Steven G. Leeds M.D.

Rasmussen, M., Leeds, S. G., Ward, M. A., Sanchez, C., Chin, K., Hansen, L. and Ogola, G. O. (2022). “Can subjective symptoms predict objective findings in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients?” Surg Endosc.

Full text of this article.

INTRODUCTION: Medical therapy is the first-line treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease, but surgical options are available and shown to be effective when medical management fails. There is no consensus for when a surgical evaluation is indicated. We set out to determine if the GERD-HRQL questionnaire scores correlate to objective findings found in patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery to predict when surgical consultation could be warranted. METHODS: A prospectively gathered database was used for patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery from January 2014 to September 2020. Inclusion criteria required a diagnosis of GERD and comprehensive esophageal workup with the GERD-HRQL questionnaire, EGD, esophageal manometry, and ambulatory pH monitoring. Analysis of the GERD-HRQL scores was compared to objective endpoints to see correlation and predictability. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess relationship between the presence of objective findings and GERD-HRQL questionnaire scores. RESULTS: There were 246 patients meeting inclusion criteria. There was no significant correlation between GERD-HRQL score and DeMeester score (correlation coefficient = 0.23), or presence of a hiatal hernia, regardless of size (p = 0.89). Patients with esophagitis had significantly higher average GERD-HRQL scores compared to those without esophagitis (40.1 ± 18.9 vs 30.4 ± 19.1, p < 0.0001). Patients with a score of 40 or greater had a 42% to 65% probability of having esophagitis versus a score of 30 or less, lowering the chances of having esophagitis to less than 35%. CONCLUSION: Usage of a GERD-HRQL questionnaire score can potentially show the correlation between subjective and objective findings in the workup of a patient for anti-reflux surgery. Specifically, patients with a GERD-HRQL score of 40 or greater have an increased probability of esophagitis compared to those with a score of 30 or less. Using these scores can help referring clinicians identify those patients failing medical therapy and allow for prompt referral for surgical evaluation.

Leeds, S. G., Whitfield, E. P., Ogola, G. and Ward, M. A. (2022). “Nutritional Support and Duration of Drainage Recommendations for Endoscopic Internal Drainage: Review of the Literature and Initial Experience.” Obes Surg.

Full text of this article.

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leaks following foregut surgery pose a difficult scenario for surgeons. While definitive surgical options are more invasive and may result in diversion requiring subsequent surgeries, endoscopic management of these leaks has been shown to work as an alternative platform for management. An evolving option is endoscopic internal drainage. We have reviewed our experience using endoscopic internal drainage and report our outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institution review board approved prospectively gathered database was used to identify all patients undergoing endoscopic internal drainage following esophageal and gastric leaks. Patient demographics, sentinel operation causing the leak, and outcomes of therapy were collected. The rate of healing and complications with the drainage catheter in place were the primary endpoints. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were identified (5 male, 11 female) that underwent endoscopic internal drainage with a mean age of 48 and mean BMI of 30.8. Overall success rate was 69% (11/16), where 4 patients required a definitive surgery, and one healed with endoluminal vacuum therapy. Of the 4 failures, 1 patient required esophagojejunostomy, 2 patients required a fistulojejunostomy, and one required a partial gastrectomy. A total of 12 patients (75%) had a prior endoscopic procedure that was unsuccessful. The mean duration of drainage catheter in place was 48 days. While the catheter was in place, 4 patients were allowed minimal PO intake in conjunction with total parenteral nutrition or tube feeds. The rest of the patients were strict NPO with other means of nutrition. There were no complications with the drainage catheters and no deaths. CONCLUSION: Leaks following esophagogastric surgery are difficult to manage; however, endoscopic internal drainage has been shown to be effective. Duration of the technique should be around 6 to 8 weeks with nutritional support guided by the comfort of the managing clinician.

Chin, K., Ward, M.A., Meyer, D.M., Sanchez, C.E. and Leeds, S.G. (2022). “Laparoscopic repair of large diaphragmatic hernia after left ventricular assist device implantation followed by orthotopic heart transplantation.” Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 35(1): 101-103.

Full text of this article.

