Magnetic sphincter augmentation at the time of bariatric surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP

Current status of gastroesophageal reflux disease after sleeve gastrectomy: Still a long way to go

Obesity is a public health concern that is becoming increasingly more serious around the world. Bariatric surgery has become more prevalent due to the obesity epidemic worldwide. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most popular procedures which is safe and efficient. Despite all its favorable features, however, there is an increasing evidence from the literature that the long-term incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is likely to represent the Achilles' heel of this procedure. Management of severe reflux after SG usually requires revisional surgery. The relationship between SG and GERD needs to be better ascertained in order to prevent related complications, such as esophageal adenocarcinoma. This review attempts to elucidate the effect of SG on GERD and the postoperative management of reflux disease according to recent literature in the hope of drawing the attention of clinicians to postoperative gastroesophageal reflux and guiding the optimal management strategy associated with this "troublesome complication".

The role of magnetic sphincter augmentation in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been designed as a less disruptive and more standardized laparoscopic surgical procedure than fundoplication for patients with early stage gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We analyzed the more recent literature in search of updates regarding indications, technique, perioperative management, and long-term outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the years, the procedure of MSA has evolved to including full hiatus repair rather than relying on the preservation of the phreno-esophageal ligament. Restoring the mechanical synergy between the lower esophageal sphincter and the crural diaphragm has the potential to further enhance the antireflux barrier. The adoption of this approach has led to expand the indications from early stage disease to different scenarios including patients with high esophageal acid exposure, atypical symptoms, large hiatal hernias, Barrett's esophagus, postbariatric surgery, and previously failed fundoplication.

SUMMARY

MSA has a favorable side-effect profile and is highly effective in reducing typical reflux symptoms, medication dependency, and esophageal acid exposure. Excellent outcomes have been confirmed over a 12-year follow-up, indicating that the operation has the potential to prevent GERD progression. Further studies are needed to confirm the cost-effectiveness of this procedure in patients with more advanced disease-stage and prior gastric surgery. A randomized control trial comparing MSA with fundoplication could raise the level of evidence and the strength of recommendation.

The safety of additional procedures at the time of revisional bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The third most common bariatric operation is revisions of previous bariatric surgeries. Patients may require revisional bariatric surgery for inadequate weight loss or complications. Patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery may also have other conditions that require surgery. This study evaluates the 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery and additional procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the 2005-2017 ACS NSQIP database identified 7249 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery with 3115 (48%) occurring with additional procedures. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was completed for 13 patient demographics and comorbidities. Postoperative variables were then analyzed as available in the NSQIP database. Subgroup analyses were completed for those undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair and abdominal wall hernia repair at the time of revisional bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

The most common bariatric surgery that was converted or revised was the AGB (57%) and the most common additional procedure was paraesophageal hernia repair (n = 181, 15%). When additional procedures were completed at the time of revisional bariatric surgery, overall complications (p < 0.001), major systemic complications (p = 0.009) and mortality/major complications (p = 0.018) were all significantly increased. After matching for operative time, only postoperative sepsis remained significant with additional procedures (p = 0.042). In the subgroup analyses on paraesophageal and abdominal wall hernias there were no differences in postoperative complications after matching for operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional procedures, including paraesophageal and abdominal wall hernia repairs at the time of revisional bariatric surgery increase postoperative complications. Operative time was longer when additional procedures were performed. Postoperative sepsis was the only complication which remained significant after propensity matching when additional procedures are completed at the time of revisional bariatric surgery.