified on high-resolution manometry is unclear. In this study, the authors conducted a meta-analysis that included data from 20 studies and more than 1,500 patients. The investigators found that success rates for per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) were higher than laparoscopic Heller myotomy for both Type 1 and Type 3 achalasia. Type 2 achalasia treatment success rates were similar between POEM and Heller, while pneumatic dilation success rates for Type 2 achalasia were lower than POEM and Heller. These findings suggest that POEM may be advantageous for Type 1 and 3 achalasia patients, possibly because the myotomy can be extended more proximally on the thoracic esophagus. Higher rates of postoperative reflux following POEM (compared to Heller myotomy and fundoplication) remain an ongoing concern regardless of the subtype.
|
|
Colon
|
|
Article: Multicentre international trial of laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III acute diverticulitis (LLO Study). Binda GA, Bonino MA, Siri G, et al. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1835–1843.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30006923
Dr. Langenfeld: Most retrospective studies report favorable outcomes from laparoscopic lavage and drainage. My enthusiasm for the technique is low, but perhaps it has merit for highly selected patients. A perfect example is a pelvis abscess not amenable to percutaneous drainage (Hinchey II though, not III). Before reading this study, I recommend rereading the LADIES trial: Lancet 2015;386:1269-1277.
|
|
|
Hernia
|
|
Article: Are online surgical discussion boards a safe and useful venue for surgeons to ask for advice? A review of the International Hernia Collaboration Facebook Group. Bernardi K, Milton AN, Hope W, Roth JS, Shah SK, Shah P, Lyons NB, Martin AC, Holihan JL, Cherla DV, Ko TC, Hughes TG, Liang MK; Social Media in Surgery and Medicine Study Group. Surg Endosc. 2019 Aug 9. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/31399945/
Dr. Ajita Prabhu: I like this article because I believe it’s high time for surgeons to critically appraise online discussion forums. This is important to maintain balance. Anyone can post in most of these groups, but there is no clear method to vet the quality of those posts. Sometimes they can be helpful, but I think it’s important that surgeons are mindful that anecdotal suggestions are not always a good thing.
|
|
Endoscopy/General
|
|
Article: Recognizing and reacting to microaggressions in medicine and surgery. Torres M; Salles A; Cochran A. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31290954
Dr. Marina Kurian: This is a frank description of what many of our colleagues face in medicine. It gives a name to that unsettling feeling and also gives some advice to try and deal with the situations delicately. This is an excellent article that will ensue opening for everyone.
|
|
|
Bariatric
|
|
Article: Safety and effectiveness of single- versus double-anastomosis duodenal switch at a single institution. Moon RC, Kirkpatrick V, Gaskins L, Teixeira AF, Jawad MA. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019 Feb;15(2):245-252.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30606470
Dr. Marina Kurian: This single center comparison of loop to two anastomoses duodenal switch gives us an idea of weight loss outcomes and complication rates. Since many of us are looking at appropriate revisions for sleeve patients with inadequate weight loss, an assessment of these two different techniques is important. Long-term nutritional complications were also assessed, and follow-up is essential in both groups.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Introduction
This month’s issue features an interview with several MISS Co-Directors. Drs. Aurora Pryor, Bradley Davis, and Guy Voeller all practice in the US and provide balanced and varied national perspectives, while Dr. John Dixon has a unique international perspective that comes with practicing in Australia. These thought leaders devoted their time to discuss some issues surrounding conflict of interest (COI) in healthcare and publishing.
I hope you also enjoy this month’s article recommendations from thought leaders in minimally invasive surgery, brought to you by leaders in surgical research and innovation. Thank you to these doctors for sharing their thoughts and opinions with us, and also to all of this month’s contributors!
|
|
|
What is the current standard for COI reporting in your field?
Dr. Aurora Pryor: Great question. There are guidelines from the ACCME that define commercial entities that are potential conflicts that must be reported for CME events. I personally feel that any commercial relationship over the last 3 years should be disclosed, regardless of potential relevance. Physicians and organizations are variable, however, in their adherence to this.
Dr. Bradley Davis: COI reporting is typically a yearly requirement from employers—particularly large health systems that do business with many vendors. We submit all of our outside activities on a yearly basis irrespective of the dollar amount or the purpose. This would include honoraria, industry grant support, consulting fees, etc.
Dr. John Dixon: As a physician/researcher I declare everything that may be relevant. If there is any doubt then I declare any real or potential conflicts. Personally I do have an issue with the more extreme declarations wanted by some US organizations. This contrasts with the very lax approach used by the current US administration.
