Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5193_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
65 Мб
Скачать
18 DS/SADI
219
morbidly obese patients, freeing the fundus all the way to the angle of His can be quite challenging. It is important to have good retraction of the left lateral lobe of the liver, make good use of arm 1 for retraction of the stomach, and sometimes have the assistant retract the adipose tissue for better exposure. At this stage, if a hiatal hernia is identied, it is repaired.
Once the stomach is freed, we place a 36 Fr bougie down to the antrum ensuring that it is ush with the lesser curve of the stomach. The Cadiere forceps in arm 2 is substituted for a robotic stapler, and our sleeve gastrectomy is performed along the bougie. It is important to ensure that the incisura is not narrowed to avoid strictures. Different staple loads can be used depending on the tissue thickness and the sur­geon’s experience. We do not use buttressing material, though the staple line is imbricated with a running 2-0 Vicryl suture. It is important not to create a tight sleeve during stapling as oversewing can narrow the lumen further.
Bowel Measurement
Once the sleeve gastrectomy has been completed (refer to the robotic sleeve gastrec­tomy chapter), we place a Cadiere forceps in arms 2 and 4, leaving arm 1 empty, and the bed is attened. The omentum and transverse colon are ipped cephalad to identify the terminal ileum. We then measure 250–300cm of bowel distal to proxi­mal, starting from the ileocecal valve. To improve precision, a ruler can be inserted into the abdomen and placed on the transverse colon while running the bowel. This will be the length of the common channel. We then tack this segment of bowel to the omentum at the level of the transverse colon with a 2-0 Vicryl suture.
Duodenal Dissection
We replace arm 4 with a vessel sealer and place the patient in the reverse Trendelenburg between 15° and 20°. We then carry out dissecting the greater omentum off the stomach distally beyond the sleeve staple line and approximately 2–3cm past the pylorus. Dissection is kept in proximity to the gastric wall to avoid injuring the gastroepiploic vessels. This approach allows us to lift the stom­ach and dissect off the rst portion of the duodenum under direct visualization in a retrogastric fashion. A window is then created in the gastrohepatic ligament close to the superior border of the duodenum. Dissection is carried out for 2–3cm distal to the pylorus, care is taken to avoid injuring the gastroduodenal artery that can be visualized when lifting the duodenum. The perforating small branches sup­plying the duodenum posteriorly is our landmark to stop our dissection. We then place a robotic white-loaded stapler in arm 2 and re across the rst portion of the duodenum, ensuring that we are distal to the pylorus. This transection straightens out the stomach and allows for easier maneuverability for our duodenoileostomy. This maneuver also allows us to push the bougie further into the pylorus, which helps us create our anastomosis.
220
P. A. Karam et al.
Duodenoileostomy
Our duodenoileostomy is performed entirely handsewn and in two layers. We place a SutureCut Needle Driver in arm 4 and Cadiere forceps in arms 1 and 2. We mainly use arm 2 to assist with suturing and arm 1 will help with retraction as needed. We start by creating a posterior layer with a running 2-0 absorbable V lock suture: suture bites will pass through the staple line on the duodenal side, and healthy seromuscular bites on the antimesenteric border of the ileum (Fig.18.3). This layer runs the width of the duode­num. We then place monopolar scissors in arm 4 and make our duodenotomy approxi­mately 1.5cm over the bougie ensuring that the incision is approximately 0.5cm away from our suture line. We then mirror those measurements for our enterotomy.
We switch out the scissors for a Suture cut in arm 4, and for our inner layer, we use two 2-0 Vicryl running sutures. We start by performing the inner layer with a 9-inch suture. We start from the corner on the patient’s left, internalizing the knot by going in-to-out on the duodenum and out-to-in on the bowel (Fig.18.4). We then complete the posterior inner layer in-to-out on the duodenum and out-to-in on the ileum while ensuring visualization of full-thickness bites of the duodenum and ileum (Fig.18.5). We carry this running suture anteriorly and stop it midway with the suture on the duodenal side. We then run a 7-inch suture starting from the same corner externalizing the knot by going out-to-in on the duodenum and in-to-out on the bowel. We then complete the anterior inner layer out-to-in on the duodenum and in-to-out on the bowel, leaving the last few sutures loose. This allows passage of the bougie through the anastomosis with the purpose of avoiding any narrowing when tying out sutures. Once the bougie has been pushed through, we can sinch down on the loose sutures and tie our two running sutures together to close our inner layer (Fig.18.6). It is important to ensure there are no air knots when anchoring the run­ning sutures, as this can be a site for enteric leak. Keeping the bougie in place, we then complete our outer layer with a running 2-0 absorbable V lock in a horizontal mattress fashion. It is easy to take large bites while running a horizontal mattress. This can cause the anastomosis to narrow and should be avoided.
