In patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) contributes to perioperative morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the utilization and outcome of severely obese patients with MetS who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Using the 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, data were obtained for patients with MetS undergoing LSG or LRYGB. There were 29,588 MetS patients (LSG: 58.7% vs LRYGB: 41.3%). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (0.1% for LSG vs 0.2% for LRYGB, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.58, confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.05, P = 0.07) or length of stay between groups (2 ± 2 for LSG vs 2.2 ± 2 days for LRYGB, P = 0.40). Compared with LRYGB, LSG was associated with significantly shorter operative time (78 ± 39 vs 122 ± 54 minutes, P < 0.01), lower overall morbidity (2.3% vs 4.4%, AOR 0.53, CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.01), lower serious morbidity (1.5% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.64, CI 0.53-0.76, P < 0.01), lower 30-day reoperation (1.2% vs 2.3%, AOR 0.52, CI 0.43-0.63, P < 0.01), and lower 30-day readmission (4.2% vs 6.6%, AOR 0.62, CI 0.55-0.69, P < 0.01). In conclusion, LSG is the predominant operation being performed for severely obese patients with MetS, and its popularity may in part be related to its improved perioperative safety profile.

BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the procedure of choice for the treatment of morbid obesity. Robotic sleeve gastrectomy is an alternative surgical option, but its utilization has been low. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contemporary outcomes of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) using a national database from accredited bariatric centers. STUDY DESIGN:Using the 2015 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, clinical data for patients who underwent RSG or LSG were examined. Emergent and revisional cases were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to compare the outcomes between RSG and LSG. RESULTS:A total of 75,079 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy with 70,298 (93.6%) LSG and 4781 (6.4%) RSG. Preoperative sleep apnea and hypoalbumenia were significantly higher in the RSG group (P < 0.01). Mean length of stay was similar between RSG and LSG (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.7 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.17). Operative time was longer in the RSG group (102 ± 43 vs. 74 ± 36 min, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the RSG versus LSG group (0.02% vs. 0.01%, AOR 0.85; 95% CI 0.11-6.46, P = 0.88). However, RSG was associated with higher serious morbidity (1.1% vs. 0.8%, AOR 1.40; 95% CI 1.05-1.86, P < 0.01), higher leak rate (1.5% vs. 0.5%, AOR 3.14; 95% CI 2.65-4.42, P < 0.01), and higher surgical site infection rate (0.7% vs. 0.4%, AOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.08-2.23, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Robotic sleeve gastrectomy has longer operative time and is associated with higher postoperative morbidity including leak and surgical site infections. Laparoscopy should continue to be the surgical approach of choice for sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND:Gastrointestinal leak remains one of the most dreaded complications in bariatric surgery. We aimed to evaluate risk factors and the impact of common perioperative interventions on the development of leak in patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery. STUDY DESIGN:Using the 2015 database of accredited centers, data were analyzed for patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Emergent, revisional, and converted cases were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors for leak, including provocative testing of anastomosis, surgical drain placement, and use of postoperative swallow study. RESULTS:Data from 133,478 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (n = 92,495 [69.3%]) and LRYGB (n = 40,983 [30.7%]) were analyzed. Overall leak rate was 0.7% (938 of 133,478). Factors associated with increased risk for leak were oxygen dependency (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.97), hypoalbuminemia (AOR 1.66), sleep apnea (AOR 1.52), hypertension (AOR 1.36), and diabetes (AOR 1.18). Compared with LRYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was associated with a lower risk of leak (AOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.61; p < 0.01). Intraoperative provocative test was performed in 81.9% of cases and the leak rate was higher in patients with vs without a provocative test (0.8% vs 0.4%, respectively; p < 0.01). A surgical drain was placed in 24.5% of cases and the leak rate was higher in patients with vs without a surgical drain placed (1.6% vs 0.4%, respectively; p < 0.01). A swallow study was performed in 41% of cases and the leak rate was similar between patients with vs without swallow study (0.7% vs 0.7%; p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS:The overall rate of gastrointestinal leak in bariatric surgery is low. Certain preoperative factors, procedural type (LRYGB), and interventions (intraoperative provocative test and surgical drain placement) were associated with a higher risk for leaks.

Current guidelines recommend neoadjuvant (NAC) and/or adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancers (LAGCs). However, the choice and duration of NAC regimen is standardized, rather than personalized to biologic response, despite the availability of several different classes of agents for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC). The current trial will use a tumor-informed ctDNA assay (Signatera™) and monitor response to NAC. Based on ctDNA kinetics, the treatment regimen is modified. This is a prospective single center, single-arm, open-label study in clinical stage IB-III GC. ctDNA is measured at baseline and repeated every 8 weeks. Imaging is performed at the same intervals. The primary end point is the feasibility of this approach, defined as percentage of patients completing gastrectomy.