Dr. Guy Voeller: I have to annually fill out a number of forms for our department of surgery and our university describing any conflicts of interest. Not only does this refer to myself but all members of my family that may have COI. It is very detailed in what type of conflict exists and the extent, including the amount of money (if any) that is involved. In addition, we always have a slide of disclosures regarding possible COI in any talks that we give where CME is involved. Any peer-reviewed publications must also list any COI. In addition, there is an increasing trend for us to disclose to our patients any COI. This is in its early phases and not something most surgeons do at present.
In your area of surgery, are COIs a problem in literature reporting and outcomes?
Dr. Bradley Davis: With the rare exception, COI as it pertains to industry is not a problem in the colorectal literature. Authors are required to identify any COI and do so honestly and objectively. Of course there are outliers and it is well known that evaluating literature around technology and new devices is important to evaluate any bias that may exist on the part of the authors, particularly if they receive funding from that industry. There have been a few examples where this has played out, but it is not a systemic problem.
Dr. Aurora Pryor: I think open disclosure is the key to managing and interpreting conflicts. Any relationship can lead to bias and this must be understood. I think we have gotten better at this transparency, but the process is still imperfect.
Dr. Guy Voeller: I think COIs are a significant problem in our literature. We all like to think that it does not affect outcomes reporting and what is published, but I believe it has a big effect on how things are reported. It is very much under-appreciated how much of this occurs.
Dr. Dixon: There appear to be significant issues in literature reporting of bariatric metabolic surgery studies and outcomes, and also within the peer review process. This appears to be especially the case when individuals hold firm beliefs about their favored procedures or techniques, and unfavorable views about others. This polarized culture is very active in bariatric/metabolic surgery and encouraged by the numerous “expert debates” that strongly promote expert opinion rather than a sound, evidence-based approach to care. Bias and stigmatization are systematic in the world of obesity and this applies to many aspects of effective care. Bias is not OK.
Mainstream media sometimes vilifies industry’s role in supporting medical research and technology—seemingly unfairly, too—while many surgeons who are actually at the forefront of surgical research and innovation have touted its critical role in supporting both new research and education. What are your thoughts on industry’s role in your area of surgery?
Dr. Bradley Davis: Industry is an important partner in both education and research - there simply are not enough funding sources to answer the questions that need to be answered and train surgeons in new techniques and technologies. As a former program director of a general surgery residency, I would accept grants from anyone that would give them to me so that I could run skills labs and cadaver courses for the residents. This was an essential part of their training. The residents have no capacity to influence hospital purchasing, and if they feel a sense of endearment toward that company that supported the program, there is nothing wrong with that. They may find that they like the products that they are using during these skills sessions or they may decide they don’t like them, but the point of the exercise is to train the residents on a surgical technique, not a surgical device. Without industry support, we simply could not afford to do these courses and patients would ultimately suffer. As for industry-sponsored research—once again a vital source of funding in a difficult funding environment. It is incumbent on the profession and the primary investigators to run a good study with proper controls and hypotheses and then report the results regardless of how it shakes out for the sponsor.
Dr. Aurora Pryor: I am a big believer of the concept that collaboration between surgeons and our industry partners is essential to moving forward in this area. In fact, I wrote a chapter on this for the SAGES Manual on the Ethics of Surgical Innovation. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_9)
Dr. Guy Voeller: It is certainly a double-edged sword. Many wonderful things have resulted from surgeon/industry collaboration. Many patients have benefited from these collaborations. We need industry to advance care for our patients and industry needs us to continue to bring these products to our patients. This does not mean that bad things have not happened due to these collaborations. That’s why transparency is so critical for this collaboration to continue. We have to make it clear to the patient how important this connection is for advancement of surgical technologies that will be beneficial to them.
Dr. Dixon: The relationship between surgeons and industry supporting surgical innovation is by necessity very close. This clearly provides benefits, but there are also very significant risks. Risk revolves around COI, unknown risks to patients, informed consent, and the health economics of innovation. Indeed, understanding the line between “industry” and “operators” in surgical innovation is confusing, ill-defined, and often shifts with time. Surgical instruments, devices, and consumables may not define the nature of the procedure to be performed. The problem of pelvic mesh implants provides a recent example of the regulatory challenges of surgical innovation. IRB approval is but one small part of surgical innovation.