Fig. 18.3 Posterior outer layer of the duodenoileostomy
18 DS/SADI
Fig. 18.4 Inner layer anchoring suture of the duodenoileostomy
Fig. 18.5 Posterior inner layer of the duodenoileostomy
221
Fig. 18.6 Completing the inner layer of the duodenoileostomy
222
P. A. Karam et al.
Leak Test andClosure
Once the anastomosis is completed, an intraoperative upper endoscopy is per­formed, as is a leak test. This is done by obstructing the afferent and efferent limbs for proper insufation and irrigating the anastomosis to look for an air leak. Any area of leak should be closed with a 2-0 Vicryl suture.
Once the robot is undocked, our 12mm port site is used to extract the specimen, which is subsequently closed using a 0-Vicryl on a suture passer. This port site can be dilated if extraction proves difcult. The skin is then closed with 4-0 Monocryl.
Biliopancreatic Diversion andDuodenal Switch
Bowel Measurement
Using the same robotic layout for the SADI, we start off with a sleeve gastrectomy (refer to the sleeve gastrectomy portion of the chapter). Then, we run the bowel distal to proximal from the ileocecal valve. We measure 200cm, which will be the length of the common channel, and mark it with a 2-0 Vicryl suture. This can also be marked with a clip applier on the mesentery, which allows for marking the mesentery in the correct orientation in addition to the bowel itself. Different col­ored sutures may also be useful in this instance. From there, we measure an addi­tional 100cm, which will be the length of our alimentary limb. This is marked with a 2-0 Vicryl suture and tied to the omentum at the level of the transverse colon.
Enteroenterostomy
Once our duodenoileostomy is completed (refer to the duodenal dissection and duo­denoileostomy portion of the chapter), we create a window in the mesentery of the
afferent limb. It is important not to involve too much of the mesentery to avoid devascularizing the alimentary or biliopancreatic limb. The mesenteric division can be extended if additional mobilization is needed. The premarked 200cm loop of bowel is then brought up to the biliopancreatic limb, and the assistant uses a grasper to hold the two loops in place to line them up for an isoperistaltic anastomosis. Using a Cadiere forceps in arm 4 and monopolar scissors in arm 2, we perform an enterotomy in the common channel and the biliopancreatic limb on the antimesen­teric border. It is important to perform an enterotomy at least 0.5cm from the staple line of the BP limb. This approach will provide room for closure of the common enterotomy. We then use a white staple load in arm 2, placing the larger limb of the stapler in the BP limb, to create our anastomosis. During this step, the assistant is helpful in positioning the bowel for easy positioning of the stapler.
We then place a SutureCut in arm 4 and use the Cadiere forceps in arm 1 to close the common enterotomy. This layer is closed in two layers using two running 2-0 Vicryl sutures.
18 DS/SADI
223
We then use a nonabsorbable 2-0 V lock to close enteroenterostomy mesenteric defect. We also close the pseudo-Peterson’s defect in a similar fashion. It is impor­tant not to take deep bites on the mesentery to avoid inadvertently injuring a blood vessel, which can lead to hematomas. We start at the root of the mesentery and run it up, stopping just shy of the bowel wall.
We then perform an intraoperative upper endoscopy with a leak test, undock the robot, remove the specimen, and close.

Postoperative Care

Postoperative care is standardized for all bariatric patients. Heart rates and oxygen saturation are monitored in all postoperative patients. Patients who have obstructive sleep apnea are instructed to bring their CPAP machines with them.
Unless they have issues ambulating, all patients are instructed to walk within a few hours following surgery and instructed to walk regularly.
Patients are started on a clear liquid diet 6h after surgery, starting with 30 cc (medicine cups) of water every 15min, and document their progress.
They are placed on DVT chemoprophylaxis postoperatively and have sequential compression devices placed when not ambulating. Patients are not routinely placed on extended VTE chemoprophylaxis at discharge, although some factors may lead to its prescription, such as a prior history of VTE/PE and/or minimally ambulating patients [36].
