Steven G. Leeds M.D.

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. Jan 23. [Epub ahead of print].

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.

Leeds, S. G., L. Wooley, G. Sankaranarayanan, Y. Daoud, J. Fleshman and S. Chauhan (2017). “Learning Curve Associated With an Automated Laparoscopic Suturing Device Compared With Laparoscopic Suturing.” Surg Innov 24(2): 109-114.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic suturing has proved to be a challenging skill to master which may prevent surgical procedures from being started, or completed, in a minimally invasive fashion. The aim of this study is to compare the learning curves between traditional laparoscopic techniques with a novel suturing device. METHODS: In this prospective single blinded nonrandomized controlled crossover study, we recruited 19 general surgery residents ranging from beginner (PGY1-2, n = 12) to advanced beginner (PGY3-5, n = 7). They were assigned to perform a knot tying and suturing task using either Endo360 or traditional laparoscopic technique (TLT) with needle holders before crossing over to the other method. The proficiency standards were developed by collecting the data for task completion time (TCT in seconds), dots on target (DoT in numbers), and total deviation (D in mm) on 5 expert attending surgeons (mean +/- 2SD). The test subjects were “proficient” when they reached these standards 2 consecutive times. RESULTS: Number of attempts to complete the task was collected for Endo360 and TLT. A significant difference was observed between mean number of attempts to reach proficiency for Endo360 versus TLT ( P = .0027) in both groups combined, but this was not statistically significant in the advanced beginner group. TCT was examined for both methods and demonstrated significantly less time to complete the task for Endo360 versus TLT ( P < .0001). There were significantly less DoT for Endo360 as compared with TLT ( P < .0001), which was also associated with significantly less D ( P < .0001) indicating lower accuracy with Endo360. However, no significant difference was observed between the groups for increasing number of trials for both DoT and D. CONCLUSIONS: This novel suturing device showed a shorter learning curve with regard to number of attempts to complete a task for the beginner group in our study, but matched the learning curve in the advanced beginner group. With regard to time to complete the task, the device was faster in both groups.