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_1116_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
20 Мб
Скачать
A. Bashir210
Accreditation & Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP), Global Registry of International Federation for Surgery of Obesity (IFSO) and Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database (BOLD), should consider adding a variable to define if a patient is a medical tourist or not, as all other parameters of follow up are other­wise well defined. This may be the beginning to answer the deficits present in the research today, to help us understand the true outcomes of bariatric tourism.

4 Conclusion

Medical tourism is growing globally. It stemmed from inefficiencies and higher costs within certain healthcare systems, with patients seeking care mainly at lower cost, but with excellent healthcare facilities with trusted providers. Sleeve gastrec­tomy contributed to the increase in bariatric tourism.
Risks with medical tourism are reportedly high, however, the outcomes of the overall tourism cohort are lacking with additional research needed. A call for national and unified shared global registry within the different bariatric societies may aid in the complete understanding of the true outcomes of bariatric tourism. A bridge between scientific bodies and the commercial providers of medical tourism has to be established to initiate the complete understanding of this phenomenon.

References

1. American Society for, M., C. Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues. American Society for
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery position statement on global bariatric healthcare. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011;7(6): 669–71.
2. Grand view research. Medical Tourism Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By
Country (Turkey, Costa Rica, Thailand, India, Mexico, Singapore, Brazil, Malaysia, Taiwan, Colombia, South Korea), and Segment Forecasts, 2019–2026. https://www.grandviewre-
search.com/press-release/global-medical-tourism-market.
3. Kowalewski PK, et al. Current practice of global bariatric tourism-survey-based study. Obes
Surg. 2019;29(11):3553–9.
4. Leggat P. Medical tourism. Aust Fam Phys. 2015;44(1–2):16–21.
5. Snyder J, Crooks VA, Johnston R. Perceptions of the ethics of medical tourism: compar-
ing patient and academic perspectives. Public Health Ethics. 2012;5(1):38–46. https://doi.
org/10.1093/phe/phr034.
6. Gagner M. Bariatric surgery tourism hidden costs? How Canada is not doing its part in cov-
ering bariatric surgery under the Canada Health Act. Can J Surg. 2017;60(4):222–3.
7. Kim DH, et al. Financial costs and patients’ perceptions of medical tourism in bariatric sur-
gery. Can J Surg. 2016;59(1):59–61.
8. Jackson C, et al. I didn’t have to prove to anybody that I was a good candidate”: a case study
framing international bariatric tourism by Canadians as circumvention tourism. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):573.
9. Hanefeld J, et al. Why do medical tourists travel to where they do? The role of networks in
determining medical travel. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:356–63.
10. Dang HS et al. Grey system theory in the study of medical tourism industry and its economic
impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3).
Medical Tourism: Global Bariatric Healthcare
11. Foley BM et al. Patient care without borders: a systematic review of medical and surgical
tourism. J Travel Med. 2019;26(6).
12. Angrisani L, et al. IFSO Worldwide Survey 2016: primary, endoluminal, and revisional pro-
cedures. Obes Surg. 2018;28(12):3783–94.
13. Carandina S, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy learning curve: clinical and economical
impact. Obes Surg. 2019;29(1):143–8.
14. Janik MR, Stanowski E, Pasnik K. Present status of bariatric surgery in Poland. Wideochir
Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2016;11(1):22–5.
15. Udelsman BV, et al. Surgeon factors are strongly correlated with who receives a sleeve gas-
trectomy versus a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(6):856–63.
16. Rokni L, Park SH. Medical tourism in Iran, reevaluation on the new trends: a narrative
review. Iran J Public Health. 2019;48(7):1191–202.
17. Noree T, Hanefeld J, Smith R. UK medical tourists in Thailand: they are not who you think
they are. Global Health. 2014;10:29.
18. Sheppard CE, et al. Medical tourism and bariatric surgery: who pays? Surg Endosc.
2014;28(12):3329–36.
19. Healy P, et al. Complications of bariatric surgery–what the general surgeon needs to know.
Surgeon. 2016;14(2):91–8.
20. Lunt N, Horsfall D, Hanefeld J. Medical tourism: a snapshot of evidence on treatment
abroad. Maturitas. 2016;88:37–44.
21. Awano N, et al. Issues associated with medical tourism for cancer care in Japan. Jpn J Clin
Oncol. 2019;49(8):708–13.
22. Whitmore R, Crooks VA, Snyder J. Ethics of care in medical tourism: Informal caregivers’
narratives of responsibility, vulnerability and mutuality. Health Place. 2015;35:113–8.
23. Peters X, Gangemi A. An update on bariatric tourism: time for a national registry? Surg Obes
Relat Dis. 2018;14(4):528–32.
211