Antiglycemics, antihypertensive agents, and diuretics are held postopera­tively, and patients are instructed to follow up with their PCPs at discharge to evaluate whether these medications need to be resumed. If patients are on mul­tiple medications, an inpatient consultation to internal medicine can be helpful in calibrating what needs to be resumed or held in the immediate postopera­tive period.
On postoperative day 1, we obtain a morning complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic panel (BMP), and patients are started on a full liquid diet. We do not routinely order an upper GI following these procedures.
If patients are clinically stable, laboratory values are within normal limits and are tolerating a liquid diet, they are discharged on postoperative day 1.
It is important to closely follow patients in the outpatient setting to monitor their progress and obtain routine nutritional lab work. Given the nature of the surgery, patients are at risk for vitamin deciencies that need to be repleted.

References

1. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, etal. Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(5):790–5.
2. Bauerle WB, Mody P, Estep A, etal. Current trends in the utilization of a robotic approach in the eld of bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2023;33(2):482–91.
224
3. Acevedo E, Mazzei M, Zhao H, etal. Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic­assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(3):1353–65.
4. Clapp B, Liggett E, Jones R, etal. Comparison of robotic revisional weight loss surgery and laparoscopic reviosnal weight loss surgery using the MBSAQIP database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(6):909–19.
5. Lundberg PW, Stoltzfus J, Chaar ME. 30-day outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: rst analysis based on MBSAQIP. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(1):1–7.
6. Nasser H, Munie S, Kindel TL, etal. Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(3):397–405.
7. Petrick AT, Rosenthal R, Wood C. Understanding the causes of conicting outcomes reported using the same cohorts from the MBSAQIP PUF data registry. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17(9):e42–5.
8. Chaar ME, Petrick A, Clapp B, etal. Outcomes of robotic-assisted bariatric surgery com­pared to standard laparoscopic approach using a standardized dention: rst look at the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) data. Obes Surg. 2023;33(7):2025–39.
9. Dudash M, Kuhn J, Dove J, etal. The longitudinal efciency of robotic surgery: an MBSAQIP propensity matched 4-year Comparision of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2020;30(10):3706–13.
10. Chaar ME, Gacke J, Ringold S, etal. Cost analysis of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) com­pared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG) in a single academic center: debunking a myth! Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(5):675–9.
11. King K, Galvez A, Stoltzfus J, etal. Cost analysis of robotic roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a single academic center: how expensive is expensive? Obes Surg. 2020;30(12):4860–6.
12. Chaar ME, Michaud A, Stoltzfus J, etal. Improving operating room efciency of robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery through standardization. Obes Surg. 2023;33(11):3411–21.
13. NIH conference. Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity. Consensus development confer­ence panel. Consens Statement. 1991;9(1):1–20.
14. Eisenberg D, Shikora S, Aarts E, etal. 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO): indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18(12):1345–56.
15. Lee YC, Wu WL.Shared decision making and choice for bariatric surgery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(24):4966.
16. Clapp B, Ponce J, DeMaria E, etal. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery 2020 estimate of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18(9):1134–40.
17. Hess DS, Hess DW. Biliopancreatic diversion with a duodenal switch. Obes Surg. 1998;8(3):267–82.
18. Sovik TT, Taha O, Aasheim ET, Engstrom M, Kristinsson J, Bjorkman S, etal. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic duodenal switch for superobe­sity. Br J Surg. 2010;97(2):160–6.
19. Sudan R, Maciejewski ML, Wilk AR, Nguyen NT, Ponce J, Morton JM. Comparative effectiveness of primary bariatric operations in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(5):826–34.
20. Risstad H, Sovik T, Engstrom M, etal. Five-year outcomes after laparoscopic gastric bypass and laparoscopic duodenal switch in patients with body mass index of 50 to 60 a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(4):352–61.
21. Moller F, Hedberg J, Skogar M, etal. Long-term follow-up 15 years after duodenal Swithc or gastric bypass for super obesity: a randomized controlled trial. Obes Sur. 2023;33(10):2981–90.
P. A. Karam et al.
18 DS/SADI
22. Lebel S, Dion G, Marceau S, etal. Clinical outcomes of duodenal switch with a 200-cm com­mon channel: a matched, controlled trial. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(5):1014–20.
23. Malo FC, Marion A, Rioux A, etal. Long alimentary limb duodenal switch (LADS): an explor­atory randomized trial, results at 2 years. Obes Surg. 2020;30(12):5047–58.
