Endoscopic management of bariatric surgical complications

Quantifying Healthcare Utilization and Delay in the Treatment of Gastric Stenosis Following Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common bariatric procedure performed. The incidence of gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is up to 4%, with a rising prevalence given increasing popularity of this surgery. GSS is best treated with pneumatic balloon dilation (PBD), but the diagnosis is not always straightforward, oftentimes leading to an extensive diagnostic workup. The aims of the current study were to quantify delay to treatment and overall healthcare utilization during this delay in patients with GSS following SG.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database including patients with SG diagnosed with GSS between October 2017 and September 2020. The primary outcome was time between symptom development and treatment with PBD. Secondary outcomes included total healthcare utilization as reflected by the number and charges of imaging and emergency room (ER) visits.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were included in the analysis; 37 (82%) were female. The mean (± SD) time to treatment was 755 (± 713) days. The probability of receiving treatment at 1, 2, and 3 years was 37%, 62%, and 76%, respectively. The mean (± SD) abdominal CT scans, radiographs, and UGIS between symptoms and PBD were 1.3 ± 2.0, 1.2 ± 1.6, and 1.2 ± 1.0, respectively. The mean number of ER visits was 1.9 ± 2.5 (range 0-8). The average number of diagnostic non-therapeutic upper endoscopies was 1.6 ± 1.5. The mean (± SD) total charges were $16,473 ± 15,173.

CONCLUSION

Patients who develop GSS following SG experience significant delay in diagnosis and management, reflected by multiple imaging studies, emergency department visits, and non-therapeutic procedures.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Evaluation and Management of Early Complications After Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

Endoscopic techniques are paramount in the identification and management of complications after surgery, though collaboration with other specialties is obligatory. Unfortunately, the evaluation and treatment algorithms are not standardized and there is a paucity of high-quality prospective studies to provide clarity regarding the best approach. The purpose of this clinical practice update is to apprise the clinician with respect to the endoscopic evaluation and management of patients with early (<90 days) complications after undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery.

METHODS

The best practice advice outlined in this expert review are based on available published evidence, including observational studies and systematic reviews, and incorporates expert opinion where applicable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians performing endoscopic approaches to treat early major postoperative complications should do so in a multidisciplinary manner with interventional radiology and bariatric/metabolic surgery co-managing the patient. Daily communication is advised. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians embarking on incorporating endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications into their clinical practice should have a comprehensive knowledge of the indications, contraindications, risks, benefits, and outcomes of each of the endoscopic treatment techniques. They should also have knowledge of the risks and benefits of alternative methods such as surgical and interventional radiological based approaches. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians incorporating endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications into their clinical practice should have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to: using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, managing stenosis, and managing percutaneous drains. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should screen all patients undergoing endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications and dietary intolerance for comorbid medical (nutrient deficiencies, infection, pulmonary embolism) and psychological (depression, anxiety) conditions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopic approaches to managing complications of bariatric/metabolic surgery may be considered for patients in the immediate, early and late postoperative periods depending on hemodynamic stability. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians incorporating endoscopic management of bariatric/metabolic surgical complications into their clinical practice should have a detailed understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms initiating and perpetuating conditions such as staple-line leaks. This will allow for a prompt diagnosis and appropriate therapy to be targeted not only at the area of interest, but also any concomitant downstream stenosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks are often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention.

Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopically Secured Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metallic Stents (FCSEMS) for Post-Bariatric Complex Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The use of fully covered self-expandable metallic stents (FCSEMS) has opened the door to treat stenosis in the post-bariatric stomach. We hypothesized that endoscopically securing a FCSEMS would be technically feasible, effective, and safe for > 30-day dwell time.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the technical feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of endoscopically secured FCSEMS in the stomach for > 30 days.

METHODS

A retrospective review (September 2016 to April 2018) of consecutive patients who underwent FCSEMS suturing in the stomach at a single academic institution was reviewed. Technical success, stent dwell time, symptoms, and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (median age of 49 (31-70)) were included. Stents were inserted for gastrojejunal (GJ) stricture or gastric stenosis in 9/15 and 6/15 of patients, respectively. All procedures were technically successful (100%). Immediate and short-term clinical success (prior to stent removal) was 100% in patients who did not have stent migration. Stent migration was seen in 3 cases (20%) after a median dwell time of 211 days. However, 2/3 (66.6%) had not attended their scheduled removal. Recurrence of symptoms after stent removal was seen in 53.3% of patients with 40% undergoing repeat stenting. Median stent dwell was 117 (30-342) days. Sixty percent and 33% of patients had stent dwell of at least 90 and 180 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A FCSEMS, if secured, may be safe and effective for even > 90-day dwell time in the post-bariatric stomach and may result in long-term clinical success for GJ stricture after stent removal.