Sleeve Gastrectomy: Medicolegal Aspects

Evangelos Efthimiou
Laparoscopic stapling bariatric procedures such laparoscopy gastric bypass started gaining popularity in UK and Europe the last 15–20 years and superseded the lap­aroscopic adjustable gastric band in numbers and popularity. In the last 10 years laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become the most commonly performed bari­atric procedure superseding the laparoscopic R-en-Y gastric bypass which many bariatric surgeons consider the gold standard [1]. For the last 5 years the one anas­tomosis gastric bypass has increasingly gaining ground as an alternative to the R-en-Y gastric bypass. These three procedures appear to dominate the bariatric domain, with the ideal bariatric procedure remaining illusive.
The rapid acceptance of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in the bariatric domain as a stand-alone procedure was fuelled by its technical simplicity and the continuous improvement of modern stapling guns providing a reliable, secure, and haemostatic long staple line. The simplicity of sleeve gastrectomy appealed to prospective patients as an easier procedure to understand, avoiding the techni­calities of bypassing the bowel and its restoration of continuity either in an “Y” or loop configuration. As the general public’s appeal for sleeve gastrectomy increased many Upper GI surgeons without formal bariatric training undertook these opera­tions leading to bad outcomes and fuelling litigation. Insurance premiums for sur­geons performing bariatric surgery are generally higher than general surgery.
The lack of private insurance coverage for bariatric procedures in many coun­tries, including UK, necessitated many patients self-funding their operation, providing a rather low threshold for litigation in cases of unexpected or adverse outcomes which escalate cost of treatment and lead to loss of income.
E. Efthimiou (*) Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK e-mail: e.efthimiou@doctors.org.uk
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Al-Sabah et al. (eds.), Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57373-7_23
213
E. Efthimiou214
As obesity affects mostly lower socioeconomic classes in developed countries the ability of patients to absorb loss of income is limited and can lead to devastat­ing effects for them and their families. The “no win no fee” option from personal injury lawyers provides a relative straightforward road for patients to pursue com­pensation and lowers the threshold to commence the litigation process.
International health tourism with many patients travelling abroad for bariatric operations in search for lower costs of surgery further complicates matters, as the route to pursue financial claims related to potential malpractice varies from coun­try to country leaving many patients potentially vulnerable and uncertain on how to proceed.
The best strategy for a surgeon to deal with litigation is its avoidance. From the author’s experience in medicolegal cases involving bariatric surgery and spe­cifically sleeve gastrectomy the commonest causes for patients to initiate litigation procedures fall in three categories.
a. claims of incompetence in performing the operation (with leaks from sleeve
gastrectomy as the commonest) b. claims of delay in diagnosis and treatment of complications c. claims of substandard information given about the operation and its potential
complications during the consent process.
Gastric sleeve leaks heal much slower than leaks from gastric bypass with a higher incidence of chronic leak and need for repetitive procedures and prolonged hos­pitalisation. In UK, surgeons are bound to abide with the Montgomery ruling [2] when they obtain consent for a surgical procedure. In practical terms simply mentioning the generally quoted 0.5–1% leak rate following sleeve gastrectomy is not enough. Many patients will be unaware of what a leak is and what the treat­ment of the leak entails and assume that the low risk of leak makes the complica­tion insignificant. The consent process should inform and record that in case of a leak hospitalisation will be prolonged even for weeks and further procedures or even operations will be required to deal with the leak as well as the potential for chronicity of the leak and need for major future surgery. The level of information should be tailored to the individual patient.
A freelance oil trader launched a litigation process following a leak from a sleeve gastrectomy that required significant time in hospital, increased hospital fees and led to loss of income. In his argument he claimed he had not been fully informed prior to his sleeve gastrectomy about the exact consequences of a leak. If he had known these he would not have gone ahead with the operation as even the risk was small the effects in his work would have been significant. The low 1% risk of leak rate made him feel safe and he assumed that the treatment of the leak would not have been as complicated as it proved to be. Naming a list of com­plications and their associate incidence is not considered acceptable practice and will leave the surgeon exposed to potentially successful litigation. The surgeon should explain and record the required treatment and consequences of such a seri­ous complication in the context of a fully informed patient. The Montgomery rule
Sleeve Gastrectomy: Medicolegal Aspects
215
