Efficiency of preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy in identifying operable hiatal hernia for bariatric surgery patients

Evidence for overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions was assessed: a metaepidemiological study using the 'Fair Umpire' framework

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the strength of the evidence for, and the extent of, overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched for studies investigating overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions. Using the 'Fair Umpire' framework to assess the evidence that cases diagnosed by one diagnostic strategy but not by another may be overdiagnosed, two reviewers independently identified whether a Fair Umpire-a disease-specific clinical outcome, a test result or risk factor that can determine whether an additional case does or does not have disease-was present. Disease-specific clinical outcomes provide the strongest evidence for overdiagnosis, follow-up or concurrent tests provide weaker evidence, and risk factors provide only weak evidence. Studies without a Fair Umpire provide the weakest evidence of overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 132 studies, 47 (36%) did not include a Fair Umpire to adjudicate additional diagnoses. When present, the most common Umpire was a single test or risk factor (32% of studies), with disease-specific clinical outcome Umpires used in only 21% of studies. Estimates of overdiagnosis included 43-45% of screen-detected acute abdominal aneurysms, 54% of cases of acute kidney injury, and 77% of cases of oligohydramnios in pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Much of the current evidence for overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions is weak. Application of the framework can guide development of robust studies to detect and estimate overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions, ultimately informing evidence-based policies to reduce it.

Independent association of preoperative Hill grade with gastroesophageal reflux disease 2 years after sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Higher endoscopic Hill grade has been linked to GERD in patients without metabolic surgery. How preoperative Hill grade relates to GERD after SG is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the relationship between preoperative Hill grade and GERD outcomes 2 years after SG.

SETTING

Academic hospital, United States.

METHODS

All patients (n = 882) undergoing SG performed by 5 surgeons at a single academic institution from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. Complete data sets were available for 360 patients, which were incorporated in analyses. GERD was defined as the presence of a diagnosis in the medical record accompanied by pharmacotherapy. Patients with GERD postoperatively (n = 193) were compared with those without (n = 167). Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to explore independent associations between preoperative factors and GERD outcomes.

RESULTS

The presence of any GERD increased at the postoperative follow-up of 25.2 (3.9) months compared with preoperative values (53.6% versus 41.1%; P = .0001). Secondary GERD outcomes at follow-up included de novo (41.0%), persistent (33.1%), resolved (28.4%), worsened (26.4%), and improved (12.2%) disease. Postoperative endoscopy and reoperation for GERD occurred in 26.4% and 6.7% of the sample. Patients with GERD postoperatively showed higher prevalence of Hill grade III-IV (32.6% versus 19.8%; P = .0062) and any hiatal hernia (HH) (36.3% versus 25.1%; P = .0222) compared with patients without postoperative GERD. Frequencies of gastritis, esophagitis A or B, duodenitis, and peptic ulcer disease were similar between groups. Higher prevalence of preoperative GERD (54.9% versus 25.1%; P < .0001), obstructive sleep apnea (66.8% versus 54.5%; P = .0171), and anxiety (25.4% versus 15.6%; P = .0226) was observed in patients with postoperative GERD compared with those without it. Baseline demographics, weight, other obesity-associated diseases, whether an HH was repaired at index SG, and follow-up length were statistically similar between groups. After adjusting for collinearity, preoperative GERD (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-5.7; P < .0001) and Hill grade III-IV (OR [95% CI]: 1.9 [1.1-3.1]; P = .0174) were independently associated with the presence of any GERD postoperatively. The preoperative presence of an HH >2 cm and whether an HH was repaired at index SG showed no independent association with GERD at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 50% of patients experienced GERD 2 years after SG. Preoperative GERD confers the highest risk for GERD postoperatively. Hill grade III-IV is independently associated with GERD after SG. Whether a hiatal hernia repair was performed did not influence GERD outcomes. Preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy should be obtained before SG and Hill grade routinely captured and used to counsel patients about the risk of postoperative GERD after this procedure. Hill grade may help guide the choice of metabolic operation.

