Revisional Surgery for Weight Regain
- Introduction
Revisional bariatric surgery is a weight loss surgery for people who have not lost enough weight or have regained weight after their first bariatric surgery. It is a complex and technically demanding procedure, but it can be a successful treatment option for patients with weight regain.
- Causes of Weight Regain
There are many factors that can contribute to weight regain after bariatric surgery, including:
* Lack of adherence to dietary recommendations
* Hormonal/metabolic imbalance
* Mental health
* Physical inactivity
* Anatomic/surgical factors
* Medications
- Preoperative Evaluation
Before revisional surgery, patients will undergo a thorough evaluation to determine if they are eligible for the procedure. This evaluation will include a medical history and physical exam, as well as blood tests, imaging studies, and a psychological evaluation.
- Selecting the Type of Revisional Surgery
The type of revisional surgery that is best for a patient will depend on a number of factors, including the type of primary surgery they had, the cause of their weight regain, and their overall health. Some of the most common types of revisional surgery include:
* Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)
* Sleeve gastrectomy (SG)
* Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS)
* Single anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB)
* Sleeve gastrectomy with duodenal switch (SADI-S)
- Weight Loss Following Revisional Surgery
Weight loss after revisional surgery can be significant. In one study, patients who underwent revisional surgery for weight regain lost an average of 50–65.3% of their excess weight after 3 months and 50.1–79.1% of their excess weight after 12 months.
- Complications of Revisional Surgery
Revisional surgery is more complex and technically demanding than primary bariatric surgery, and therefore carries a higher risk of complications. Some of the most common complications of revisional surgery include:
* Hernia
* Anastomotic leak
* Stricture
* Marginal ulcer
* Wound infection
* Hemorrhage
* Perforation
* Obstruction
- Conclusion
Revisional bariatric surgery can be a successful treatment option for patients with weight regain. However, it is important to carefully consider the risks and benefits of the procedure before making a decision. Patients should also work closely with their healthcare team to choose the best type of revisional surgery for them and to prepare for the procedure and its aftermath. Revisional bariatric surgery is a complex and technically demanding procedure, but it can be a successful treatment option for patients with weight regain. It is important to work closely with your healthcare team to determine if you are eligible for the procedure and to choose the best type of surgery for you.
Role of The SURGEON
Attributes of a Good Surgeon
Realising the benefits that good leadership and teamwork can deliver requires commitment from all those involved in patient care. From the surgeon’s viewpoint there are numerous desirable attributes which are developed through medical school education, foundation training, core training and into professional practice. These are outlined below:
1. Clinical Care
An obvious consideration of what makes a “good surgeon” is the care provided to patients throughout the patient journey. This includes technical ability in the operating theatre and non-technical skills.
2. Maintenance and Improvement
Remaining up-to-date with innovations in surgical practice and patient are is an important attribute of a good surgeon. In doing so, one is able to inform patients and explain the reasons for and against procedures, allowing them to make an informed decision. Willingness to learn from others and improve from others by reviewing personal practice forms part of Continuing Professional Development; this is a requirement in a portfolio to meet revalidation and recertification criteria.
3. Teaching, Training and Supervision
Educating others forms part of professional development and surgeons frequently oversee projects for medical students or trainees. This requires knowledge of the objectives of the tasks undertaken, knowledge of what technical and non-technical skills should be improved and knowledge of how to encourage the development of these skills. The mentormentee relationship should work both ways, such that the mentee is able to approach their supervisor for assistance and is accepting of any constructive criticism delivered.
4. Relationships with Patients
Relationships with patients are fundamentally based on trust; the patient trusts that the surgeon will do all in their power to help them and their surgical journey. Obtaining informed consent prior to clinical care is based on trust and allows patient autonomy to be upheld. Developing relationships with patients begins from the first consultation and is continued after the day of an operation being undertaken. Acknowledging the needs of the individual and employing effective communication helps in developing an open relationship. In this way patients disclose their medical history and admit underlying fears, allowing better patient care to be delivered.
5. Relationships with Colleagues
Partnership with all members of the multidisciplinary clinical team, management, technicians and support staff fosters healthy working relationships. Consequently, patient care is enhanced through communication, enhanced productivity and an improved team dynamic. Understanding how a colleague works and taking action to facilitate a positive working environment is beneficial to all. Emotional intelligence forms an important component of working relationships, through the ability “to understand and recognize emotional states and to use that understanding to manage one’s self and other individuals or teams”.
6. Health
Maintenance of good personal health and knowing when you must stop working is important in the protection of patient safety. The relevant senior staff must be informed of communicable disease or blood-borne disease transmission. In addition, being vigilant of the health of colleagues forms part of protecting patient safety, for example, failure to report suspicion that the consultant consistently operates after several glasses of wine or that the CT2 has been seen smoking drugs can facilitate the propagation of errors in the workplace. Finally, surgeons are renowned for working at all hours, however acknowledgement that we all need rest is crucial in good patient care.