24. Sanchez-Pernaute A, Rubio Herrera MA, Perez-Aguirre E, etal. Proximal duodenal-ileal end­to- side bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: proposed technique. Obes Surg. 2007;17(12):1614–8.
25. Mitzman B, Cottam D, Goriparthi R, etal. Stomach intestinal pylorus sparing (SIPS) sur­gery for morbid obesity: retrospective analyses of our preliminary experience. Obes Surg. 2016;26(9):2098–104.
26. Cottam A, Cottam D, Zaveri H, etal. An analysis of mid-term complications, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes resolution of stomach intestinal pylorus-sparing surgery (SIPS) versus Roux­En- Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with three-year follow-up. Obes Surg. 2018;28:2894–902.
27. Gebelli JP, Lazzara C, de Gordejuela AGR, etal. Duodenal switch vs single-anastomosis duo­denal switch (SADI-S) for the treatment of grade IV obesity: 5-year outcomes of a multicenter prospective cohort comparative study. Obes Surg. 2022;32(12):3839–46.
28. Yashkov Y, Bordan N, Torres A, etal. SADI-S 250 vs roux-en-Y duodenal switch (RY-DS): results of 5-year observational study. Obes Surg. 2021;31(2):570–9.
29. Verhoeff K, Mocanu V, Jogiat U, etal. Patient selection and 30-day outcomes of SADI-S com­pared to RYGB: a retrospective cohort study of 47,375 patients. Obes Surg. 2022;32(7):1–8.
30. Balamurugan G, Sagaya JL, Subbiah TS, etal. Comparison of efcacy and safety between roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) vs one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) vs single anas­tomosis Dudeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S): a systematic review of bar­iatric and metabolic surgery. Obes Surg. 2023;33(7):2194–209.
31. Chao GF, Canner J, Hamid S, et al. Outcomes of SADI and OAGB compared to RYGB from the metabolic and bariatric surgery quality improvement program: the North American Experience. Obes Surg. 2024;34:337. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11695- 023- 07019.
32. Ceha CMM, van Wezenbeek MR, Versteegden DPA, etal. Matched short-term results of SADI versus GBP after sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2018;28(12):3809–14.
33. Stenberg E, Dos Reis Falcao LF, O’Kane M, etal. Guidelines for perioperative care in bariatric surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society recommendations: a 2021 update. World J Surg. 2022;46(4):729–51.
34. Aghazarian G, Lind R, Motola D, etal. Impact of emend on perioperative bariatric surgery antiemetic utilization, patient satisfaction, and costs. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2023;33(3):265–9.
35. Monte S, Ra E, Cantie S, etal. Reduction in opiate use, pain, nausea, and length of stay after implementation of a bariatric enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Obes Surg. 2021;31(7):2896–905.
36. American Society for M, Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues C.ASMBS updated position state­ment on prophylactic measures to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism in bariatric surgery patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(4):493–7.
225
Revisional Foregut andBariatric Surgery
19
MichelleNessen andCarlosA.Galvani

Introduction

Since their introduction in the early- to mid-1990s, laparoscopic antireux surgery and laparoscopic bariatric surgery gained collective interest and quickly became the gold standard for the treatment of GERD and severe obesity [1, 2]. The widespread adoption of laparoscopy was due mainly to its well-known advantages compared to open surgery. Curiously, these two surgical modalities share few similarities and differences. For example, despite remarkably low morbidity and mortality rates, the operations are underused due to the perception of long-term side effects and fear of failure, which impacts referral patterns. Unfortunately, the denition of surgical success varies substantially for both modalities. Although antireux and bariatric surgery have consistently shown to be effective with very high success rates, revi­sional surgery is necessary in up to 3–6% of patients after antireux surgery and up to 16.7% of patients after bariatric surgery [1, 3, 4].