Staple Line Intrathoracic Migration After Sleeve Gastrectomy: Correlation between Symptoms, CT Three-Dimensional Stomach Analysis, and 24-h pH Monitoring

PURPOSE

Migration of the staple line is the definition of sliding hiatus hernia in sleeve gastrectomy patients. The main aim was to determine the frequency and measurement of intrathoracic staple line migration and its correlation with GERD symptoms and pH monitoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective clinical trial including all patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy more than 1 year previously. All the patients underwent computed tomography (CT) imaging, and migration of the proximal end of the suture above the level of the hiatus was measured in mm. All the patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD were assessed using the GERD impact scale (GIS), and wireless 24-h esophageal pH and symptom association monitoring (SAP) were carried out. Analysis of risk factors for postoperative staple line migration was performed.

RESULTS

Between March 2018 and December 2018, 194 patients were evaluated (mean age 45.1 ± 11.2 years; 161 females); 88/194 (45.4%) presented an average intrathoracic migration of 16.2 ± 6.9 mm. Thirty-eight of 194 (19.5%) patients presented symptoms suggestive of gastroesophageal reflux. There was a significant relationship between staple line intrathoracic migration and postsleeve GERD symptomatology (p = 0.0004, OR = 4.25 [1.92-9.39]). However, there was no significant correlation between positive 24-h pH monitoring and intrathoracic migration of the staple line (p = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

A migration greater than 17 mm was strongly correlated with postsleeve GERD symptoms but not with positive 24-h pH monitoring.

Routine Use of Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in Bariatric Surgery-an International Survey of Our Current Practice

INTRODUCTION

The role of esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in bariatric surgery has been widely discussed. In 2020, the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued recommendations on the routine use of EGD before and after bariatric surgery. However, little is known of our current practice and the guidance uptake.

METHODS

We conducted an international survey assessing bariatric surgeons' practice on the use of EGD. The survey aimed to identify whether surgeons offer EGD in the following settings: pre-operative, post-operative at 1 year, every 2-3 years following longitudinal sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Among 121 respondents, 72% are aware of the IFSO recommendations. The commonly performed bariatric procedures were LSG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and OAGB. 53.7% surgeons routinely offer pre-operative EGD and 14.3% routinely offer post-operative EGD for bariatric patients at 1 year after surgery. Majority do not routinely offer EGD after LSG (74.8%) or OAGB (79.7%) every 2-3 years as proposed by IFSO.

CONCLUSION

The uptake of IFSO recommendation is variable according to each recommendation with better compliance among surgeons with regard to pre-operative EGD. Further research is necessary to develop robust evidence-base for the role of endoscopy after bariatric surgery with the inclusion of patient and public involvement.

Prevalence of Upper Gastrointestinal Pathology in Patients with Obesity on Preoperative Endoscopy

Background and Objectives:

The preoperative work up for bariatric surgery is variable and not all centers perform a preoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A study was undertaken to determine the frequency of clinically significant gross endoscopic and pathological diagnoses in a large sample of patients with obesity undergoing work-up for bariatric surgery.

Methods:

Routine endoscopy was performed on all preoperative bariatric patients. A retrospective chart review of 1000 consecutive patients was performed. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A (no endoscopic findings), Group B (clinically insignificant findings), Group C (clinically significant findings).

Results:

Patients had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 49 kg/m2 and 79% were female. In this sample one finding was found on preoperative EGD in 95.2% of patients, 33.9% had at least two diagnoses, and 29.9% had three or more diagnoses. Group A (no findings) consisted of 4.8% of patient, 52.5% in Group B (clinically insignificant findings), and 42.7% were in Group C (clinically significant findings). Clinically significant findings included hiatal hernia 23.5%, esophagitis 9.5%, H. pylori 7.1%, gastric erosions 5.7%, duodenitis 3.7%, Barrett's esophagus 3.1%, and Schatzki ring 1.2%. There was no significant correlation between preoperative BMI and any endoscopic findings (all p-value 0.05). Patients in Group C were statistically older than Groups A and B.