|
|
Suggested Readings
|
Foregut
|
|
Article: Per-oral pyloromyotomy (POP) for medically refractory post-surgical gastroparesis. Strong AT, Landreneau JP, Cline M, Kroh MD, Rodriguez JH, Ponsky JL, El-Hayek K. J Gastrointestinal Surgery 2019;23:1095–1103.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30809781
Dr. Pauli: Post-surgical gastroparesis (psGP) is an uncommon complication following a variety of foregut procedures, but it can have a profound impact on patient quality of life. Recently, endoscopic division of the pylorus (peroral pyloromyotomy or POP) has shown promise for patients with gastroparesis from medical causes. In this article, Kevin El-Hayek and his colleagues from the Cleveland Clinic demonstrate that POP can safely and effectively reduce gastric emptying time and gastroparesis symptom index in patients with psGP. They recommend POP as a first line therapy for psGP who have failed medical management.
|
|
Colon
|
|
Article: Carbon dioxide embolism associated with transanal total mesorectal excision surgery: a report from the international registries. Dickson EA, Penna M, Cunningham C, et al. Dis Colon Rectum 2019;62(7):794-801.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31188179
Dr. Langenfeld: This study, along with its associated editorial (Dis Colon Rectum 2019;62(7):777-780) warrant review as TaTME becomes more prevalent. With a new procedure comes new risk, and prompt identification of gas embolus can be life-saving.
|
|
|
Hernia
|
|
Article: Lichtenstein versus total extraperitoneal patch plasty versus transabdominal patch plasty technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a registry-based, propensity score-matched comparison of 57,906 patients. Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kofler M, Mayer F, Adolf D, Kuthe A, Weyhe D. Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):351-357.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28953552
Dr. Luke Funk: Given the limited number of randomized trials that compare Lichtenstein to transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) to total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair, the authors of this study used propensity score-matched analyses from nearly 60,000 patients who underwent unilateral inguinal hernia repair in the Herniamed Registry (an internet-based registry that includes data from over 500 hospitals in three European countries). Comparisons between the operations revealed that the Lichtenstein approach was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications, complication-related reoperations, and pain when compared to TAPP and TEP over a one-year period postoperatively. These findings support existing guidelines that suggest a laparoscopic approach to unilateral inguinal hernia repair may be preferred over Lichtenstein repair in certain clinical scenarios (e.g. no previous lower abdominal surgery or previous laparoscopic repair).
|
|
Endoscopy/General
|
|
Article: Endoluminal vacuum therapy: how I do it. Leeds SG, Mencio M, Ontiveros E and Ward MA. J Gastrointestinal Surgery 2019;23:1037–1043.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30671790
Dr. Pauli: Comprehensive management of gastrointestinal tract defects, such as perforation and post-operative leaks, is the next frontier of flexible endoscopy. Endolumenal vacuum (E-VAC) therapy has emerged as an option for managing complex perforations with less morbidity and mortality than surgical intervention. In this article, Steve Leeds and his team from Baylor describe their experience with EVAC, including indications, technique and post-operative care. Most importantly, they teach how to make an EVAC system, which is not yet commercially available or FDA approved in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Bariatric
|
|
Article: Second-stage duodenal switch for sleeve gastrectomy failure: A matched controlled trial. Biertho L, Thériault C, Bouvet L, Marceau s, Hould F, Lebel S, Julien F, Tchernof A. Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 2018:14;1570–1580.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30449513
Drs. Flavia Soto/Jesse Gutnick: As the group of patients who have undergone sleeve gastrectomy continues to grow, a large subset of patients with primary weight loss failure or weight regain has emerged. Currently, most of these patients who are treated surgically for weight loss failure or weight gain undergo conversion to gastric bypass, often with disappointing weight loss results. An alternative surgical approach is conversion to duodenal switch. This thoughtful case control study found that at 72 months after the initial operation, the average excess weight loss of primary duodenal switch patients converged at 81% with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy followed by a conversion to duodenal switch. It makes intuitive sense to me that for reliable sleeve gastrectomy patients without significant acid reflux who have had failure of weight loss or weight regain, "completing" a duodenal switch would be the treatment of choice. This paper strongly supports that hypothesis. As we consult with these prior sleeve gastrectomy patients seeking additional treatment for obesity, I think that conversion to duodenal switch should be part of the conversation for reliable patients.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Introduction
This month’s issue features an interview with Igor Belyansky, MD. Dr. Belyansky is a Director of Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Program at Anne Arundel Medical Center in Annapolis, Maryland. He has special interest in laparoscopic and robotic abdominal wall reconstruction. He is very involved with the International Hernia Collaboration among other hernia groups, and is recognized as a thought leader in hernia surgery who is generous with his time and sharing of expertise.
