Esophagojejunal anastomotic leakage (EJAL) is a severe complication following gastrectomy for gastric cancer, typically treated with drainage and nutritional support. We report a case of intraluminal drain migration near the esophagojejunal anastomosis (EJA), resulting in persistent drainage and mimicking EJAL after total gastrectomy.

A 64-year-old male underwent open total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction for gastric adenocarcinoma, with two silicone drains placed near the EJA. On postoperative day (POD) 4, the patient developed signs of peritonitis and sepsis, necessitating surgical re-exploration abscess drainage, peritoneal lavage, and drain repositioning. A contrast swallow study on POD 18 revealed rapid filling of the abdominal drain without extraluminal contrast collection. Persistent drainage prompted an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy on POD 59, which revealed approximately 5 cm of the drain within the esophagus, with the perforation site located 2 cm distal to the intact EJA. The drain was repositioned under endoscopic guidance. A repeat contrast radiograph on POD 67 demonstrated no evidence of extraluminal contrast extravasation or filling of the abdominal drain. The patient was subsequently discharged without further incident.

Intraluminal drain migration is a rare complication following gastric surgery but should be considered when persistent drainage occurs.

Obesity has become a global epidemic, affecting both developed and developing nations. Despite extensive efforts, historical outcomes of medical interventions for obesity have been unsatisfactory. Bariatric surgeries, including sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), are now recognized as the primary treatment for severe obesity. However, laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has emerged as a promising alternative, offering simplified procedures compared to RYGB. While OAGB's initial outcomes are optimistic, concerns about biliary reflux persist. Our systematic review aims to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes of RYGB and OAGB to inform clinical decision-making in managing obesity. We searched five databases up to February 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RYGB and OAGB in obese patients, focusing on safety and efficacy outcomes. Data extraction covered study details, participant demographics, interventions, and outcomes related to operative details, complications, follow-up results, and weight changes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. The analysis involved risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data, using fixed or random effects models based on heterogeneity. Analyses were performed with Review Manager software v5.4. A total of 1057 patients were included in the analysis, sourced from 12 distinct RCTs. The analysis indicated OAGB outperformed RYGB in BMI reduction (MD = -0.69, p = 0.005), whereas RYGB was more effective in excess weight loss (MD = 6.51, p < 0.0001) and excess BMI loss (MD = 3.91, p < 0.0001). OAGB led to shorter operation times (MD = -34.89 minutes, p < 0.0001) and shorter periods of hospital stays (MD = -0.27 days, p = 0.01), along with fewer overall complications (RR = 0.58, p = 0.02) and lower incidence of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy complications (RR = 2.98, p = 0.0001). On the other hand, RYGB showed higher remission rates for dyslipidemia (RR = 0.60, p = 0.0003) and higher remissions of hypertension (RR = 0.83, p = 0.04). The majority of results were homogenous. Both OAGB and RYGB have their respective advantages and limitations. OAGB appears to offer benefits in terms of operation efficiency and early postoperative recovery, making it a potentially preferable option for patients and surgeons focused on these aspects. On the other hand, RYGB might be more suitable for patients prioritizing long-term weight loss and remission of certain comorbidities like hypertension. Ultimately, the choice between OAGB and RYGB should be made on an individual basis, considering the specific needs, conditions, and goals of each patient.

Aim: To improve the management of morbidly obese patients who undergo gastric bypass surgery to reduce the number of postoperative complications, in particular, bleeding.

Materials and Methods: From 2011 to 2022, a total of 348 patients with morbid obesity (MO) underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass treatment at the clinical base of the Department of General Surgery №2 of Bogomolets National Medical University. The retrospective group included 178 patients who received treatment between 2011 and 2019. 170 patients were enrolled in the prospective group for the period from 2019 to 2022.

Results: Retrospective group had 8 episodes of postoperative bleeding, representing a rate of 4.49%, prospective group - 3 episodes of postoperative bleeding, representing a rate of 1.76% Four factor characteristics associated with the probability of bleeding were identified: "number of comorbid conditions", "arterial hypertension", "chronic liver diseases" and "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease".

Conclusions: The factors responsible for the occurrence of postoperative bleeding in morbidly obese patients after laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery were the number of comorbid conditions, the presence of arterial hypertension, the presence of chronic liver diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A new strategy for the management of morbidly obese patients after laparoscopic gastric bypass was developed. This strategy involves changing cassettes to create gastroentero- and enteroenteroanastomoses, reducing the period of use of the nasogastric tube, drains, and urinary catheter from 3-4 days to 1 day, and resuming the drinking regimen 6 hours after extubation.

Postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding is a rare but serious complication that can lead to prolonged hospitalization and significant morbidity and mortality. It can be managed by reoperation, endoscopy, or radiological intervention. Although reoperation carries risks, particularly in critically ill postoperative patients, minimally invasive interventions, such as endoscopy or radiological intervention, confer advantages. Endoscopy allows localization of the bleeding focus and hemostatic management at the same time. Although there have been concerns regarding the potential risk of creating an anastomotic disruption or perforation during early postoperative endoscopy, endoscopic management has become more popular over time. However, there is currently no consensus on the best endoscopic management for postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding because most practices are based on retrospective case series. Furthermore, there is a wide range of individual complexities in anatomical and clinical settings after surgery. This review focused on the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic management in various surgical settings.

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

The number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery continues to increase. The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) estimates the number of bariatric surgical procedures performed increased from 158 000 in 2011 to 190 000 in 2015. Concurrently, the incidence of postoperative complications specific to bariatric patients will inevitably increase as well. Endoscopic evaluation of postoperative bariatric patients and endoscopic interventions are rapidly evolving. We present a review of the postoperative anatomy of bariatric patients, what complications to expect, and treatment options.

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of 3% hypertonic saline (HS) intragastric administration for patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal surgery.During the postoperative period, 3% HS has been suggested as a means to improve the intestinal edema and reduce gastrointestinal complications.The medical records of 111 patients with HS intragastric administration following upper gastrointestinal surgery and 268 patients, served as control, were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for selected baseline variables. Clinical outcomes, including early gastrointestinal function recovery, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay, were compared according to the HS intragastric administration or not.HS intragastric administration was associated with prompt postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, including first flatus (risk ratio [RR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.65; P = 0.048) and feeding within 3 postoperative days (RR (95% CI), 0.57 (0.49-0.77); P = 0.036). Early ileus occurred in 25 of 108 patients with HS treatment versus 36 of 108 patients without HS treatment (RR (95% CI), 1.43 (0.63-2.15); P = 0.065). The patients with HS experienced a lower overall postoperative complication (odds ratio [OD] 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-1.09; P = 0.063), including trend toward a decrease for infectious complications (15[13.9] vs 23[21.3]; P = 0.11; OD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29-1.22). There was a decreased incidence of anastomotic leakage (1[0.9] vs 7[6.5]; P = 0.033) and postoperative ileuas (5[4.6%] vs 11[10.2%]; P = 0.096) in the HS administration patients.Our study demonstrated beneficial postoperative clinical effects of HS intragastric administration in patients who had undergone upper gastrointestinal surgery, such as prompt postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery and reduced overall postoperative complications, which may be attributed to a reduced intestinal edema.