Department of General Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 150 55th Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11220, USA.
Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2023 Oct;37(10):8064-8071. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10298-1. Epub 2023 Jul 24.
New York University Langone Health has three accredited bariatric centers, with 10 different bariatric surgeons. This retrospective analysis compares surgeon techniques in laparoscopic or robotic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to identify associations with perioperative morbidity and mortality.
All adults who underwent SG between 2017 and 2021 at NYU Langone Health were evaluated via EMR and MBSAQIP 30-day data. We also surveyed all 10 bariatric surgeons and compared their techniques and total adverse outcomes. Bleeding, SSI, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were specifically sub-analyzed via logistic regression.
86 (2.77%) out of 3,104 patients who underwent SG encountered an adverse event. Lower adverse outcomes were observed with a laparoscopic approach, 40-Fr bougie, buttressing, not oversewing the staple line, using hemostatic agents, stapling 3-cm from pylorus, and no routine UGI series. Lower bleeding rates were observed in a laparoscopic approach, 40-Fr bougie, buttressing, not oversewing the staple line, using hemostatic agents, stapling 3-cm from pylorus, no routine UGI series, and not proceeding with SG if hiatal hernia is present. Lower SSI rates were observed with ViSiGi™ bougie, no hemostatic agents, and routine EGD. Lower readmission rates were observed with 40-Fr bougie, buttressing, not oversewing, and stapling 3-cm from pylorus. Hemostatic agents had higher reoperation rates. It was not feasible to test for mortality given the low incidence.
Certain surgical techniques in SG among our bariatric surgeons had a significant effect on the rates of adverse outcomes, bleeding, readmission, reoperation, and SSI. Our findings warrant further investigation into these techniques via multivariate regression or prospective design.
This study was limited by its retrospective and univariate design. We did not account for interaction. The sample size was small, and follow-up of 30 days was relatively short. We did not include patient characteristics in the model or control for surgeon skill.
纽约大学朗格尼健康中心有三个经过认证的减肥中心,有 10 位不同的减肥外科医生。本回顾性分析比较了腹腔镜或机器人袖状胃切除术(SG)中外科医生的技术,以确定与围手术期发病率和死亡率相关的因素。
对 2017 年至 2021 年在纽约大学朗格尼健康中心接受 SG 的所有成年人进行电子病历和 MBSAQIP30 天数据评估。我们还调查了所有 10 位减肥外科医生,并比较了他们的技术和总不良结果。通过逻辑回归专门分析了出血、SSI、死亡率、再入院和再次手术。
在 3104 例接受 SG 的患者中,有 86 例(2.77%)发生不良事件。与腹腔镜方法、40Fr 扩张器、支撑、不缝合吻合线、使用止血剂、距幽门 3cm 处吻合、不常规进行上消化道造影相比,不良结果较低。在腹腔镜方法、40Fr 扩张器、支撑、不缝合吻合线、使用止血剂、距幽门 3cm 处吻合、不常规进行上消化道造影且如果存在食管裂孔疝则不进行 SG 时,出血率较低。使用 ViSiGi™扩张器、不使用止血剂和常规 EGD 时,SSI 发生率较低。在使用 40Fr 扩张器、支撑、不缝合、距幽门 3cm 处吻合时,再入院率较低。止血剂的再手术率较高。由于发病率较低,无法对死亡率进行测试。
在我们的减肥外科医生中,SG 中的某些手术技术对不良结果、出血、再入院、再次手术和 SSI 的发生率有显著影响。我们的发现需要通过多变量回归或前瞻性设计进一步研究这些技术。
本研究受到回顾性和单变量设计的限制。我们没有考虑相互作用。样本量较小,随访时间相对较短。我们没有将患者特征纳入模型或控制外科医生技能。