applies retrospectively. A retired builder launched litigation procedures against a surgeon who quoted a 1% leak rate and wrote in his letter to the patient he had never experienced a leak in over 1,500 procedures. A staple line leak occurred a few days after surgery and was successfully treated but resulted in prolonged hospitalisation and loss of income. The patient claimed he understood from his discussion with the surgeon that the particular surgeon never gets leaks and felt reassured it would not happen to him. The surgeon was asked to provide evidence for both of his claims of number of cases and 0% leak rate. The publicly avail­able record of cases the surgeon had recorded in the national bariatric data base was significantly smaller than the number he claimed. Frank discussion backed by facts and provision of written visual or audio material to enhance patient informa­tion prior to the operation is crucial to avoid and defend litigation suits. Providing a direct line of communication with the surgeon for the first few days after surgery until the leak risk lessens avoids the problems with the patient seeking advice out of hours from those unfamiliar with the procedure medical services that can delay access to the appropriate level of care for investigation and treatment.
In hospital setting delays in recognising leaks and delays in providing definitive treatment has the potential to cause seriously unfavourable outcomes with subse­quent legal suits. The faster the leak is recognised and the sooner a bariatric sur­geon is involved the higher the chances of a successful outcome which will lessen the risk of litigation.
Robust adherence to DVT prophylaxis protocols which are regularly reviewed and updated according to the emerging evidence will bolster the bariatric practice from the risk of successful litigation.
Assessing all potential candidates for stapling procedures within the auspices of a multidisciplinary team, irrespective the payor (state, self-funding, private insurer) is a pre-requisite of a successful and safe bariatric practice.
Meticulous data collection including case mix, volume and complications for every surgeon, collected independently and available for the public to view in an understandable format provided by National Bariatric Registers should be a requirement before any surgeon is granted privileges for bariatric surgery either in private or state funded hospitals.
The most devastating for the patient is the development of Wernicke’s encepha­lopathy following bariatric surgery. A machinery operator underwent sleeve gas­trectomy and experienced significant nausea and vomiting the following three months following and multiple admissions for dehydration in the bariatric unit he was operated. The radiological investigation revealed a normal looking sleeve, but the patient remained unable to proceed to the expected stages of diet and remained nauseous and vomiting sporadically. Alternative routes of temporary alimentation were not explored and during the last admission the patient experienced loss of vision and ability to walk unaided. His dehydration had been treated with intrave­nous Dextrose 5%. The neurological opinion was of Wernicke’s encephalopathy and was backed by the results of low thiamine levels performed a few days prior to the development of neurological signs. Thiamine replacement was not considered until the development of neurological signs. The patient despite commencement
E. Efthimiou216
of intravenous thiamine replacement lost most of his vision and his ability to walk became wheelchair bound and required significant levels of assistance with his daily activities of life. Negligence and liability were admitted, and the final claim was settled for a seven-figure number. Wernicke’s encephalopathy is a seri­ous and mostly irreversible condition which is fully preventable with high level of suspicion when there has been a history of continuous vomiting for more than two weeks or chronic persisting vomiting. High level of suspicion and early and adequate thiamine orally or intravenously supplementation with avoidance of Dextrose intravenous fluid until thiamine has been intravenously administered is paramount.
There are published reports of Barrett’s oesophagus developing in patients fol­lowing sleeve gastrectomy [3]. These reports raise the issue of patient awareness about the possibility of Barrett’s development with the need for regular endoscopic surveillance to detect development of Barrett’s and monitor for development of dysplasia according to the established protocols of surveillance. If all the patients after a sleeve gastrectomy should have regular endoscopic monitoring and how frequently is a matter that will need addressing by the bariatric surgical societies to avoid future lawsuits.
Complications are inherent in surgical practice and will continue to occur no matter how advanced surgery becomes. Litigation process is a tedious and long process both for the patient and the surgeon involved. The way surgeons inform patients about these complications requires to evolve and embrace modern tech­nology and formats patients understand easily, avoiding medical jargon.
Accreditation of bariatric surgeons via dedicated fellowship programmes, restriction of bariatric procedures in dedicated bariatric programs with a multidis­ciplinary patient assessment, protocol based treatment of complications in bariatric patients and availability of direct lines of communication between the patients and bariatric surgeon and service will prevent late presentations of serious complica­tions with potentially unfavourable outcomes and litigation procedures, ensuring data, patient, and surgeon confidentiality is some of the strategies health care sys­tems will require to adopt.

