Translocation of an Intrauterine Contraceptive Device: Incidental Finding in the Rectosigmoid Colon

The presence of an intrauterine device (IUD) within the colon is rare. Complications have been reported with IUDs among which uterine perforation. Translocation of IUDs to the uterine cavity, to the bladder and also through the wall of the bowel, and sigmoid colon has been reported. We believe there may be a case that surgeons should know the result of despite being a priori gynaecological complication. This paper reports on a case of colon perforation by an IUD

Lipoma of the Uterine Corpus: Exceptional Eventuality Combined with an Ovarian Thecoma

Uterine lipomas are very uncommon with symptoms that are similar to leiomyomas. Their diagnosis is always histological although some radiological methods may suggest their existence prior to surgery. They are sometimes associated with endometrial pathology, but there are no previous reported cases related to ovarian thecoma. Their prognosis is excellent. Clinical, radiological, morphologic, and immunohistochemical findings are shown which correspond to uterine lipoma associated with endometrial polyps and ovarian thecoma

The first survey addressing patients with BMI over 50: a survey of 789 bariatric surgeons

Background: Bariatric surgery in patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 is a challenging task. The aim of this study was to address main issues regarding perioperative management of these patients by using a worldwide survey. Methods: An online 48-item questionnaire-based survey on perioperative management of patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2 was ideated by 15 bariatric surgeons from 9 different countries. The questionnaire was emailed to all members of the International Federation of Surgery for Obesity (IFSO). Responses were collected and analyzed by the authors. Results: 789 bariatric surgeons from 73 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (89.9%) believed that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) on patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 should only be performed by expert bariatric surgeons. Half of the participants (55.3%) believed that weight loss must be encouraged before surgery and 42.6% of surgeons recommended an excess weight loss of at least 10%. However, only 3.6% of surgeons recommended the insertion of an Intragastric Balloon as bridge therapy before surgery. Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) was considered the best choice for patients younger than 18 or older than 65 years old. SG and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass were the most common procedures for individuals between 18 and 65 years. Half of the surgeons believed that a 2-stage approach should be offered to patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, with SG being the first step. Postoperative thromboprophylaxis was recommended for 2 and 4 weeks by 37.8% and 37.7% of participants, respectively. Conclusion: This survey demonstrated worldwide variations in bariatric surgery practice regarding patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2. Careful analysis of these results is useful for identifying several areas for future research and consensus building

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach

Background: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS. Methods: We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus. Results: Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%). Conclusion: Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice

Patient Selection in One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass—an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus

Purpose: One anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is up to date the third most performed obesity and metabolic procedure worldwide, which recently has been endorsed by ASMBS. The main criticisms are the risk of bile reflux, esophageal cancer, and malnutrition. Although IFSO has recognized this procedure, guidance is needed regarding selection criteria. To give clinicians a daily support in performing the right patient selection in OAGB/MGB, the aim of this paper is to generate clinical guidelines based on an expert modified Delphi consensus. Methods: A committee of 57 recognized bariatric surgeons from 24 countries created 69 statements. Modified Delphi consensus voting was performed in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was considered to indicate a consensus. Results: Consensus was achieved for 56 statements. Remarkably, ≥ 90.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB is an acceptable and suitable option "in patients with Body mass index (BMI) > 70, BMI > 60, BMI > 50 kg/m2 as a one-stage procedure," "as the second stage of a two-stage bariatric surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy for BMI > 50 kg/m2 (instead of BPD/DS)," and "in patients with weight regain after restrictive procedures. No consensus was reached on the statement that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in case of resistant Helicobacter pylori. This is likely as there is a concern that this procedure is associated with reflux and its related long-term complications including risk of cancer in the esophagus or stomach. Also no consensus reached on OAGB/MGB as conversional surgery in patients with GERD after restrictive procedures. Consensus for disagreement was predominantly achieved "in case of intestinal metaplasia of the stomach" (74.55%), "in patients with severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)(C,D)" (75.44%), "in patients with Barrett's metaplasia" (89.29%), and "in documented insulinoma" (89.47%). Conclusion: Patient selection in OAGB/MGB is still a point of discussion among experts. There was consensus that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in elderly patients, patients with low BMI (30-35 kg/m2) with associated metabolic problems, and patients with BMIs more than 50 kg/m2 as one-stage procedure. OAGB/MGB can also be a safe procedure in vegetarian and vegan patients. Although OAGB/MGB can be a suitable procedure in patients with large hiatal hernia with concurrent hiatal hernia, it should not be offered to patients with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett's metaplasia.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

Background: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Results: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. Conclusion: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions

Fluorescence‐based bowel anastomosis perfusion evaluation: results from the IHU‐IRCAD‐EAES EURO‐FIGS registry

Background: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the dreaded complications following surgery in the digestive tract. Near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging is a means to intraoperatively visualize anastomotic perfusion, facilitating fluorescence image-guided surgery (FIGS) with the purpose to reduce the incidence of AL. The aim of this study was to analyze the current practices and results of NIRF imaging of the anastomosis in digestive tract surgery through the EURO-FIGS registry. Methods: Analysis of data prospectively collected by the registry members provided patient and procedural data along with the ICG dose, timing, and consequences of NIRF imaging. Among the included upper-GI, colorectal, and bariatric surgeries, subgroup analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with complications. Results: A total of 1240 patients were included in the study. The included patients, 74.8% of whom were operated on for cancer, originated from 8 European countries and 30 hospitals. A total of 54 surgeons performed the procedures. In 83.8% of cases, a pre-anastomotic ICG dose was administered, and in 60.1% of cases, a post-anastomotic ICG dose was administered. A significant difference (p < 0.001) was found in the ICG dose given in the four pathology groups registered (range: 0.013–0.89 mg/kg) and a significant (p < 0.001) negative correlation was found between the ICG dose and BMI. In 27.3% of the procedures, the choice of the anastomotic level was guided by means of NIRF imaging which means that in these cases NIRF imaging changed the level of anastomosis which was first decided based on visual findings in conventional white light imaging. In 98.7% of the procedures, the use of ICG partly or strongly provided a sense of confidence about the anastomosis. A total of 133 complications occurred, without any statistical significance in the incidence of complications in the anastomoses, whether they were ICG-guided or not. Conclusion: The EURO-FIGS registry provides an insight into the current clinical practice across Europe with respect to NIRF imaging of anastomotic perfusion during digestive tract surgery