Steven G. Leeds M.D.

Ward, M. A., A. Ebrahim, J. Kopita, L. Arviso, G. O. Ogola, B. Buckmaster and S. G. Leeds (2019). “Magnetic sphincter augmentation is an effective treatment for atypical symptoms caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease.” Surg Endosc Dec 2. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) could effectively treat patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who suffer primarily from atypical symptoms due to laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). MSA has been shown to treat typical symptoms of GERD with good success, but its effect on atypical symptoms is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional review board-approved database was conducted for all patients who underwent MSA between January 2015 and December 2018. All patients had objective confirmation of GERD from ambulatory pH monitoring off anti-reflux medications (DeMeester score > 14.7). Symptoms were assessed preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively using GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) questionnaires. RESULTS: There were 86 patients (38 males; 48 females) with a median age of 51.5 years. Total GERD HRQL scores improved from a mean of 38.79 to 6.53 (p < 0.01) and RSI scores improved from a mean of 20.9 to 8.1 (p < 0.01). Atypical symptoms evaluated from the RSI questionnaire include hoarseness, throat clearing, postnasal drip, breathing difficulties, and cough. All atypical symptoms were significantly improved at 1 year following MSA (p < 0.01). All three typical symptoms of heartburn, dysphagia, and regurgitation were significantly improved based on pre and postoperative GERD HRQL questionnaires (p < 0.02). Ninety-one percent of patients were off their PPI and dissatisfaction with their current therapy decreased from 95% preoperatively to 13% postoperatively. CONCLUSION: MSA is an effective treatment for typical and atypical GERD symptoms.

Leeds, S. G., M. Mencio, E. Ontiveros and M. A. Ward (2019). “Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy: How I Do It.” J Gastrointest Surg 23(5): 1037-1043.

Full text of this article.

Perforations and leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are difficult to manage and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, endoscopic approaches have been applied with varying degrees of success. Most recently, the use of endoluminal vacuum therapy has been used with high success rates in decreasing both morbidity and mortality. Under an IRB-approved prospective registry that we started in July 2013, we have been using endoluminal vacuum therapy to treat a variety of leaks throughout the GI tract. The procedure uses an endosponge connected to a nasogastric tube that is endoscopically guided into a fistula cavity in order to facilitate healing, obtain source control, and aid in reperfusion of the adjacent tissue with debridement. Endoluminal vacuum therapy has been used on all patients in the registry. Overall success rate for healing the leak or fistula is 95% in the esophagus, 83% in the stomach, 100% in the small bowel, and 60% of colorectal cases. The purpose of this report is to review the history of endoluminal wound vacuum therapy, identify appropriate patient selection criteria, and highlight “pearls” of the procedure. This article is written in the context of our own clinical experience, with a primary focus on a “How I Do It” technical description.

Hassan, T. M., E. Ontiveros, D. Davis and S. G. Leeds (2019). “Endoscopic Removal of Noneroded Nonadjustable Gastric Bands Using Induced Mucosal Erosion With a Stent, and Review of the Literature.” Surg Innov 26(2): 162-167.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic removal of noneroded nonadjustable gastric bands (NAGBs) may lead to major life-threatening complications. A minimally invasive approach involving endoscopic removal by induced mucosal erosion with a stent (IMES) has been used in a few publications to remove NAGBs. OBJECTIVE: To examine a minimally invasive endoscopic approach to removal of a NAGB. SETTING: A large tertiary/quaternary referral hospital. METHODS: We report 4 patients that underwent IMES at our institution and present a literature review of published cases. The procedure includes using an endoscopically placed fully covered stent through the NAGB stricture to cause erosion of the mucosa where the stent is putting direct pressure. After a predetermined length of time, the stent is removed with the NAGB and without a laparoscopic or open procedure. Primary endpoint for our cohort was successful removal to the NAGB with IMES. Secondary endpoints included interval of time to retrieval of the stent, complications from IMES, presenting symptoms, and type of NAGB. These endpoints were then compared with previous publications indicating the use of IMES. RESULTS: Three of 4 patients were female with a mean age of 64.5 years. All patients had the NAGB successfully removed with IMES. The mean time for NAGB and stent removal after insertion was 17.5 days. No major complications were noted. Two patients had post-IMES strictures and were managed by balloon dilation. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic removal of NAGBs is a safe and feasible procedure for NAGB removal and can be used in place of laparoscopic surgery.

Ward, M. A., T. Hassan, J. S. Burdick and S. G. Leeds (2019). “Endoscopic vacuum assisted wound closure (EVAC) device to treat esophageal and gastric leaks: assessing time to proficiency and cost.” Surg Endosc Feb 11. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVAC) is an emerging procedure used to treat anastomotic leaks and/or perforations that would otherwise require surgery. The aim of this study was to determine time to proficiency in EVAC and the cost effectiveness of the procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained IRB approved database for all patients undergoing EVAC after esophageal and gastric complications between October 2013 and December 2017. Proficiency was determined by obtaining predicted estimates and analyzing the point at which average procedure time plateaued based on case volume. Total cost was calculated based on supplies and location where the procedure was performed. RESULTS: There were 50 patients (17 males, 33 female), with a mean age of 52.1 years. EVAC was placed in 23 (46%) patients with esophageal injuries and 28 (56%) with gastric injuries. Two advanced endoscopists performed all EVAC procedures in this study (1 surgeon, 1 gastroenterologist). The average procedure time for all patients was 43.5 min and the average wheel in/wheel out time for all patients was 75.6 min. Analysis of the trend based on average procedure times for EVAC revealed that proficiency was obtained after 10 cases. Total cost of the procedure is significantly lower in the GI lab compared to the operating room ($4528 vs. $11889). The majority of EVAC were performed in the GI lab (62%) compared to the operating room (38%). CONCLUSION: Successful outcomes in managing anastomotic leaks or intestinal perforations non-operatively has led to an increased interest in EVAC. For advanced endoscopists, time to proficiency is approximately 10 cases. Performing the procedure in the GI lab has a 2.5 reduction in total cost compared to the operating room.

Leeds, S. G., M. Mencio, E. Ontiveros and M. A. Ward (2019). “Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy: How I Do It.” J Gastrointest Surg Jan 22. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Perforations and leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are difficult to manage and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, endoscopic approaches have been applied with varying degrees of success. Most recently, the use of endoluminal vacuum therapy has been used with high success rates in decreasing both morbidity and mortality. Under an IRB-approved prospective registry that we started in July 2013, we have been using endoluminal vacuum therapy to treat a variety of leaks throughout the GI tract. The procedure uses an endosponge connected to a nasogastric tube that is endoscopically guided into a fistula cavity in order to facilitate healing, obtain source control, and aid in reperfusion of the adjacent tissue with debridement. Endoluminal vacuum therapy has been used on all patients in the registry. Overall success rate for healing the leak or fistula is 95% in the esophagus, 83% in the stomach, 100% in the small bowel, and 60% of colorectal cases. The purpose of this report is to review the history of endoluminal wound vacuum therapy, identify appropriate patient selection criteria, and highlight “pearls” of the procedure. This article is written in the context of our own clinical experience, with a primary focus on a “How I Do It” technical description.