Conclusion:

Upper gastrointestinal pathology is highly common in patients with obesity. There is a significant rate of clinically significant endoscopy findings and all bariatric surgery patients should undergo preoperative endoscopy.

Hiatal Hernia Evaluation Before Bariatric Surgery: Should It Be Routinely Done?

PURPOSE

The necessity of routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS) in the evaluation of hiatal hernia (HH) among bariatric surgery candidates is controversial since most are detected during surgery, regardless of the preoperative work-up. The aim is to determine the accuracy of preoperative EGD and UGIS for HH diagnosis among bariatric surgery candidates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The records of bariatric surgery patients between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. Patients underwent routine UGIS and/or EGD before the surgery. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for each study were calculated based on operative findings.

RESULTS

A total of 463 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 44.34 ± 12.99 years. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 42.7 ± 5.15 kg/m². A total of 450 patients (97.2%) had a UGIS, 263 patients underwent EGD (56.8%), and 258 (55.7%) patients had both tests. HH was diagnosed in 26 (5.8%), 60 (13%), and 72 (27.8%) patients, respectively. HH was found intra-operatively in 53 patients (11.4%). It was associated with heartburn (P = 0.005) and previous bariatric surgery (P = 0.008). EGD had a greater sensitivity than UGIS (47.4% vs. 30.2%) and a lower specificity (81.4% vs. 97.5%). PPV and NPV for UGIS and EGD were 61.5% and 91.3% vs. 30% and 90.2%, respectively. The sensitivity of both tests when combined together reached 60.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EGD and UGIS, whether solely performed or combined, have low sensitivity for diagnosis of HH and can probably be omitted from the preoperative evaluation, except for high-risk patients.

Is Routine Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Prior to Bariatric Surgery Mandatory? Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 10,685 Patients

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched, retrieved and synthesized the evidence as to whether preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (p-EGD) should be routine before bariatric surgery (BS).

METHODS

Databases searched for retrospective, prospective, and randomized (RCT) or quasi-RCT studies (01 January 2000-30 April 2019) of outcomes of routine p-EGD before BS. STROBE checklist assessed the quality of the studies. P-EGD findings were categorized: Group 0 (no abnormal findings); Group 1 (abnormal findings that do not necessitate changing the surgical approach or postponing surgery); Group 2 (abnormal findings that change the surgical approach or postpone surgery); and Group 3 (findings that signify absolute contraindications to surgery). We assessed data heterogeneity and publication bias. Random effect model was used.

RESULTS

Twenty-five eligible studies were included (10,685 patients). Studies were heterogeneous, and there was publication bias. Group 0 comprised 5424 patients (56%, 95% CI: 45-67%); Group 1, 2064 patients (26%, 95% CI: 23-50%); Group 2, 1351 patients (16%, 95% CI: 11-21%); and Group 3 included 31 patients (0.4%, 95% CI: 0-1%).

CONCLUSION

For 82% of patients, routine p-EGD did not change surgical plan/ postpone surgery. For 16% of patients, p-EGD findings necessitated changing the surgical approach/ postponing surgery, but the proportion of postponements due to medical treatment of H Pylori as opposed to "necessary" substantial change in surgical approach is unclear. For 0.4% patients, p-EGD findings signified absolute contraindication to surgery. These findings invite a revisit to whether p-EGD should be routine before BS, and whether it is judicious to expose many obese patients to an invasive procedure that has potential risk and insufficient evidence of effectiveness. Further justification is required.

Is routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenscopy prior to bariatric surgery mandatory? protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenscopy (p-EGD) prior to bariatric surgery (BS) is currently widely undertaken, and hence an important issue with many clinical and financial repercussions. Yet, the true extent of why p-EGD is routinely undertaken for all bariatric patients remains not well understood.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To address this, we will undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of routine p-EGD prior to BS from around the world. This protocol describes the methodological approach to be adopted and outlines the search strategies and eligibility criteria that will be employed to identify and select studies, and the way by which data from the selected studies will be extracted for analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov and Google scholar will be searched from 01 January 2000 to 30 April 2019 for original studies written in English that provided prevalence estimates of the outcomes of routine p-EGD prior to BS. STROBE criteria will assess the methodological quality of the selected studies. The use of fixed or random effects model will depend on the results of statistical tests for heterogeneity. Publication bias will be visually estimated by assessing funnel plots. Pooled estimates will be calculated. This protocol conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and has been submitted for registration at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews. No ethical clearance is required for this study. This review will be published in a peer- reviewed journal and will be presented at various national and international conferences.

