Farha, Jad

Background Complete closure of large mucosal defects following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with through-the-scope (TTS) clips is oftentimes not possible. We aimed to report our early experience of using a novel TTS suturing system for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent attempted prophylactic defect closure using the TTS suturing system after colorectal ESD. The primary outcome was technical success in achieving complete defect closure, defined as a < 5 mm residual mucosal defect in the closure line using TTS suturing, with or without adjuvant TTS clips. Results 82 patients with a median defect size of 30 (interquartile range 25–40) mm were included. Technical success was achieved in 92.7 % (n = 76): TTS suturing only in 44 patients (53.7 %) and a combination of TTS suturing to approximate the widest segment followed by complete closure with TTS clips in 32 (39.0 %). Incomplete/partial closure, failure of appropriate TTS suture deployment, and the need for over-the-scope salvage closure methods were observed in 7.3 % (n = 6). One intraprocedural bleed, one delayed bleed, and three intraprocedural perforations were observed. There were no adverse events related to placement of the TTS suture. Conclusion The TTS suture system is an effective and safe tool for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD and is an alternative when complete closure with TTS clips alone is not possible.

Abstract Background and study aims There is minimal research on real-world, large-volume data comparing endoscopic bariatric therapy (EBT) to laparoscopic bariatric therapy (LBT). This study aimed to compare 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality outcomes of primary EBT vs LBT using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. Patients and methods Patients aged 18 to 80 with body mass index (BMI) 35 to 40 kg/m2 undergoing primary procedures were included. Propensity score matching 1:50 was performed for EBT versus LBT based on age, sex, and BMI. Results We matched 211 EBTs with 9,059 LBTs. Operative length (63.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.9, 69.8 versus 81.1, 95 % CI: 80.1, 82.1) and length of stay (0.49 days, 95 % CI: 0.29, 0.69 versus 1.43 days, 95 % CI: 1.41, 1.45) were significantly lower in the EBT group than the LBT group. There was no difference between EBT and LBT in the odds of readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.08, 1.25), reoperation (OR = 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.05, 2.84), or reintervention (OR = 0.98, 95 % CI: 0.24, 3.99). After controlling for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sleep apnea, history of myocardial infarction, hypertension requiring medications, and diabetes, EBT continued to be associated with lower odds of having any adverse event (AE) than LBT, with an OR of 0.34 (95 % CI: 0.16, 0.69). Subgroup analysis comparing EBT to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) showed that EBT was associated with a lower risk having any AE than LSG, with an OR of 0.39 (95 % CI: 0.19, 0.79). Conclusions EBT is associated with a lower 30-day AE rate and shorter procedural length and length of stay than LBT, with similar rates of readmission, reintervention, and reoperation.

Background and Aim: Despite widespread adoption and encouraging results seen over the last 5 years, no consensus exists regarding the endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) technique, training, or preprocedure and postprocedure management of the patient. The aim of our survey was to assess practice trends and preferences of bariatric endoscopists with respect to ESG. Methods: Using a digital platform, we conducted a worldwide survey by emailing a link with an electronic questionnaire to 1200 bariatric endoscopists trained to perform endoscopic suturing using the Apollo Overstitch suturing device (Apollo Endosurgery). Results: We received 221 responses that were included in the analysis. Fifty-one responders (36.4%) required 1 to 10 procedures, and 37 (26.4%) needed 11 to 20 procedures to become proficient at ESG. Ninety-six (68.6%) stated that lower body mass index thresholds should be adopted for Asian and Arab patients. There was no consensus on the ideal number of sutures, with 45 (32.1%), 42 (30%), 36 (25.7%), 13 (9.3%), and 4 (2.9%) recommending 4 to 6, 5 to 7, 6 to 8, 7 to 9, and 8 to 12 sutures, respectively. The primary barriers to establishing an endobariatric program were the inability to establish a cash pay model, 77 (95.1%); lack of institutional support, 61 (75.3%); and difficulty in establishing an ambulatory surgical center/hospital to perform ESG, 73 (90.1%). Conclusions: ESG practice trends remain heterogenous among practitioners in regard to indication, technique, and preprocedure and postprocedure management. Specific ESG guidelines are warranted, and this survey will assist in providing the framework for these guidelines to be written.

Background We conducted this study to compare the weight loss outcome of intragastric balloons (IGBs) in conjunction with pharmacotherapy vs IGB and intensive lifestyle changes alone. Methods This was a multicenter, non-randomized, retrospective study involving 4 academic hospitals. Patients underwent IGB placement with or without concomitant anti-obesity pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was percent total weight loss (TBWL) after IGB placement at 6 and 12 months. Results This study included 102 patients, with 23 patients (mean age 46.6 years, 82.6% female) treated with IGB/pharmacotherapy and 79 patients (mean age 46.0 years, 88.6% female) treated with IGB/lifestyle modifications. Patients had a 100% follow-up rate at 6 and 12 months. At 6 months following IGB placement, both groups achieved a similar %TBWL. At 12 months, %TBWL was greater in the IGB/pharmacotherapy group (12.6% ± 1.2 vs 9.7% ± 0.7, P = .04). 65.2% of patients achieved ≥10% TBWL at 12 months in the IGB/pharmacotherapy group, compared to 38.0% in the IGB/lifestyle group ( P < .05). The proportion of patients that achieved ≥15% weight loss at 12 months was also significantly different between the IGB/pharmacotherapy and IGB/lifestyle groups (30.4% vs 20.3%, P < .05). Discussion IGB with concomitant use of pharmacotherapy did not improve weight loss while the IGB was in place compared to IGB and lifestyle changes. However, patients receiving IGB with pharmacotherapy did have greater weight loss and diminished weight regain after balloon removal compared to those receiving just IGB and lifestyle changes.