Revisional procedures include a broad spectrum of surgeries that are meant to benet patients who have either recurrent or persistent disease or patients who have complications of the index procedure. It is widely recognized that the results of revisional operations for persistent or recurrent disease are sometimes less satisfac­tory than the results obtained following the primary procedure. This is especially true after multiple surgical attempts. However, when the indication is appropriate and addressed by appropriate surgical technique, many patients can benet from a
M. Nessen Clinical Instructor of Surgery, Department of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA e-mail: mnessen@tulane.edu
C. A. Galvani (*) Department of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA e-mail: cgalva@lsuhsc.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 S. Samreen et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Robotic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86927-3_19
227
228
M. Nessen and C. A. Galvani
reoperation. Logically, revisional procedures are associated with increased opera­tive times and morbidity. Several reports in the literature have underscored the fea­sibility and safety of laparoscopic revisional procedures [5, 6]. Furthermore, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has pub­lished independent guidelines addressing revisional antireux and bariatric surgery [79]. When considered together, these guidelines have signicant similarities and they offer a word of caution to surgeons considering embarking on these complex procedures; “Laparoscopic revisional procedures may be performed safely only by experienced surgeons, but with more complications than primary procedures; there­fore, the relative risks and benets of laparoscopy should be considered on a case­by- case basis.”
Robotic surgery has been proposed as an alternative to surmount some of the technical challenges associated with revisional procedures [10]. Even though the application of robotics in revisional foregut and bariatric surgery is emerging, it is not yet widespread. Some series have demonstrated its feasibility and safety, although recent advances in robotic technology can potentially improve upon those outcomes and demonstrate clear advantages favoring the routine use of robotics. Herein, we describe our evaluation and treatment of patients requiring reoperative foregut and bariatric surgery and the potential benets of robotic surgery.

Part I: Revisional Foregut Surgery

Introduction
Even though antireux surgery is very effective and surgery failure is uncommon, it is estimated that 10–20% of patients will experience symptoms recurrence after antireux surgery` [11].
The evaluation and management of patients with recurrent, persistent, or new symptoms after antireux surgery, the identication of the cause of failure, and the selection of patients who need revisional surgery remains a challenge [12]. Nonetheless, it is clear that patients who present with symptoms after antireux surgery must be systematically evaluated to identify the cause of failure, and treat­ment must be tailored to the patient.
Numerous reports have suggested that only surgeons with substantial experi­ence in foregut and minimally invasive surgery should attempt laparoscopic revi­sional antireux surgery [13]. The nature of revisional surgery poses a distinctive challenge for the surgeon due to its morbid anatomy (adhesions, distorted anat­omy, etc.) and the many procedural steps described to obtain optimal results. In addition, patient factors such as age >70, obesity, comorbidities, and previous surgeries play a signicant role in the incidence of postoperative complications and must be considered preoperatively. It is also recognized that revisions take longer, have longer hospital stays, and more complications compared to primary antireux surgery [14].
19 Revisional Foregut andBariatric Surgery
229
The introduction of robotic technology in primary foregut surgery has not dem­onstrated signicant clinical advantages [15]. Although not widely reported in the literature, the application of robotics in revisional surgery has shown decreased con­version rates, shorter hospital stay, and minimal morbidity compared to laparoscopy [16, 17]. The technology available to the robotic surgeon offers increased autonomy due to the self-assisting feature and self-driving of the robotic camera. Other advan­tages of the robotic platform are mainly attributed to the improved visualization, exposure, and enhanced dissection.
Indications forRevision
Indications for reoperation should be based primarily on the patient’s physiological state, the severity of symptoms, and the response to conservative therapy. Patients should undergo an extensive workup, including barium swallow, esophageal manometry, upper endoscopy, pH study, and gastric emptying study if necessary [11]. A strong correlation between the symptoms, preoperative workup and the pat­terns of failure could potentially help select the most appropriate treatment for the patient [12, 17].
• Surgical intervention should be considered in patients who have persistent,
recurrent, or new foregut symptoms (heartburn, dysphagia, chest pain, regurgita-
tion, asthma, hoarseness, chronic cough, or laryngitis).
And
• Conrmed physiologic abnormalities (objective evidence of failure).
Or
• Denable anatomic defect.
Options forRevision
The choice of reoperative procedure must be personalized to the patient, taking into account several factors: patterns of failure, the presence of a recurrent hiatal hernia, esophageal length, Barrett’s esophagus, number of previous antireux procedures, presence of obesity, and the viability of the gastric fundus after fundoplication takedown.
In many instances, the nal decision is made intraoperatively based on the patient’s anatomy. As mentioned, the surgical plan should be tailored to each patient’s specic needs and may include palliative options (gastropexy and/or gas­trostomy tube placement), and/or takedown of the fundoplication.
Options include.
• Redo-fundoplication (partial or total) with or without hiatal hernia repair
if present
– First time redo, normal BMI, normal esophageal motility