Medically-Necessary, Time Sensitive: (MeNTS) Score
Operating During The COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic
“At the University of Chicago, members of the Department of Surgery decided to investigate this issue more precisely. As stay-at-home restrictions in some states are easing, and as non-emergency medical care is being reconsidered, how does one possibly triage the thousands upon thousands of patients whose surgeries were postponed? Instead of the term “elective,” the University of Chicago’s Department of Surgery chose the phrase “Medically-Necessary, Time Sensitive” (MeNTS). This concept can be utilized to better assess the acuity and safety when determining which patients can get to the operating room in as high benefit/low risk manner as possible. And unlike in any recent time in history, risks to healthcare staff as well as risks to the patient from healthcare staff, are now thrown into the equation. The work was published in the April issue of the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
On March 17, 2020, the American College of Surgeons recommended that all “elective” surgeries be canceled indefinitely. These guidelines were published, stating that only patients with “high acuity” surgical issues, which would include aggressive cancers and severely symptomatic disease, should proceed. Based on the Elective Surgery Acuity Scale (ESAS), most hospitals were strongly encouraged to cancel any surgery that was not high acuity, including slow-growing cancers, orthopedic and spine surgeries, airway surgeries, and any other surgeries for non-cancerous tumors. Heart surgeries for stable cardiac issues were also put on hold. Patients and surgeons waited. Some patients did, indeed undergo non-Covid-19-related surgeries. But most did not. Redeployment is gradually turning to re-entry.
The re-entry process for non-urgent (yet necessary) surgeries is a complicated one. Decisions and timing, based on a given hospital’s number and severity of Covid-19 patients, combined with a given city or state’s current and projected number of Covid-19 cases, how sick those patients will be, and whether or not a second surge may come, involves a fair amount of guesswork. As we have all seen, data manipulation has become a daily sparring match in many arenas. The authors of the study created an objective surgical risk scoring system, in order to help hospitals across this country, as well as others across the world, better identify appropriate timing regarding which surgeries can go ahead sooner rather than later, and why. They factored several variables into their equation, to account for the multiple potential barriers to care, including health and safety of hospital personnel. They created scoring systems based on three factors: Procedure, Disease and Patient Issues.
CALCULATE MeNTS SCORE HERE
The authors of the study created an objective surgical risk scoring system, in order to help hospitals across this country, as well as others across the world, better identify appropriate timing regarding which surgeries can go ahead sooner rather than later, and why. They factored several variables into their equation, to account for the multiple potential barriers to care, including health and safety of hospital personnel. Each patient would receive an overall conglomerate score, based on all of these factors, with the lower risks giving them more favorable scores to proceed with surgery soon, and the higher risks giving patients a higher score, or higher risk regarding proceeding with surgery, meaning it may be safest, for now, to wait.
Dr. Jeffrey Matthews, senior author of the paper, and Department Chair at the University of Chicago, stated that this model is reproducible across hospital systems, in urban, rural, and academic settings. And in the event of potential unpredictable surges of Covid-19 cases, the scoring system “helps prioritize cases not only from the procedure/disease standpoint but also from the pandemic standpoint with respect to available hospital resources such as PPE, blood, ICU beds, and [regular hospital] beds.”
The scoring system is extremely new, and the coming weeks will reveal how patients, surgeons and hospitals are faring as patients without life-and-death emergencies and/or Covid-19 complications gradually begin filling the operating rooms and hospital beds. In addition, and perhaps just as important, the study authors note that creating systems whereby healthcare resources, safety, and impact on outcomes need to be considered more carefully for each patient intervention, the larger impact of each intervention on public health will be better understood: not only for today’s pandemic, but also in future, as yet unknown, global events.”
Source: Nina Shapiro, 2020
Discover our surgical video channel and lectures associated with the surgeon blog.
Share and Join: https://linktr.ee/TheSurgeon
Management of gallbladder cancer
Gallbladder cancer is uncommon disease, although it is not rare. Indeed, gallbladder cancer is the fifth most common gastrointestinal cancer and the most common biliary tract cancer in the United States. The incidence is 1.2 per 100,000 persons per year. It has historically been considered as an incu-rable malignancy with a dismal prognosis due to its propensity for early in-vasion to liver and dissemination to lymph nodes and peritoneal surfaces. Patients with gallbladder cancer usually present in one of three ways: (1) advanced unresectable cancer; (2) detection of suspicious lesion preoperatively and resectable after staging work-up; (3) incidental finding of cancer during or after cholecystectomy for benign disease.
SURGICAL MANAGEMENT
Although, many studies have suggested improved survival in patients with early gallbladder cancer with radical surgery including en bloc resection of gallbladder fossa and regional lymphadenectomy, its role for those with advanced gallbladder cancer remains controversial. First, patients with more advanced disease often require more extensive resections than early stage tumors, and operative morbidity and mortality rates are higher. Second, the long-term outcomes after resection, in general, tend to be poorer; long-term survival after radical surgery has been reported only for patients with limited local and lymph node spread. Therefore, the indication of radical surgery should be limited to well-selected patients based on thorough preoperative and intra-operative staging and the extent of surgery should be determined based on the area of tumor involvement.