In patients with advanced heart failure and deteriorating clinical status, a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) can be used as a bridge to transplantation or as an alternative to transplantation. An uncommon complication of orthotopic heart transplant or LVADs is diaphragmatic hernia during implantation or explantation of the device. We describe a patient with a diaphragmatic hernia with incarcerated colon and small bowel treated previously with a HeartMate 3 LVAD and subsequent transplantation. This case highlights the need to consider the diagnosis of diaphragmatic hernia based on symptoms after HeartMate 3 implantation and/or subsequent transplantation, as well as the ability to manage these hernias with a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach to minimize postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Huynh, P., Konda, V., Sanguansataya, S., Ward, M.A. and Leeds, S.G. (2020). “Mind the Gap: Current Treatment Alternatives for GERD Patients Failing Medical Treatment and Not Ready for a Fundoplication.” Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Dec 16. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is associated with Barrett esophagus, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and significantly impacts quality of life. Medical management is the first line therapy with surgical fundoplication as an alternative therapy. However, a small portion of patients who fail medical therapy are referred for surgical consultation. This creates a “gap” in therapy for those patients dissatisfied with medical therapy but are not getting referred for surgical consultation. Three procedures have been designed to address these patients. These include radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the lower esophageal sphincter, transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF), and magnetic sphincter augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Pubmed literature review was conducted of all publications for RFA, TIF, and MSA. Four most common endpoints for the 3 procedures were compared at different intervals of follow-up. These include percent of patients off proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), GERD-HRQL score, DeMeester score, and percent of time with pH <4. A second query was performed for patients treated with PPI and fundoplications to match the same 4 endpoints as a control. RESULTS: Variable freedom from PPI was reported at 1 year for RFA with a weighted mean of 62%, TIF with a weighted mean of 61%, MSA with a weighted mean of 85%, and fundoplications with a weighted mean of 84%. All procedures including PPIs improved quality-of-life scores but were not equal. Fundoplication had the best improvement followed by MSA, TIF, RFA, and PPI, respectively. DeMeester scores are variable after all procedures and PPIs. All MSA studies showed normalization of pH, whereas only 4 of 17 RFA studies and 3 of 11 TIF studies reported normalization of pH. CONCLUSIONS: Our literature review compares 3 rival procedures to treat "gap" patients for gastroesophageal reflux disease with 4 common endpoints. Magnetic sphincter augmentation appears to have the most reproducible and linear outcomes but is the most invasive of the 3 procedures. MSA outcomes most closely mirrors that of fundoplication.

Leeds, S.G., Ngov, A., G, O.O. and Ward, M.A. (2020). “Safety of magnetic sphincter augmentation in patients with prior bariatric and anti-reflux surgery.” Surg Endosc Sep 28. [Epub ahead of print.].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) has been recognized as an effective treatment option for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. The feasibility of MSA in patients with prior gastric surgery has not been well established. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSA in patients with prior gastric surgery including bariatric and other anti-reflux operations. METHODS: A prospectively gathered registry approved by the institutional review board for patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery was retrospectively reviewed. All patients who underwent MSA were included. The patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of prior gastric surgeries compared to those without. Endpoints collected include differences between the two groups in their preoperative evaluation, perioperative course, and postoperative effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients underwent MSA where 82 patients (80%) had no prior gastric surgery and 21 patients (20%) had prior gastric surgery. The prior gastric surgery group included 10 patients with prior anti-reflux surgery, 11 patients with prior bariatric surgery. Perioperative factors were higher in the prior gastric surgery group including operating room time (135 min vs. 93 min, p =  < 0.001), number of beads used (16 vs. 14, p =  < 0.001), and percent of patients staying overnight (47% vs. 5%, p =  < 0.001). There was no difference in several factors of their preoperative evaluation including preoperative GERD-HRQL and RSI scores, hiatal hernia presence, or DeMeester score. Post-operative GERD-HRQL and RSI scores were not different as well as patient satisfaction, patients resuming PPI use, and device explant rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates equivalent outcomes with integration of MSA in patients with prior gastric surgery in comparison to patients without prior gastric surgery. However, these surgeries are longer, require larger devices, and patients are more likely to stay overnight.