References

1. https://www.ifso.com/pdf/5th-ifso-global-registry-report-september-2019.pdf.
2. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf.
3. Systematic Endoscopy 5 Years After Sleeve Gastrectomy Results in a High Rate of Barrett’s
Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Study Lionel Sebastianelli1,2 & Marine Benois1,2
& Geoffroy Vanbiervliet1,2 & Laurent Bailly1,3 & Maud Robert4 & Nicolas Turrin5 &
Emmanuel Gizard5 & Mirto Foletto6 & Marco Bisello6 & Alice Albanese6 & Antonella
Santonicola7 & Paola Iovino7 & Thierry Piche1,2 & Luigi Angrisani8 & Laurent Turchi9
& Luigi Schiavo10 & Antonio Iannelli1,2,11 Published online: 21 January 2019 # Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature; 2019.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy 101

How the LSG is Performed: A Step­By-Step Procedure
Bassem Safadi and Karin Karam
There are multiple technical approaches to performing a laparoscopic sleeve gas­trectomy (LSG) with countless variations [14]. I put together a description of my approach after 2500 consecutive procedures. I modified this approach over the past 10 years and standardized it 5 years ago with the intent of balancing the weight loss aspect of the procedure along with reduction in complication poten­tial. Now that we understand LSG not only as a restrictive but also satiety-reducing procedure, we put more emphasis on complete excision of the fundus and do not necessarily make the gastric tube too tight [5, 6]. We are also cognizant of the del­eterious effect of reflux esophagitis on patients long-term so we emphasize the need to detect and repair hiatal hernias intra-operatively with tight crural repair [2, 7]. Reflux esophagitis results not only from hiatal hernias but more likely from any anatomic or functional gastric obstruction. That is why it is important to avoid twists or narrowing particularly at the Angularis Incisura [1, 8]. Bleeding and staple line leak remain the two most common short-term complications of LSG. Choosing the appropriate staple line height, over sewing or re-enforcing the sta­ple line and avoiding gastric tube narrowing are all key technical elements that reduce these risks [9]. Lastly, we routinely fix the gastric tube to the transverse colon mesentery at the inferior border of the pancreas to minimize the risk of axial torsion and perhaps provide a form of fixation of the stomach in the abdomen to reduce of risk of intra-thoracic migration [10].
B. Safadi (*) · K. Karam Department of Surgery, Lebanese American University (LAU) Medical Center-Rizk Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: bassem.safadi@lau.edu.lb
K. Karam e-mail: karin.karam@lau.edu B. Safadi · K. Karam Lebanese American University, Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Al-Sabah et al. (eds.), Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57373-7_24
219
B. Safadi and K. Karam220
The following describes how I do the LSG step by step:
A. Patient positioning and port placement The patient is placed in the supine position with arms comfortably placed on
lateral arm boards. Mechanical venous compression apparatus is placed on the
lower extremities (Foot pumps, sequential compression device, etc.) (Fig. 1).
The table is placed in mild reverse Trendelenburg (around 15–20 degrees)
with slight downward tilt to the right side. For most patients I start by plac-
ing a 12–15 mm port in the infra-umbilical position under direct vision. In