Preoperative Endoscopic and Radiologic Evaluation of Bariatric Patients: What Do They Add?

BACKGROUND

Preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and barium swallow (BS) are commonly performed for evaluation in bariatric surgery patients. The routine use of these modalities has been controversial.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to include primary bariatric surgery patients between March 2013 and August 2016.

RESULTS

Two hundred nine patients were included. All the patients underwent preoperative EGD and BS. The mean age was 43.12 years and BMI 46.4 kg/m². Reflux symptoms were present in 58.5% of patients. Preoperative EGD revealed abnormalities in 87.5% of patients: esophagitis (54.5%), Barrett's esophagus (5.3%), dysplasia (1%), and gastritis (51%). Endoscopic evidence of HH was documented in 52.2% of patients while only 34% of patients had evidence of HH in their BS. Of the asymptomatic patients, 80.2% had abnormal EGD. Helicobacter pylori on biopsy was found in 17.2% patients, out of which 47.2% were asymptomatic. Based on EGD findings, the choice of surgical procedure was changed in 3.34% of patients. Repair of HH was performed in 107 patients, with 68.2% (n = 73) symptomatic patients and 31.8% (n = 34) asymptomatic patients. On ROC analysis, EGD was better predictive of the presence of HH (AUC = 0.802, OR 5.20, p  =   < 0.0001) and symptoms were a poor indicator for GERD.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative EGD is abnormal in the majority of patients regardless of their symptoms. EGD is the only modality that can provide tissue sample, which can potentially determine the type of bariatric surgery. Given the low diagnostic accuracy of BS, its routine use can be eliminated.

Hiatal hernia diagnosis prospectively assessed in obese patients before bariatric surgery: accuracy of high-resolution manometry taking intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) is common in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Preoperative traditional techniques such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) or barium swallow/esophagram do not always correlate with intraoperative findings. High-resolution manometry (HRM) has shown a higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional techniques in non-obese patients in the HH diagnosis, whereas there is a lack of data in the morbidly obese population. We aimed to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of HRM in HH detection, in comparison with barium swallow and UGIE, assuming intraoperative diagnosis as a standard of reference.

METHODS

Forty-one consecutive morbidly obese patients prospectively recruited from a tertiary-care referral hospital devoted to bariatric and metabolic surgery underwent a preoperative evaluation including standardized GERD questionnaires, barium swallow, UGIE, and HRM. The surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon who was blinded to the results of other investigations.

RESULTS

HH was intraoperatively diagnosed in 11/41 patients (26.8%). In 10/11 patients, the preoperative HRM showed an esophagogastric junction suggestive of HH. When compared to intraoperative evaluation, the sensitivity of the HRM was 90.9% and the specificity 63.3%, with a positive predictive value of 47.6% and a negative predictive value of 95.0%. HRM showed a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to barium swallow and UGIE.

CONCLUSIONS

HRM has a high accuracy of HH detection in morbidly obese patients assuming an intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard. It could therefore be a very useful tool in the preoperative work-up of obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Diagnostic value of X-ray, endoscopy, and high-resolution manometry for hiatal hernia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hiatal hernia (HH) has been found in a large number of people, but there has been no unified way to diagnose it. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficiency of X-ray, endoscopy, and high-resolution manometry (HRM) in the diagnosis of HH using surgical diagnosis of HH as the gold standard.

METHODS

Two biomedical databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were systematically searched through January 26, 2019. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the SROC curve (AUC) were calculated, and the AUC statistical significance was compared by Tukey's multiple comparisons test.