Surgical resection is warranted only for those who with locoregional disease without distant spread. Because of the limited sensitivity of current imaging modalities to detect metastatic lesions of gallbladder cancer, staging laparoscopy prior to proceeding to laparotomy is very useful to assess the
abdomen for evidence of discontinuous liver disease or peritoneal metastasis and to avoid unnecessary laparotomy. Weber et al. reported that 48% of patients with potentially resectable gallbladder cancer on preoperative imaging work-up were spared laparotomy by discovering unresectable disease by laparoscopy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be avoided when a preoperative cancer is suspected because of the risk of violation of the plane between tumor and liver and the risk of port site seeding.
The goal of resection should always be complete extirpation with microscopic negative margins. Tumors beyond T2 are not cured by simple cholecystectomy and as with most of early gallbladder cancer, hepatic resection is always required. The extent of liver resection required depends upon whether involvement of major hepatic vessels, varies from segmental resection of segments IVb and V, at minimum to formal right hemihepatectomy or even right trisectionectomy. The right portal pedicle is at particular risk for advanced tumor located at the neck of gallbladder, and when such involvement is suspected, right hepatectomy is required. Bile duct resection and reconstruction is also required if tumor involved in bile duct. However, bile duct resection is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and it should be performed only if it is necessary to clear tumor; bile duct resection does not necessarily increase the lymph node yield.
Management of Complicated Appendicitis: Open or Laparoscopic Surgery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz1de9Y77W0
Patients with acute appendicitis can present at different stages of the disease process, ranging from mild mucosal inflammation to frank perforation with abscess formation. The reported overall incidence of acute appendicitis varies with age, gender, and geographical differences. Interestingly, while the incidence of non-perforated appendicitis in the United States decreased between 1970 and 2004, no significant decline in the rate of perforated appendicitis was observed despite the increasng use of computed tomography (CT) and fewer negative appendectomies.
Of 32,683 appendectomies sampled from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) hospitals between 2005 and 2008, 5,405 patients (16.5%) had a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis with peritonitis/abscess.
The definition of complicated appendicitis varies slightly in the literature. Clinicopathological diagnoses (gangrenous, perforated, appendiceal abscess/phlegmon) of acute appendicitis are commonly used for its definition. Classically, patients at the extremes of age are more likely to present with complicated appendicitis. Similarly, pre-morbid conditions including diabetes and type of medical insurance are significantly associated with the risk of perforation.
The importance of early appendectomy has also been emphasized to prevent perforation of the appendix and the sub- sequent negative impact on patient outcomes. However, more recent meta-analysis data supports the safety of a relatively short (12–24 h) delay before appendectomy, which was not significantly associated with increased rate of complicated appendicitis. Teixeira et al. also showed that the time to appendectomy was not a significant risk factor for perforated appendicitis but did result in a significantly increased risk of surgical site infection.
The outcome of patients with complicated appendicitis is significantly worse than patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. A population-based study from Sweden showed that, in a risk-adjusted model, patients with perforated appendicitis were 2.34 times more likely to die after appendectomy than non- perforated appendicitis patients. Because of its higher mortality and morbidity in patients with complicated appendicitis, the management of complicated appendicitis has evolved significantly over the last few decades.
Open or Laparoscopic Surgery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnYoqIVDw0
Since the first laparoscopic appendectomy was described by Semm in 1983, multiple studies have compared operative time, complication rates, length of hospital stay, hospital cost, and other outcomes between open and laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. The most recent Cochrane review included 67 studies showing that laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a lower incidence of wound infection, reduced postoperative pain, shorter postoperative length of hospital stay, and faster recovery to daily activity. In contrast, reduced risk of intra-abdominal abscesses and shorter operative time were found as the advantages of open appendectomy.
Due to increased surgeon experience in uncomplicated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is more frequently attempted even in complicated appendicitis cases as an alternative approach to open appendectomy. Although the general surgical steps for complicated appendicitis are similar to those for uncomplicated appendicitis, the laparoscopic procedure can be more technically demanding. Therefore, conversion from laparoscopic appendectomy to open appendectomy can be expected.
Despite these concerns, the laparoscopic approach in patients with com- plicated appendicitis has been proven to be safe and comparable to open appendectomy. Retrospective studies using a large database in the United States uniformly showed more favorable clinical outcomes (mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay, readmission rate) and hospital costs in patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy when compared to open appendectomy. The real risk of developing an intra- abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy remains unclear. A meta-analysis by Markides et al. found no significant difference in the intra-abdominal abscess rate between laparoscopic and open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, whereas Ingraham et al. showed a higher likelihood of developing an organ-space surgical site infection in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy.
The SURGEON 