RESUMEN

Reoperative surgery following magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is rare. The clinical indications include the removal of MSA for dysphagia, the recurrence of reflux, or the issues of erosion. Diagnostic evaluation follows that of patients with recurrent reflux and dysphagia following surgical fundoplication. Procedures following the complications of MSA can be performed in a minimally invasive fashion, either endoscopically or robotic/laparoscopically, with good clinical outcomes.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic instruments are rigid and thus cannot provide the degrees of freedom (DOF) needed by a surgeon in certain situations. A new generation of laparoscopic instruments with the ability to articulate their end effectors is available. Although these instruments offer the flexibility needed to perform complex tasks in a constricted surgical site, their control may be hampered by their increased complexity. METHODS: This study compared the task performance between articulating and conventional laparoscopic instruments. Surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience (8 experts) and staff with no surgical experience (8 novices) were recruited for the test. Both groups were required to perform three standardized tasks (peg transfer, left-to-right suturing, and up-and-down suturing) in a bench top model using conventional and articulating instruments. Performance was scored using a standardized 100-point scale based on movement speed and accuracy. After the initial trials with conventional and articulating instruments, each participant was given a short orientation on how to use the articulating instrument advantageously. The participant then was retested with the articulating instrument. RESULTS: As expected, the expert group scored significantly better than the novice group (p < 0.001). The combined data from both groups showed better performance with the conventional instruments than with the articulating instruments (p = 0.074). The experts maintained their proficient laparoscopic performance using conventional instruments in their first attempts with the articulating instruments (91 vs. 84), whereas the novices had greater difficulty with the articulating instruments than with the conventional instruments (46 vs. 59). After a short orientation, however, the novices outscored the expert group in terms of net improvement in performance with the articulating instrument (27 vs. 1% improvement). CONCLUSION: Experienced surgeons are readily able to transfer their skills from conventional to articulating laparoscopic instruments. To speed the learning process, the use of articulating instruments can be started at an early stage of surgical training.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chylothorax after complex abdominal and thoracic procedures remains a challenging complication with a mortality rate reaching 50% if untreated. Iatrogenic trauma accounts for almost 20% of all chyle leaks, and esophagectomy is the most common iatrogenic cause. Consequences of ongoing chyle leak include dehydration, malnutrition, and immunocompromise. METHODS: When nonoperative management techniques fail, prompt ligation of the thoracic duct at the diaphragmatic hiatus should be attempted. The authors present prone thoracoscopic thoracic duct ligation performed for two patients after laparoscopic transthoracic esophagectomy and revision paraesophageal hernia repair. RESULTS: The prone position for thoracoscopic thoracic duct ligation offers several benefits to the surgeon. Gravity retracts the lung anteriorly, exposing the diaphragmatic hiatus. Single-lumen endotracheal intubation combined with low-pressure carbon dioxide insufflation efficiently collapses the lung to create ample working space. For the two reported patients, only three trocars were necessary to complete suture ligation of the thoracic duct via the right chest. Both patients had complete resolution of their chylothorax and recovered uneventfully. Based on this experience, the authors currently advocate early thoracoscopic treatment for cost and morbidity savings. CONCLUSIONS: The authors believe prone thoracoscopic thoracic duct ligation offers significant advantages to the patient in preventing the dangerous consequences of chyle leak in a timely, minimally invasive fashion. Importantly, the prone technique with carbon dioxide insufflation makes the technical challenges of thoracic duct ligation more facile for the surgeon.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopy has become the standard approach for surgical treatment of uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease. Laparoscopic reintervention following failure of primary antireflux surgery (ARS) remains controversial. The purposes of this study were to assess outcomes in patients operated on for failed ARS, to describe reasons for failure of the primary surgery, and to identify factors predictive of failure of the revision. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Tertiary-care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 176 patients (20 with multiple ARS) undergoing laparoscopic reintervention between September 12, 1993, and August 1, 2006, for failed ARS. INTERVENTIONS: Patients had preoperative subjective and/or objective documentation of failure after primary ARS: 131 patients had reoperative Nissen fundoplication, 28 patients had a partial wrap, and 17 patients had other procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative symptom scores and results of objective studies were prospectively collected. Postoperative patients with symptom scores of 2 or greater and/or abnormal 24-hour pH study results (DeMeester score > 14.7) were considered to have treatment failures. Logistic regression was performed to identify variables significant for poor outcomes. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 9.2 months in 145 patients (82.4%). One hundred eight patients (74.5%) demonstrated excellent symptomatic outcomes (P = .001). Twenty of 37 patients with failures had reflux symptoms and 23 experienced dysphagia. Sixty-seven patients had 24-hour pH and manometry studies; 18 (11 asymptomatic) patients had a DeMeester score greater than 14.7. Odds of failure were higher among patients presenting with dysphagia (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-8.40; P = .009) or requiring an esophageal-lengthening procedure (odds ratio, 5.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-24.11; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic reintervention following failed primary ARS provides excellent subjective and objective outcomes in most patients. Patients having laparoscopic reintervention for dysphagia relief or those requiring an esophageal-lengthening procedure have a significantly greater chance of a poor outcome.

Asunto(s)