Citations

ABSTRACTIntroductionEsophageal dysmotility following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) may relate to decreased gastric compliance. We investigated high‐resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) and secondary peristalsis assessed by functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) and their association with intragastric pressure after MBS.MethodsPatients undergoing HRM, FLIP, and barium esophagram (BE) after MBS were included. HRM metrics and proximal intragastric pressure at baseline (IGP baseline), during wet swallow‐induced esophagogastric junction relaxation (IGP EGJ opening), and following wet swallow‐induced esophagogastric junction opening with subsequent closure (IGP post EGJ closure) were measured. Contractile response was assessed during FLIP.ResultsForty patients (26 Roux en Y gastric bypass, 14 sleeve gastrectomy) with FLIP a median of 4 years after MBS, were identified. HRM was normal or consistent with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in 33 (82.5%) patients, while the contractile response on FLIP was abnormal (disordered/impaired, absent, or spastic reactive) in 28 (70%). Delayed emptying on BE was numerically more frequent with abnormal FLIP (6% vs. 0%, p = 0.08). IGP post‐EGJ closure (median 21.8 vs. 15 mmHg, p = 0.03) and ∆ IGP post‐EGJ closure—IGP baseline (median 4 vs. 0 mmHg, p = 0.02) were greater and predictive of abnormal contractility on FLIP (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00–1.2, p = 0.03 and OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.07–2.39, p = 0.003, respectively).DiscussionAbnormal contractility on FLIP, reflecting disordered secondary peristalsis, frequently occurs despite normal HRM findings after MBS. Secondary peristalsis may be associated with reduced gastric compliance, reflected by elevated proximal intragastric pressure. FLIP contractility could serve as an early marker for post‐MBS esophageal dysfunction.

AbstractEndoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an effective treatment for obesity but typically is not covered by insurance. It is not known whether patients with financial investment in their endoscopic procedure are more likely to achieve and/or maintain weight loss as compared with those who have no financial buy-in. We aimed to compare treatment adherence and outcomes between patients paying out-of-pocket (OOP) and those who underwent ESG as part of any clinical trial where costs were covered by a study protocol (no payment; NP).Data were collected via retrospective chart review. One hundred sixty-four patients who had an ESG with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Repeated measures with generalized linear model were used to evaluate weight loss at different time points after ESG and labs values at baseline and 1-year follow-up to assess for comorbidity improvement between cohorts. Compliance was evaluated by comparing exercise adherence rates.The pattern of weight loss and change in laboratory values was not different over time between the OOP group (n = 139) and NP group (n = 25). Patients lost an average of 14% (12.2–15.9) and 12.9% (9.3–16.5) of total body weight over all time points, respectively, in both groups (6, 12 and 24 months). Treatment adherence also did not differ between the groups.Having “skin in the game” by paying for ESG OOP does not correlate with better outcomes or treatment adherence, which further supports broad insurance coverage for this procedure.

Introduction: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain prevalent after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB), despite it being known to alleviate reflux. The physiological changes behind long-term GERD and hiatal hernia (HH) prevalence post-RYGB are not commonly investigated. Methods: In this consecutive cohort study, we examined patients who underwent RYGB and subsequent upper endoscopy, conducted by an expert bariatric endoscopist. The primary focus was on pouch endoscopic retrosflexion to evaluate the antireflux barrier (ARB). We gathered data encompassing patient demographics, anthropometrics, comorbidities, and findings from esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at the time of surgery and during follow-up EGD. Results: Our study included a total of 42 patients, predominantly female (97.5%) and White (100%), with an average age of 53.6±10.6 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 32.9±9.4 kg/m 2 . In our findings, all EGDs revealed the presence of a HH of varying sizes. The average HH size was 2.07±0.87 cm. The esophagogastric junction (EGJ) flap was also effaced in all patients with the majority (90.4%, 38 patients) classified as Hill grade IV and a smaller proportion (9.6%, 4 patients) as Hill grade III. Notably, PPI usage increased from the time of surgery to the time of EGD (69.0% vs. 42.9%, P =0.06). Conclusion: This research highlights the high incidence of HH and EGJ flap effacement in patients after RYGB, potentially elucidating the persistence of reflux symptoms, including weakly acidic or alkaline reflux, post-RYGB.

Abstract Background and study aims Traditional transoral outlet reduction (TORe) is a minimally invasive endoscopic approach focused on reducing the aperture of the gastrojejunal (GJ) anastomosis, while the tubular transoral outlet reduction (tTORe) consists of tabularization of the distal pouch utilizing an O-shape gastroplasty suturing pattern. The primary aim of this study was to compare short-term weight loss between TORe and tTORe. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was conducted at a tertiary care bariatric center of excellence. The study included patients with history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) who had an endoscopic revision by TORe or tTORe and had follow-up data in their electronic medical record. The primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL). Results A total of 128 patients were included (tTORe=85, TORe=43). At 3 and 6 months, the tTORe and TORe cohorts presented similar %TBWL (3 months: 8.5±4.9 vs. 7.3±6.0, P = 0.27 and 6 months: 8.1±7.4 vs. 6.8±5.6, P = 0.44). At 9 months, there was a trend toward greater weight loss in the tTORe cohort (9.7±8.6% vs. 5.1±6.8%, P = 0.053). At 12 months, the %TBWL was significantly higher in the tubularization group compared to the standard group (8.2±10.8 vs. 2.3±7.3%, P = 0.01). Procedure time was significantly different between both groups (60.5 vs. 53.4 minutes, P = 0.03). The adverse events rate was similar between groups (8.2% vs. 7.0% for tTORe and TORe, respectively, P = 0.61). Conclusions The tTORe enhances efficacy and durability of the standard procedure without adding significant procedure-related risks.