At the forefront of robotic hernia surgery since it became a topic for surgeons, he has come to be recognized as an expert on that topic and took time to speak on it at MISS 2019, as well here in this interview. I’d like to extend a very warm thank you to Dr. Belyansky for taking the time to share his insights and experience with us in this interview.
I hope you also enjoy this month’s article recommendations from thought leaders in minimally invasive surgery, brought to you by leaders in surgical research and innovation. Thank you to all of this month’s contributors!
|
|
|
Colleen: Is Botox for use in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) ready for prime time?
Dr. Belyansky: On the fence. Some early data from Australia has demonstrated that use of Botox can make abdominal wall more compliant, making it easier to reconstruct linea alba by decreasing the tension on the midline suture line. It is important to consider patient selection. I am personally not sold on using Botox on patients to decrease the need for transversus abdominis release (TAR) procedures and just limiting repair to a Rives and Stoppa repair.
Colleen: Should prophylactic mesh be placed at the time of ostomy creation for all patients undergoing elective surgery where an ostomy is anticipated, or is this overkill?
Dr. Belyansky: On the fence. While there is data that supports use of prophylactic mesh in patients undergoing a procedure with a permanent stoma, this intervention may present several technical challenges at the time of initial surgery. The type of reinforcement, Keyhole underlay versus Sugarbaker versus Retrorectus keyhole versus onlay keyhole, needs to be considered. Furthermore, there is additional time that is needed to place a prophylactic mesh during an already lengthy major case. Most patients at the time of the initial surgery will have a shortened mesentery and will provide a challenge to fashion a Sugarbaker repair, with the other alternative being a type of keyhole repair. Keyhole repair in my own practice has been associated with higher long-term failure as compared to the Sugarbaker repair.
Colleen: Would you agree that the robot is the most significant recent technological advance in hernia repair?
Dr. Belyansky: The robotic platform has been around for a while, and we have observing a fairly steep adaptation curve of this technology since 2012 in the hernia field. I think this has to do with the variety of additional techniques that have been described on the robot that are challenging to reproduce laparoscopically. Adaptation of robotics in the hernia field may also have to do with a culture change, where some of us are trying to minimize or eliminate the need for penetrating mesh fixation and to keep the mesh outside of the intraabdominal cavity.
Colleen: What is the role of the robot in inguinal and ventral hernia repair?
Dr. Belyansky: I think the use of robotic platform has enabled more surgeons to offer the MIS approach in inguinal and ventral hernias. Specifically in ventral hernias, there have been several techniques such as rTAR and eTEP to access Rives Stoppa repairs and TAR procedures that have been less challenging to reproduce with robotic assistance as compared to laparoscopy, especially in complex patient populations such as high BMI patients and reoperative cases associated with challenging dissection.
Colleen: What is your advice to the surgeon who is contemplating introducing robotics into his or her hernia practice?
Dr. Belyansky: Get on a dry box and a simulator to begin understanding the controls. Go to case observation. Find a mentor with whom you are comfortable. Do a porcine and cadaver lab. Try to do cases that you are already comfortable doing laparoscopically, since you really want to go through one learning curve at a time. Be ready to slow down your practice. The initial learning curve takes 3 to 6 months to get through. Try to get at least one day a week on the robot to improve your skills. DO NOT place the most complex cases on the robot initially, or try techniques that you have never done laparoscopically. Going through two learning curves at the same time is a good formula for failure.
Colleen: What do you think about the other robotic platforms coming to market, such as Senhance, etc.?
Dr. Belyansky: It's certainly nice to see other companies besides Intuitive working on developing robotic platforms. Competition will breed innovation and perhaps we will see a decrease in prices. As of now I have not seen a platform that is superior to what is widely available on the market by Intuitive.
Colleen: What does MISS offer that makes it a valuable and unique meeting?
Dr. Belyansky: This is a really good meeting for general surgeons that are MIS enthusiasts! This meeting addresses a spectrum of general surgery issues, and provides updates on some of the most recent innovations and techniques.