International multicenter expert survey on endoscopic treatment of upper gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks

Background and study aims  A variety of endoscopic techniques are currently available for treatment of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) anastomotic leaks; however, no definite consensus exists on the most appropriate therapeutic approach. Our aim was to explore current management of UGI anastomotic leaks. Methods  A survey questionnaire was distributed among international expert therapeutic endoscopists regarding management of UGI anastomotic leaks. Results  A total of 44 % of 163 surveys were returned; 69 % were from gastroenterologists and 56 % had > 10 years of experience. A third of respondents treat between 10 and 19 patients annually. Fifty-six percent use fully-covered self-expandable metal stents as their usual first option; 80% use techniques to minimize migration; 4 weeks was the most common reported stent dwell time. Sixty percent perform epithelial ablation prior to over-the-scope-clip placement or suturing. Regarding endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), 56 % perform balloon dilation and intracavitary EVT in patients with large cavities but small leak defects. Regarding endoscopic septotomy, 56 % consider a minimal interval of 4 weeks from surgery and 90 % consider the need to perform further sessions. Regarding endoscopic internal drainage (EID), placement of two stents and shorter stents is preferred. Persistent inflammation with clinical sepsis was the definition most commonly reported for endoscopic failure. EVT/stent placement and EVT/EID were the therapeutic options most often chosen in patients with previous oncologic surgery and previous bariatric surgery, respectively. Conclusions  There is a wide variation in the management of patients with UGI anastomotic leaks. Future prospective studies are needed to move from an expert- to evidence- and personalization-based care.

Endoscopic Treatment of Diverse Complications Caused by Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: A Study in Eastern Asia

Background/Aims

The use of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is increasing proportionally with the obesity epidemic. However, some postoperative complications have been highlighted as major problems associated with LAGB. There is no consensus concerning the endoscopic management of these adverse events. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review the feasibility and effectiveness of endoscopic treatment for LAGB complications.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 352 patients who underwent LAGB between 2011 and 2015. LAGB-associated complications developed in 26 patients (7.4%). This study involved six patients (1.7%) who received endoscopic treatment.

Results

Types of LAGB-induced complications in our series included intragastric migration (n=3), gastric leaks (n=2), and gastric fistulas (n=1). The endoscopic treatment of these complications was successful in four of the six patients. Endoscopic band removal was successful in two patients. All gastric leaks were successfully closed via an endoscopic procedure. In two cases (intragastric migration and gastric fistula), endoscopic treatment was not sufficient, and surgery was performed.

Conclusions

Endoscopic procedures afforded acceptable treatment of band migration and gastric leaks after LAGB. However, the results were poor in patients with gastric fistula.

The role of routine abdominal drainage after bariatric surgery: a metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of drains has long been debated in bariatric surgery. Drains may provide some theoretical benefits to early detection of anastomotic leaks and potential nonoperative treatment; however, there has never been data to support the practice.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of drain placement after bariatric surgery.

SETTING

This retrospective cohort study includes all hospitals in the United States that participated in the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program.

METHODS

Only patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass were included for the analysis. The main outcomes of interest were anastomotic leak, reoperation, all-cause morbidity, readmission, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of abdominal drainage on the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 142,631 patients were identified in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. After adjustment for major clinical variables, the odds of anastomotic leaks increased by 30% with the placement of a drain (odds ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.57, P = .01) while the odds of reoperation increased by 17% (95% CI: 1.06-1.30, P = .01). The odds of all cause morbidity increased 19% (95% CI: 1.14-1.25, P<.01), and odds of readmission were significantly higher (odds ratio:1.12, 95% CI:1.06-1.19, P<.01). The odds of mortality did not change significantly with the placement of a drain.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a large observational cohort, this study provided no evidence that routine drainage is beneficial to patients, but rather may increase major morbidity. Our findings suggest that the use of routine abdominal drainage should be restricted to very select, high-risk cases.