Steven G. Leeds M.D.

Hassan, T. M., E. Ontiveros, D. Davis and S. G. Leeds (2018). “Endoscopic Removal of Noneroded Nonadjustable Gastric Bands Using Induced Mucosal Erosion With a Stent, and Review of the Literature.” Surg Innov Dec 25. [Epub ahead of print].

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.

Mustafa, S., E. Handren, D. Farmer, E. Ontiveros, G. O. Ogola and S. G. Leeds (2018). “Robotic Curriculum Enhances Minimally Invasive General Surgery Residents’ Education.” J Surg Educ Sep 12. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVE: Resident education is evolving as more cases move from open to minimally invasive. Many programs struggle to incorporate minimally invasive surgery education due to increased operative time and higher cost when residents participate. The aim of this paper is to examine if the implementation of a robotics curriculum enhances minimally invasive surgical training. DESIGN: A retrospective review of all ventral and inguinal hernia cases performed from March 2013 to November 2017 was conducted to determine operative technique utilized (open, laparoscopic, or robotic) and resident involvement. The study cohorts surrounded the introduction of a robotic curriculum in July 2014, and the time frames examined were labeled as Before-robotic, After-robotic, and re-visited examination was done labeled Long-term. SETTING: The study was performed at a large quaternary care referral center. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were all patients who underwent ventral and inguinal hernia repairs on the general surgery, transplant, or colorectal service. RESULTS: Before-robotic had 739 hernia cases performed: 642 (87%) open, 93 (13%) laparoscopic, and 4 (0.5%) robotic. After-robotic had 682 hernia cases performed: 529 (78%) open, 54 (8%) laparoscopic, and 99 (15%) robotic. Long-term had 792 hernia cases performed: 603 (76%) open, 25 (3%) laparoscopic, and 164 (21%) robotic. The general trend was towards an institutional decrease in open cases and an increase in robotic hernia cases. Resident participation in the robotics cases across all levels increased after the implementation of the robotic curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a robotic curriculum can enhance minimally invasive surgical training experience for general surgery resident education

Still, S., M. Mencio, E. Ontiveros, J. Burdick and S. G. Leeds (2018). “Primary and Rescue Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy in the Management of Esophageal Perforations and Leaks.” Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 24(4): 173-179.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy of primary and rescue endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy in the treatment of esophageal perforations and leaks. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively gathered, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database of EVAC therapy patients at our center from July 2013 to September 2016. RESULTS: In all, 13 patients were treated for esophageal perforations or leaks. Etiologies included iatrogenic injury (n = 8), anastomotic leak (n = 2), Boerhaave syndrome (n = 1), and bronchoesophageal fistula (n = 2). In total, 10 patients underwent primary treatment and three were treated with rescue therapy. Mean Perforation Severity Scores (PSSs) in the primary and rescue treatment groups were 7 and 10, respectively. Average defect size was 2.4 (range: 0.5-6) cm. The rescue group had a shorter mean time to defect closure (25 vs. 33 days). In all, 12 of 13 defects healed. One death occurred following the implementation of comfort care. One therapy-specific complication occurred. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer in the rescue group (72 vs. 53 days); however, the intensive care unit (ICU) duration was similar between groups. Totally, 10 patients (83%) resumed an oral diet after successful defect closure. CONCLUSION: Utilized as either a primary or rescue therapy, EVAC therapy appears to be beneficial in the management of esophageal perforations or leaks.

Still, S., M. Mencio, E. Ontiveros, J. Burdick and S. G. Leeds (2018). “Primary and Rescue Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy in the Management of Esophageal Perforations and Leaks.” Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Jun 7. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy of primary and rescue endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy in the treatment of esophageal perforations and leaks. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively gathered, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database of EVAC therapy patients at our center from July 2013 to September 2016. RESULTS: In all, 13 patients were treated for esophageal perforations or leaks. Etiologies included iatrogenic injury (n = 8), anastomotic leak (n = 2), Boerhaave syndrome (n = 1), and bronchoesophageal fistula (n = 2). In total, 10 patients underwent primary treatment and three were treated with rescue therapy. Mean Perforation Severity Scores (PSSs) in the primary and rescue treatment groups were 7 and 10, respectively. Average defect size was 2.4 (range: 0.5-6) cm. The rescue group had a shorter mean time to defect closure (25 vs. 33 days). In all, 12 of 13 defects healed. One death occurred following the implementation of comfort care. One therapy-specific complication occurred. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer in the rescue group (72 vs. 53 days); however, the intensive care unit (ICU) duration was similar between groups. Totally, 10 patients (83%) resumed an oral diet after successful defect closure. CONCLUSION: Utilized as either a primary or rescue therapy, EVAC therapy appears to be beneficial in the management of esophageal perforations or leaks.

Mencio, M. A., E. Ontiveros, J. S. Burdick and S. G. Leeds (2018). “Use of a novel technique to manage gastrointestinal leaks with endoluminal negative pressure: a single institution experience.” Surg Endosc 32(7): 3349-3356.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Perforations and anastomotic leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are severe complications, which carry high morbidity and mortality and management of these is a multi-disciplinary challenge. The use of endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy has recently proven to be a useful technique to manage these complications. We report our institution’s experience with this novel technique in the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of an IRB approved registry of all EVAC therapy patients from July 2013 to December 2016. A total of 55 patients were examined and 49 patients were eligible for inclusion: 15 esophageal, 21 gastric, 3 small bowel, and 10 colorectal defects. The primary endpoint was closure rate of the GI tract defect with EVAC therapy. RESULTS: Fifteen (100%) esophageal defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 27 days consisting of an average of 6 endosponge changes every 4.8 days. Eighteen (86%) gastric defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 38 days with a mean of 9 endosponge changes every 5.3 days. Three (100%) small bowel defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 13.7 days with a mean of 2.7 endosponge changes every 4.4 days. Six (60%) colorectal defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 23.2 days, consisting of a mean of 6 endosponge changes every 4.0 days. There were two deaths, which were not directly related to EVAC therapy and occurred outside the measured 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates that EVAC therapy is feasible and effective for the management of gastrointestinal perforations/leaks throughout the GI tract and can be considered as a safe alternative to surgical intervention in select cases.