No abstract

SEMS are effective tools for the management of leaks after foregut surgery. The biggest challenge with this approach is stent migration. Caution is warranted due to the risk of fatal complications such as aorto-esophageal fistula formation. No type of surgery or particular patient factor, including age, sex, BMI, albumin, history of radiation, malignancy, and comorbid diabetes or coronary artery disease, appeared to be correlated with success rate. Larger studies are needed to determine factors predictive of clinical success.

IV acetaminophen helps to reduce opioid consumption for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Additionally, there appears to be a shortened length of hospital stay, better pain control, reduced time to return of bowel function, and lower rate of post-operative ileus in patients receiving IV acetaminophen.

No abstract

No abstract

A challenge with SEMS use is stent migration. Diabetes and using fully covered stents were associated with migration as were SEMS used to treat complications of esophagectomy and gastric bypass. Stent fixation was not associated with the prevention of stent migration. No pattern was found that favors an approach to reduce stent migration.

Background Reoperation, after failed gastric banding, is a controversial topic. A common approach is band removal with conversion to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in a single-step procedure. Objective This study aimed to assess the safety of revisional surgery to LSG compared to LRYGB after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) based on MBSAQIP Participant User File from 2015 to 2018. Methods Patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (Conv-LSG) or LRYGB (Conv-LRYGB) were identified in the MBSAQIP PUF from 2015 to 2017. Conv-LRYGB cases were matched (1:1) with Conv-LSG patients using propensity scoring to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results A total of 9974 patients (4987 matched pairs) were included in the study. Conv-LRYGB, as compared with conv-SG, was associated with a similar risk of mortality (0.02% vs. 0.06%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.20, p = 0.32). Conversion to LRYGB increased the risk for readmission (6.16% vs. 3.77%; RR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.37 to 1.94, p < 0.01); reoperation (2.15% vs. 1.36%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.17 to 2.12, p = <0.01); leak (1.76% vs. 1.02%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.72 to 2.42, p < 0.01); and bleeding (1.66% vs. 1.00%; RR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.7 to 2.34, p < 0.01). Conclusions The study shows that single-stage LRYGB and LSG as revisional surgery after gastric banding, are safe in the 30-day observation with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, conversion to LRYGB increased the risk of perioperative complications.

No abstract