|
|
Suggested Readings
|
Foregut
|
|
Article: Meta-analysis of clinical outcome after treatment for achalasia based on manometric subtypes. Andolfi C, Fisichella PM. Br J Surg. 2019 Mar;106(4):332-341.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30690706
Dr. Luke Funk: The optimal surgical approach for each achalasia subtype (Chicago type I, 2, and 3) identified on high-resolution manometry is unclear. In this study, the authors conducted a meta-analysis that included data from 20 studies and more than 1,500 patients. The investigators found that success rates for Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) were higher than laparoscopic Heller myotomy for both Type 1 and Type 3 achalasia. Type 2 achalasia treatment success rates were similar between POEM and Heller, while pneumatic dilation success rates for Type 2 achalasia were lower than POEM and Heller. These findings suggest that POEM may be advantageous for Type 1 and 3 achalasia patients, possibly because the myotomy can be extended more proximally on the thoracic esophagus. Higher rates of postoperative reflux following POEM (compared to Heller myotomy and fundoplication) remain an ongoing concern regardless of the subtype.
|
|
Colon
|
|
Article: Standardize the Surgical Technique and Clarify the Relevant Anatomic Concept for Complete Mobilization of Colonic Splenic Flexure Using da Vinci Xi® Robotic System. Liang JT, Huang J, Chen TC. World J Surg 2019;43(4):1129-1136.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30543043
Dr. Sean Langenfeld: This study, and its accompanying surgical video, provide an outstanding technical outline of an effective alternative approach to the splenic flexure. The authors believe that the da Vinci Xi is more versatile for the flexure when compared to its predecessor, and I would tend to agree.
|
|
Hernia
|
|
Article: Does active smoking really matter before ventral hernia repair? An AHSQC analysis. Petro CC, Haskins IN, Tastaldi L, Tu C, Krpata DM, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS. Surgery. 2019 Feb;165(2):406-411.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30220485
Michael Rosen: The authors did a database review of the AHSQC to determine the effect of smoking on clean open ventral hernia repair in a well matched group of 400 active smokers versus 400 never smokers. They found no clinical or statistically significant difference between the groups as far as wound morbidity or overall 30-day postoperative complications. This data calls into question the stance of mandatory smoking cessation for smokers with symptomatic hernias.
|
|
|
Endoscopy & General
|
|
Article: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Antireflux Surgery: What is the Proper Work-up? Bello B, Patti M, et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Jan;17(1):14-20.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23090280
Dr. Rosser: This article is a must read that explores the proper work-up for GERD with special attention to surgical options of treatment.
|
|
|
Bariatric
|
|
Article: Efficacy and safety of one anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for obesity (YOMEGA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Robert M, Espalieu P, Pelascini E, et al.
Lancet. 2019 Mar 6. pii: S0140-6736(19)30475-1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30851879
Dr. Ricardo Cohen: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is becoming more popular as an option to treat obesity and its comorbidities. This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to assess the safety and outcomes regarding weight loss and resolution of comorbidities, comparing OAGB and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at 2 years of follow-up.
OAGB was non-inferior to RYGB in terms of weight loss and metabolic control. However, there was a higher incidence of diarrhea and other malabsorptive nutritional complications after OAGB. On top of that, 16% of OAGB patients at 2 years had bile exposure in the stomach, a long-term predisposing condition to gastric cancer. Thus, OAGB needs technical refinements to mitigate the negative (relatively) early nutritional complications and longer-term followup regarding alkaline gastritis and the development of gastric cancer.
Currently, 200 cm biliopancreatic limb OAGB may be non-inferior to RYGB in terms of weight loss. However, the nutritional disadvantages and the potential long-term exposure of the gastric reservoir to bile makes it still not ready for “prime time.”
Dr. Jaime Ponce: This is probably the best quality documented trial comparing RYGB to OAGB. This study is a multicenter, randomized study, sponsored by the France Ministry of Health, and is very good documentation of patient inclusion and exclusions and documentation of outcomes and adverse events. The controversial aspect is that in the United States, the OAGB is not a recognized procedure by the ASMBS and this trial showed equivalence in weight loss, but a significant higher incidence of nutritional adverse events in the OAGB patients. I think this will be the beginning of exploring the OAGB technique as a viable option in the future.
There are some issues and limitations with this data including that is only 2 years follow-up, and the fact that some OAGB surgeons have proposed doing a 150cm BP limb instead of the 200cm that was used in this trial to diminish the risk of nutritional issues. On the other hand, the fact that it was multicenter and randomized gives a higher level of evidence on the positive outcomes at a short-term follow-up. I hope the authors will pursue longer follow-up and publish 5- and 10-year data to address other long-term concerns of possible bile reflux consequences.
|
| |
|
|
Introduction
This month’s issue features an interview with Dr. James Rosser. Butch Rosser has been past president of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons and was recently elected to the SAGES board. He has been a pioneer and well published contributor to the evolution of minimally invasive surgery for almost 30 years. At the forefront of GERD treatment since it became a topic for surgeons, he has come to be recognized as an expert on that topic and took time to speak on it at MISS 2019, as well here in this interview. I’d like to extend a very warm thank you to Dr. Rosser for taking the time to share his insights and experience with us in this interview.