super-obese patients were the umbilical skin in displaced far caudally I
choose a point around 35-cm below the Xyphoid process slightly to the right
Fig. 1 Patient positioning and port placement: Surgeon (S) stands on the right side of the patient working with ports 1 and 2. In the majority of patients, port 2 is at the umbilicus. The assistant (A) holds the scope with the left hand through the Camera (C) port and assists with port 3. The sub-xyphoid incision allows the introduction of the “Nathanson” liver blade. The LSG can be performed without the N and Port 3 in cases where the liver is small, exposure is easy and the surgeon is sufficiently experienced
How the LSG is Performed: A Step-By-Step Procedure
221
of midline. This port will serve as a working port for dissection, stapling and
suturing. Then, in sequence, I place two lateral ports along the anterior axil-
lary lines few cms above the level of the umbilicus. The camera port is placed
25-cm below the xyphoid process at the left mid-clavicular level. It is crucial
that the camera port is placed high enough to provide clear view of the hiatus
and in particular the left crus of the diaphragm. Finally, a “Nathanson” liver
blade is used to retract the left lateral segment of the liver and is fixed to a
table-mounted retractor arm. The surgeon stands to the right side of the patient using the right lateral and
umbilical port. The assistant stands on the left holding the camera with the left
hand and assisting with the right hand using the left sided port. The scope is
angled (typically 30-degrees) for better visualization. There is a rationale for using the umbilical level to work and in particular to
staple and I will try to use Fig. 2 to explain it. The stapler shaft and tip should
ideally placed parallel to the orogastric tube as the surgeons advances it toward
to Angle of His. This will reduce the risks of kinks and twists in gastric tube and
will align the staples in sequence to avoid staple crossover. If the stapler is intro-
duced via a high lying port, it will come at an angle and the surgeon will have
to compensate by torqueing and angulating the stapler which increases the risk
of twist in the gastric tube. The main disadvantage in using relatively low ports
is working at a long distance and for that one would need long instruments to
work with. The instruments including staplers are long (at least 43-cm long). B. Freeing up the stomach There are numerous vessel sealing devices that are available in the market
with different sealing technology. I prefer using a long instrument (43-cm) and
one that generates the least fumes or vapor. I sometimes use a smoke evacua-
tor system and that seems to cut down on operative time, clears the view and
minimizes the number of times the scope has to be removed for cleaning. The
Fig. 2 This figure illustrates the importance of placing the stapling port low enough to ensure that the staple line is perfectly aligned from the Angularis Incisura to the EG junction. The sagit­tal representation of the abdomen on the left shows an appropriate placement of the stapling port in the infra-umbilical location (A) which allows formation of a consecutive rows of staples paral­lel to the shaft of the stapling device. When the port is placed high (B) the staple device would come at an angle with the staple line and that may lead to spiral twists in the sleeved stomach