Endoscopic internal drainage for the management of leak, fistula, and collection after sleeve gastrectomy: our experience in 617 consecutive patients

Background: Endoscopy plays a pivotal role in the management of adverse events (AE) following bariatric surgery. Leaks, fistulae, and post-operative collection after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may occur in up to 10% of cases. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic internal drainage (EID) for the management of leak, fistula, and collection following SG. Setting: Retrospective, observational, single center study on patients referred from several bariatric surgery departments to an endoscopic referral center. Methods: EID was used as first-line treatment for the management of leaks, fistulae, and collections. Leaks and fistulae were treated with double pigtail stent (DPS) deployment in order to guarantee internal drainage and second intention cavity obliteration. Collections were treated with endoscropic ultrasound (EUS)–guided deployment of DPS or lumen apposing metal stents. Results: A total of 617 patients (83.3% female; mean age, 43.1 yr) were enrolled in the study for leak (n = 300, 48.6%), fistula (n = 285, 46.2%), and collection (n = 32, 5.2%). Median follow-up was 19.5 months. Overall clinical success was 84.7% whereas 15.3% of cases required revisional surgery after EID failure. Clinical success according to type of AE was 89.5%, 78.5%, and 90% for leak, fistula, and collection, respectively. A total of 10 of 547 (1.8%) presented a recurrence during follow-up. A total of 28 (4.5%) AE related to the endoscopic treatment occurred. At univariate logistic regression predictors of failure were: fistula (OR 2.012), combined endoscopic approach (OR 2.319), need for emergency surgery (OR 1.755), and previous endoscopic treatment (OR 4.818). Conclusion: Early EID for the management of leak, fistula, and post-operative collection after SG seems a safe and effective first-line approach with good long-term results

Long-Term Surgical Recurrence, Morbidity, Quality of Life, and Body Image of Laparoscopic-Assisted vs. Open Ileocolic Resection for Crohn’s Disease: A Comparative Study

PurposeSeveral studies have compared conventional open ileocolic resection with a laparoscopic-assisted approach. However, long-term outcome after laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection remains to be determined. This study was designed to compare long-term results of surgical recurrence, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted or open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.MethodsSeventy-eight consecutive patients who underwent ileocolic resection during the period 1995 to 1998 were analyzed; 48 underwent a conventional open approach in the Academic Medical Centre (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and 30 underwent a laparoscopic-assisted approach in the Leiden University Medical Centre (Leiden, The Netherlands). Primary outcome parameters were reoperation and readmission rate. Secondary outcome parameters were quality of life, body image, and cosmesis.ResultsThe two groups were comparable for characteristics of sex, age, and immunosuppressive therapy. Seventy-one patients had a complete follow-up of median 8.5 years. Resection for recurrent Crohn's disease was performed in 6 of 27 (22 percent) and 10 of 44 (23 percent) patients in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Reoperations for incisional hernia were only performed after conventional open ileocolic resection (3/44 = 6.8 percent). Quality of life and body image were comparable, but cosmesis scores were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group.ConclusionsDespite small numbers, we found that surgical recurrence and quality of life after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection were comparable. Incisional hernias occurred only after open ileocolic resection, and laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection resulted in a significantly better cosmesis

Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Open transthoracic oesophagectomy is the standard treatment for infracarinal resectable oesophageal carcinomas, although it is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates of 2 to 10% and 30 to 50%, respectively, for both the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The worldwide popularity of laparoscopic techniques is based on promising results, including lower postoperative morbidity rates, which are related to the reduced postoperative trauma. We hypothesise that the laparoscopic abdominal approach (laparoscopic gastric mobilisation) in oesophageal cancer surgery will decrease the major postoperative complication rate due to the reduced surgical trauma.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The MIRO trial is an open, controlled, prospective, randomised multicentre phase III trial. Patients in study arm A will receive laparoscopic-assisted oesophagectomy, i.e., a transthoracic oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilisation. Patients in study arm B will receive the same procedure, but with the conventional open abdominal approach. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the major postoperative 30-day morbidity. Secondary objectives are to assess the overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day pulmonary morbidity, disease-free survival, overall survival as well as quality of life and to perform medico-economic analysis. A total of 200 patients will be enrolled, and two safety analyses will be performed using 25 and 50 patients included in arm A.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Postoperative morbidity remains high after oesophageal cancer surgery, especially due to major pulmonary complications, which are responsible for 50% of the postoperative deaths. This study represents the first randomised controlled phase III trial to evaluate the benefits of the minimally invasive approach with respect to the postoperative course and oncological outcomes in oesophageal cancer surgery.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00937456">NCT00937456</a> (ClinicalTrials.gov)</p

Association of ERBB2 gene status with histopathological parameters and disease-specific survival in gastric carcinoma patients

The clinical significance of ERBB2 amplification/overexpression in gastric cancer remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the ERBB2 status in 463 gastric carcinomas using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH), and compared the findings with histopathological characteristics and with disease-specific survival. ERBB2 overexpression (2+ and 3+) and amplification (ratio ERBB2/CEP17⩾2) were found in 43 (9.3%) and 38 (8.2%) gastric carcinomas, respectively. Perfect IHC/FISH correlation was found for the 19 cases scored as 0 (all negative by FISH), and also for the 25 cases scored as 3+ (all positive by FISH). One out of six carcinomas scored as 1+ and 12 out of 18 carcinomas scored as 2+ were positive by FISH. ERBB2 amplification was associated with gastric carcinomas of intestinal type (P=0.007) and with an expansive growth pattern (P=0.021). ERBB2 amplification was detected in both histological components of two mixed carcinomas, indicating a common clonal origin. A statistically significant association was found between ERBB2 amplification and worse survival in patients with expansive gastric carcinomas (P=0.011). We conclude that ERBB2 status may have clinical significance in subsets of gastric cancer patients, and that further studies are warranted to evaluate whether patients whose gastric carcinomas present ERBB2 amplification/overexpression may benefit from therapy targeting this surface receptor

Trials

BACKGROUND: Postoperative upper gastrointestinal fistula (PUGIF) is a devastating complication, leading to high mortality (reaching up to 80%), increased length of hospital stay, reduced health-related quality of life and increased health costs. Nutritional support is a key component of therapy in such cases, which is related to the high prevalence of malnutrition. In the prophylactic setting, enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with a shorter hospital stay, a lower incidence of severe infectious complications, lower severity of complications and decreased cost compared to total parenteral nutrition (TPN) following major upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. There is little evidence available for the curative setting after fistula occurrence. We hypothesize that EN increases the 30-day fistula closure rate in PUGIF, allowing better health-related quality of life without increasing the morbidity or mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: The NUTRILEAK trial is a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label phase III trial to assess the efficacy of EN (the experimental group) compared with TPN (the control group) in patients with PUGIF. The primary objective of the study is to compare EN versus TPN in the treatment of PUGIF (after esophagogastric resection including bariatric surgery, duodenojejunal resection or pancreatic resection with digestive tract violation) in terms of the 30-day fistula closure rate. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the 6-month postrandomization fistula closure rate, time of first fistula closure (in days), the medical- and surgical treatment-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the fistula-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the type and severity of early (30 days after randomization) and late fistula-related complications (over 30 days after randomization), 30-day and 6-month postrandomization mortality rate, nutritional status at day 30, day 60, day 90 and day 180 postrandomization, the mean length of hospital stay, the patient's health-related quality of life (by self-assessment questionnaire), oral feeding time and direct costs of treatment. A total of 321 patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: The two nutritional supports are already used in daily practice, but most surgeons are reluctant to use the enteral route in case of PUGIF. This study will be the first randomized trial testing the role of EN versus TPN in PUGIF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742752. Registered on 14 November 2018.This research program is funded by the French Ministry of Health through Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2016