I hope you also enjoy this month’s article recommendations from thought leaders in minimally invasive surgery, brought to you by leaders in surgical research and innovation. Thank you to all of this month’s contributors!
|
|
|
|
Colleen: What is the value of MISS for you as a presenter/attendee and for MIS surgeons?
Dr. Rosser: I think that MISS is an invaluable asset for practicing surgeons. The meeting itself has become a platform that serves as a unique crossroads where academia meets practicality. This is a great resource for not only the everyday general surgeon, but academic surgeons who are also on the cutting edge. As for the speakers, it is not a meeting where the attendees are the only ones learning. The other advantage to MISS is that it allows collegial banter back and forth that exposes the nuances of our craft. This is very unique to this conference, and enables attendees to benefit from listening to the experts exchange positions on innovative and sometimes controversial topics. This is what you get from the “MISS Experience.” I call it “real world laparoscopy.”
Colleen: Can you give us what you think are the big takeaway points from the panel discussion you participated in, Surgeon's Personal Journey with Bariatric Surgery, which focused on surgeons who have had surgery?
Dr. Rosser: This panel was extremely interesting because it was comprised of four surgeons who had bariatric surgery. They shared the internal vantage point of “healers (surgeons) who needed to be healed.” This represented two different but interesting, overlapping perspectives. The big takeaways included the fact that all four shared a long and serpentine journey in their battle with obesity. This expedition featured weight loss and regain, self-blame, and feelings of inferiority. All came to a “tipping point” with the realization that they were embraced by a disease that needed a surgical solution. The panel highlighted their struggle to surrender the position of being a clinician and trusting their physician/surgeon as all patients must do. I introduced a less known issue for bariatric patients and that is the lack of support assets for family and love ones who struggle to be a helping hand while addressing their own stressful challenges. My wife Dana Rosser has led the charge to acknowledge that they cry out for assistance with their circumstances as well. She often says, “Ours is a song that no one hears.” Finally, I cautioned bariatric surgeons that they must steadfastly monitor their biases and let compassion be the banner that is always at the “tip of their healing spear.” Size discrimination is the last bastion of bigotry. It cannot dwell within practice patterns because it distorts your evaluation of those who seek your services and your judgment of their success or failure.
Colleen: You also spoke on the diagnosis and conservative treatment of GERD. Can you tell us what were the main points you wanted to drive home for the audience in that presentation?
Dr. Rosser: The news flash is that GERD is not being effectively treated and diagnosed. Upwards of 41% of patients with GERD are misdiagnosed and have diseases from cancer to irritable bowel syndrome to non-allergic chronic rhinitis. Additionally, patients are being exposed to the ravages of the complications associated with inappropriate use of PPIs. Surgeons should seriously consider that they can do a better job for patients. If the goal of better care is to be reached, surgeons must have a thorough, objectively based evaluation of a patient’s symptoms profile both for formulation of a sound diagnostic approach and effective conservative treatment. The routine use of objective evaluation tools is important both for the initial evaluation and tracking treatment success or failure. Up to 12 different diagnostic tests can be needed for patients depending on their presenting symptoms and review of systems. The three mainstays include transnasal esophagogastroenteroscopy (TNEG), Bravo 24- to 48-hour pH studies, and esophageal manometry. TNEG is a diagnostic procedure that allows the cost-effective screening evaluation of symptoms under local anesthesia. It also assists in the evaluation for yeast pharyngitis, which mimics GERD and is frequently missed by standard endoscopy.
Colleen: What are your thoughts on the new tools and technologies for battling GERD? Do you think they are promising?
Dr. Rosser: Some are very hopeful, and some are not as much. I must admit, I myself really lean more toward fundoplication and hiatal hernia repair. If a patient has a hiatal hernia, it has to be repaired. And fundoplication in expert hands can be a great long-term solution. I like to tailor the operation to the patient. Using manometry, I find that I detect motility disorders and this impacts my choice of procedure. I am performing 50% complete wraps (Nissen) and 50% partial wraps. I’ve done the LINX®, and I have had great success but still have some concerns about the long-term erosion issue. But it has potential. Beyond the LINX®, I’m not so excited about some of the things out there on the market. While initial data are good for some of these procedures and treatments, I am not sold on their long-term durability.
