Standard systematic laparoscopic exploration was 100% effective to detect SBI in the peritoneal cavity. Conversion from LIT to laparotomy should be done if injuries to blind spot zones are found which are poorly evaluated by LIT. Therapeutic LIT is feasible in PAT.
Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is defined by the abnormal presence of gastric content in the esophagus, with 10% incidence in the Western population, being fundoplication one treatment option. Aim: To evaluate the early (six months) and late (15 years) effectiveness of laparoscopic fundoplication, the long term postoperative weight changes, as well as the impact of weight gain in symptoms control. Methods: Prospective study of 40 subjects who underwent laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication. Preoperatively and early postoperatively, clinical, endoscopic, radiologic, manometric and pHmetric evaluations were carried out. After 15 years, clinical and endoscopic assessments were carried out and the results compared with the early ones. The presence or absence of obesity was stratified in both early and late phases, and its influence in the long-term results of fundoplication was studied, measuring quality of life according to the Visick criteria. Results: The mean preoperative ages, weight, and body mass index were respectively, 51 years, 69.67 kg and 25.68 kg/m2. The intraoperative and postoperative complications rates were 12.5% and 15%, without mortality. In the early postoperative period the symptoms were well controlled, hernias and esophagitis disappeared, the lower esophageal sphincter had functional improvement, and pHmetry parameters normalized. In the late follow-up 29 subjects were assessed. During this period there was adequate clinical control of reflux regardless of weight gain. In both time periods Visick criteria improved. Conclusion: Fundoplication was safe and effective in early and late periods. There was late weight gain, which did not influence effective symptoms control.
Background
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a worldwide suspension of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) services. The current study analyses data on patterns of service delivery, recovery of practices, and protective measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic by bariatric teams.
Materials and Methods
The current study is a subset analysis of the GENEVA study which was an international cohort study between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Data were specifically analysed regarding the timing of BMS suspension, patterns of service recovery, and precautionary measures deployed.
Results
A total of 527 surgeons from 439 hospitals in 64 countries submitted data regarding their practices and handling of the pandemic. Smaller hospitals (with less than 200 beds) were able to restart BMS programmes more rapidly (time to BMS restart 60.8 ± 38.9 days) than larger institutions (over 2000 beds) (81.3 ± 30.5 days) (p = 0.032). There was a significant difference in the time interval between cessation/reduction and restart of bariatric services between government-funded practices (97.1 ± 76.2 days), combination practices (84.4 ± 47.9 days), and private practices (58.5 ± 38.3 days) (p < 0.001).
Precautionary measures adopted included patient segregation, utilisation of personal protective equipment, and preoperative testing. Following service recovery, 40% of the surgeons operated with a reduced capacity. Twenty-two percent gave priority to long waiters, 15.4% gave priority to uncontrolled diabetics, and 7.6% prioritised patients requiring organ transplantation.
Conclusion
This study provides global, real-world data regarding the recovery of BMS services following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Graphical abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.