Biliopancreatic access following anatomy-altering bariatric surgery: a literature review

Abdominal Pain-Specific Legal Risk

Abdominal pain accounts for approximately 10% of emergency department visits and 4% to 6% of litigation. Clinical history and examination are important, as all diagnostic testing has limitations. Specific pathologies, such as appendicitis, warrant a review of factors increasing risk. In all cases, documentation of prompt communication with consultants can be protective in the event of any unforeseen delays in care. Careful attention should be paid to special populations including patients with cancer, diabetes, and patients with postsurgical, geriatric, and bariatric surgery.

International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications.

METHODS

Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round.

RESULTS

Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

How I Do It: Robotic Choledochoscopy

BACKGROUND

As the use of the robotic platform increases among general surgeons, the amount of robotic cholecystectomies is expected to increase as well. The use of intraoperative cholangiography is valuable in assessing for choledocholithiasis. We describe our technique of performing robotic intraoperative cholangiograms with choledochoscopy. Out technique aids in efficiency since no undocking is required.

METHODS

Preoperatively, the decision to perform a cholangiogram is made based on physical exam, labs, and imaging findings. The procedure begins with obtaining a critical view of safety. The robotic arms are positioned in a manner that allows all 4 robotic arms to remain docked. A ductotomy is made and the cholangiocatheter is introduced. The cholangiogram images are then interpreted and if a stone is seen in the common bile duct we will then perform a transcystic common bile duct exploration using the SpyGlass Discover digital. A complete cholangiogram is then performed. The cystic duct is secured and the gallbladder is removed from the liver bed. The patients are watched overnight and discharged on postoperative day 1.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach to performing a transcystic common bile duct exploration is a safe and reproducible treatment method for choledocholithiasis. Our approach offers an advantage since no undocking is required.

Reconstructing the puzzle of the role of therapeutic endoscopy in the management of post-bariatric surgery complications

We have recently read with interest the mini-review article "Therapeutic endoscopy for the treatment of post-bariatric surgery complications". The abovementioned article is a brief overview of the different endoscopic modalities employed in the management of bariatric surgery complications and represents an important decision support tool for clinicians to improve their current practice. Although we appreciate the endeavor of Larsen and Kozarek, based on our in-depth analysis, we came across several minor issues in this article; thus, we present our comments in this letter. In case the authors contemplate these comments in their relevant research, we believe that their contribution would be considerable for future studies.