Colleen: Are you looking at the 5G-development timeline and its potential impact on medicine given your interest and work in telemedicine and mobile telemedicine applications?
Dr. Rosser: Yes. In 1992, when I first started in telemedicine, everything was about bandwidth or lack thereof. All the early exploration with telemedicine in surgery involved working around the expense and limitation of bandwidth. I have been through bandwidth expansion, starting with dial-up POTS lines, then ISDN and satellite communications, 3G and 4G. Now entering the 5G age, I feel its ultimate impact will be determined by security and not bandwidth availability. I am fearful that this global challenge could provide a similar bottleneck to adoption posed by bandwidth limitation 20 years ago. Finally, it must be remembered you can have all the bandwidth in the world but it is your process and protocols that are at the heart of advancing care and providing great outcomes.
Colleen: As an inventor of educational tools for surgeons, what do you think is needed for the coming robot platforms and challenge to teach the resident of today open, laparoscopic, and multiple platform robotics?
Dr. Rosser: I hope you do not think less of me for shying away from this major controversy. I will only say this about the dilemma illuminated by your question. I want to preface my comments by saying that I think robotics will pay an important role in the future of surgery. Currently, we are on a journey to discover the procedures where it has the most impact. However, just like in aviation, the foundation of the competency of a surgeon cannot rely solely on technology. Look at the recent crashes related to the automated piloting system with certain high-tech Boeing aircraft. The effective application of technological platforms must be leveraged upon a foundation of individual skill, expertise, and competency. In the audience there were upwards of 30 surgeons that had graduated from my Top Gun Laparoscopic Skills and Suturing program and they all agreed with this comment, “Skill determines if you are one of the greatest surgeons of all time and not a legend in your own mind.”
|
|
Suggested Readings
|
Foregut
|
|
Article: Comparison of laparoscopic 270° posterior partial fundoplication vs total fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized clinical trial. Hakanson BS, Lundell L, Bylund A, Thorell A. JAMA Surg. 2019 Mar 6. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30840057
Rees Porta: The authors randomized 456 patients to laparoscopic Toupee fundoplication (posterior 270° wrap with gastropexy) vs Nissen fundoplication (360°). No bougie was utilized and all patients were operated on by one of the two study surgeons. Patients and followup providers were blinded to the surgery that had been performed. Endoscopy, pH monitoring, manometry, and QoL surveys were used both pre- and post-operatively with followup to 5 years. Interestingly, their study shows no statistically significant superiority with the Nissen regarding acid suppression or GERD symptom control over the partial fundoplication. The Toupee demonstrated statistically significant less dysphasia at 6 weeks for liquids and at 1 and 2 years for solids. This well designed study avoided many of the limitations seen in previous publications and challenges the longstanding notion that the Nissen is the gold standard for anti-reflux surgery.
Article: Early referral for esophageal pH monitoring is more cost-effective than prolonged empiric trials of proton-pump inhibitors for suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease. Kleiman, David, Fahey, Thomas et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 Jan;18(1):26-33
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24214090
Dr. Rosser: This article stresses the academic rationale for an objective based evaluation of patients with suspected GERD that have undergone a limited PPI challenge. It is aimed at establishing an accurate diagnosis. Forty-one percent of patients diagnosed as having GERD have other illnesses.
|
|
|
Endoscopy & General
|
|
Article: Systematic endoscopy 5 years after sleeve gastrectomy results in a high rate of Barrett’s esophagus: results of a multicenter study. Sebastianelli L, Benois M, Vanbiervliet G, et al. Obes Surg. 2019 Jan 21. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30666544
Dr. Ricardo Cohen: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed operation in the US and some parts of the world. Regardless that it delivers (absolute) less weight loss long-term and it is a less effective metabolic operation, it carries the incidence of de novo gastroesophageal reflux from 15 to 30%. On top of all that is the incidence of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) of around 18% in 5 years followup. The authors found an association of weight loss failure and BE and recommend systematic endoscopy in all SG after 5 years postoperative. It is known that the vast majority of bariatric surgery centers worldwide has a low follow-up rate. Thus, endoscopic surveillance may be the right recommendation. However, its penetrance in the real world seems to be very low. This paper is a call to remind all healthcare professionals involved in the care of bariatric patients that the indiscriminate indication of SG has serious long-term drawbacks.