RESULTS

A total of 5337 patients in seven articles were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for X-ray were 0.63 (0.46-0.77), 0.85 (0.69-0.94), and 0.80 (0.77-0.84), respectively, for diagnosing HH. The pooled estimates for endoscopy in diagnosing HH were as follows: sensitivity, 0.72 (0.39-0.91); specificity, 0.80 (0.70-0.87); and AUC, 0.82 (0.78-0.85). Similarly, the corresponding values for HRM were 0.77 (0.70-0.83); 0.92 (0.85-0.96), and 0.9527. Tukey's multiple comparisons tests were used to compare the AUCs of the three diagnostic methods: No significant differences were found between X-ray and endoscopy (P = 0.7293), and HRM was superior to X-ray (P = 0.0127) and endoscopy (P = 0.0442).

CONCLUSIONS

High-resolution manometry may exhibit a better diagnostic performance for hiatal hernia. In contrast, X-ray and endoscopy may not be the best methods, and there was no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency between the X-ray and endoscopy.

Preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients without reflux symptoms undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: utility or futility?

Aim

To evaluate the value of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as a preoperative investigation in individuals without symptoms of Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) who will undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

Materials and methods

After Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, patients scheduled for LSG were prospectively enrolled in the study between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients with symptoms of GERD were excluded from the study. Participants were randomly allocated to two groups: individuals who underwent EGD before the surgery as a usual routine investigation (Group A), and individuals who were scheduled without preoperative EGD (Group B). Patient demographics, endoscopic findings, endoscopic biopsy results, and histopathological findings of the resected parts of the stomach after LSG were analyzed and recorded. Additionally, operative characteristics and outcomes, and follow up findings were recorded and analyzed with appropriate statistical methods.

Results

A total of 219 individuals without symptoms of GERD underwent LSG were enrolled. Group A included 111 individuals (25 males and 86 females). Group B comprised 108 individuals (20 males and 88 females). The mean age and mean Body Mass Index (BMI) were similar in both groups. From Group A, 86 out of 111 individuals (77.5%) had no pathology identified on EGD, while 21 individuals (18.9%) were found to have areas of gastric erythema and biopsies showed active gastritis. All LSG operations were performed without any major complication. After one year, all individuals were assessed for the presence of symptomatic GERD and no significant difference was found between the two groups.

Conclusion

Preoperative EGD may not be mandatory for asymptomatic GERD individuals undergoing LSG as post-operative complications and early follow up for GERD symptoms are not significantly different. Further prospective studies with longer follow up are needed to evaluate the role of EGD in individuals undergoing LSG.

Hiatal hernia diagnosis prospectively assessed in obese patients before bariatric surgery: accuracy of high-resolution manometry taking intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) is common in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Preoperative traditional techniques such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) or barium swallow/esophagram do not always correlate with intraoperative findings. High-resolution manometry (HRM) has shown a higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional techniques in non-obese patients in the HH diagnosis, whereas there is a lack of data in the morbidly obese population. We aimed to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of HRM in HH detection, in comparison with barium swallow and UGIE, assuming intraoperative diagnosis as a standard of reference.

METHODS

Forty-one consecutive morbidly obese patients prospectively recruited from a tertiary-care referral hospital devoted to bariatric and metabolic surgery underwent a preoperative evaluation including standardized GERD questionnaires, barium swallow, UGIE, and HRM. The surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon who was blinded to the results of other investigations.

RESULTS

HH was intraoperatively diagnosed in 11/41 patients (26.8%). In 10/11 patients, the preoperative HRM showed an esophagogastric junction suggestive of HH. When compared to intraoperative evaluation, the sensitivity of the HRM was 90.9% and the specificity 63.3%, with a positive predictive value of 47.6% and a negative predictive value of 95.0%. HRM showed a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to barium swallow and UGIE.

CONCLUSIONS

HRM has a high accuracy of HH detection in morbidly obese patients assuming an intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard. It could therefore be a very useful tool in the preoperative work-up of obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.