Article: New paradigm of live surgical education: synchronized deferred live surgery. Knol J, Bonjer J, Houben B, Wexner SD, Hompes R, Atallah S, Heald RJ, Sietses C, Chadi SA. J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Oct;227(4):467-473.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30118895
Dr. Steven Wexner: Surgery can be taught in many ways: from reading books, perusing photographs and illustrations in journals and textbooks, viewing highly edited truncated videos, or watching live surgery. While live surgery offers numerous significant advantages watching a surgeon work through a problem, discussing the nuances of the surgery with the operating surgeon, and seeing every detail of the operation, it does also have potential theoretical disadvantages. In many instances, the live surgery is performed by a surgeon who arrives in another country in another time zone and has never met or evaluated the patient. The surgeon who is performing the procedure is relying upon the judgment of his or her local hosts to have selected an appropriate case, though the hosts may never have performed the particular surgery being demonstrated. Furthermore, the surgeon may potentially be distracted during the operation by questions from the audience, and the surgeon may also be fatigued due to travel. Even if the surgeon brings his or her own team and equipment, the environment is different and that team must interface with local hosts who may not be fluent in the native language of the visiting surgical team. In an effort to improve upon this paradigm, Joep Knol, the innovator and founder of ilapp (http://ilappsurgery.com), designed dLiveMed (https://www.dlivemed.com), which is a method of synchronized deferred live surgery. He assembled a team including myself to evaluate and describe this technology. One of the main benefits of dLiveMed is the ability to have numerous angles.
In our recent publication in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, we describe a transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) procedure recorded with seven cameras, including the 360-degree view of the operating room setup, the “top down” view of the patient, the view of the assisting nursing table and instrumentation, the transabdominal external view, a transabdominal laparoscopic view, a transanal external view, and a transanal endolaparoscopic view. The ability for the surgeon or even the moderator to direct seven cameras while operating live would be at best incredibly challenging and at worst could potentially compromise the integrity and safety of the operation. The potential utility of dLiveMed was highlighted in a wonderful editorial by Julie Ann Freischlag in which she stated: “I think the biggest advantage in using synchronized deferred live surgery is that it takes away almost all of the risk to the patient.” I thank Joep for including me in this remarkable paradigm shifting effort and thank Julie Ann for her tremendously valuable insights. Readers interested in learning more can scan Figure 1 within our article to see the video and picture technology.
|
|
Colon
|
|
Article: Disease-free survival and local recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: the Australasian laparoscopic cancer of the rectum randomized clinical trial. Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Brown CSB, et al. Ann Surg 2019;269:596–602.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247332
Dr. Sean Langenfeld: This is the 2-year follow up from the ALaCaRT trial, and is accompanied by the 2-year follow up from the ACOSOG Z6051 trial in the same volume (previously presented to the MISS audience). There is no difference in overall survival, disease-free survival, or locoregional recurrence at 2 years when comparing open to laparoscopic approaches. However, this must be interpreted with caution since neither study was powered or designed for these long-term results. One might assume that an important meta-analysis is coming soon that will shed more light on the issue.
|
|
|
Bariatric
|
|
Article: The Dutch bariatric weight loss chart: A multicenter tool to assess weight outcome up to 7 years after sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. van de Laar, Nienhuijs, et.al. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 Nov 24. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30797718
Rees Porta: WHO growth charts are used worldwide by billions of parents and pediatricians. Accurate weight loss charts after bariatric surgery would be immensely helpful for the patient and the surgeon. Dr. van de Laar and colleagues highlight the difficulties with creating these charts (such as length of follow-up and the inherent bias, lack of a standardized measurement of weight loss, and the need for a large multicenter study to ensure proper patient volume) and do an excellent job mitigating these obstacles. Their curves for LSG and RYGB extend out to 7 years and use %AWL, which they describe as the best metric to combat the differences seen with wide preoperative BMI variance. Hopefully we can use the large MBSAQIP database to develop our own graphs. In addition to helping with preoperative expectation management and postoperative monitoring, they could be a valuable tool for further research into identifying risk factors for poor responders (which were identified as male gender, T2DM, and age in this study).
|
|
Hernia
|
|
Article: Does active smoking really matter before ventral hernia repair? An AHSQC analysis. Petro CC, Haskins IN, Tastaldi L, Tu C, Krpata DM, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS.
Surgery. 2019 Feb;165(2):406-411.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30220485
Michael Rosen: The authors did a database review of the AHSQC to determine the effect of smoking on clean open ventral hernia repair in a well matched group of 400 active smokers versus 400 never smokers. They found no clinical or statistically significant difference between the groups as far as wound morbidity or overall 30-day postoperative complications. This data calls into question the stance of mandatory smoking cessation for smokers with symptomatic hernias.
|
|
|
