Prospective Randomized Comparison of Linear Endostaplers During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Purpose

The development of Laparoscopic Linear Endostaplers (LLES) is crucial in minimally invasive approaches in bariatric surgery, but there have been very few published studies comparing 6-row LLES in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). The objective of this study was to compare two 6-row LLES in LSG.

Methods

A total of 60 patients were prospectively randomized to undergo LSG with either Medtronic Endo GIA? Tri-Staple technology (MTS) or AEON ? Endostapler(Lexington Medical) LLES. The measured parameters included patient demographics, comorbidity indices, LLES and specimen characteristics, postoperative symptoms, hospital stay, and total adverse events (AEs). Intraoperative bleeding was evaluated using five laparoscopic and corresponding endoscopic images of staple line before clip application, compared with a 1–5 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), assessed by an independent bariatric surgeon who was blinded to the LLES used. Images of all cases were reviewed on the same day to increase test–retest reliability.

Results

Both groups were similar in patient demographics. Compared to MTS, AEON LLES group had significantly lower bleeding VAS scores in 4/5 laparoscopic images (pre-pyloric: 1.7?±?0.7 vs. 2.36?±?0.76, p?=?0.0007, mid-sleeve: 1.46?±?0.62 vs. 1.86?±?0.68, p?=?0.019, proximal sleeve: 1.6?±?0.77 vs. 2.0?±?0.83, p?=?0.038, gastro-esophageal junction: 1.43?±?0.67 vs. 1.86?±?0.77, p?=?0.014) and 3/5 endoscopic images (pre-pyloric: 1.56?±?0.56 vs. 2.36?±?0.76, p?=?0.006, incisura: 1.66?±?0.54 vs. 2.0?±?0.52, p?=?0.021, mid-sleeve: 1.63?±?0.49 vs. 2.0?±?0.45, p?=?0.005). There was no statistical difference in other parameters.

Conclusion

Both devices were equally safe and effective in terms of LLES and specimen characteristics, patient symptoms, hospital stay, and AEs. Bleeding VAS scores were significantly lower, favoring the AEON LLES.

Graphical abstract

     

Patient Involvement: A New Source of Stress in Health Care Work?

Patients have become increasingly well informed with higher expectations to be involved in decision-making processes regarding their care and treatment. However, few studies have examined the impact of patient involvement on health care providers’ partnership-building communication. The aim of this study was to measure and explore the self-reported effects of patient involvement on the work of physicians and nurses. A questionnaire survey was distributed among cardiology staff in 12 Swedish hospitals (N = 488, response rate 67%). The sample was comprised of registered nurses (RNs, n = 303), licensed practical nurses (LPNs, n = 132), and physicians (MDs, n = 53). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine seven questionnaire statements concerning implications of patient involvement for one’s clinical work. Regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with staff’s partnership-building communication. Analysis confirmed two distinct factors accounting for 57% of the total variance, representing both negative—“Hassles”—and positive—“Uplifts”—aspects of patient involvement. Regression analyses revealed that only positive aspects (i.e., uplifts) of patient involvement predicted staff behavior aimed at involving patients. Working with actively involved patients may be a source of stress, both negative and positive, for health care professionals. By developing work routines for involving patients in their care, health care workplaces may help health care professionals to buffer the negative effects, and enhance the positive effects, of that stress.     

Maximizing Breast Cancer Therapy with Awareness of Potential Treatment-Related Blood Disorders

In this review we summarize the impact of the various modalities of breast cancer therapy coupled with intrinsic patient factors on incidence of subsequent treatment-induced myelodysplasia and acute myelogenous leukemia (t-MDS/AML). It is clear that risk is increased for patients treated with radiation and chemotherapy at younger ages. Radiation is associated with modest risk, whereas chemotherapy, particularly the combination of an alkylating agent and an anthracycline, carries higher risk and radiation and chemotherapy combined increase the risk markedly. Recently, treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but not pegylated G-CSF, has been identified as a factor associated with increased t-MDS/AML risk. Two newly identified associations may link homologous DNA repair gene deficiency and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment to increased t-MDS/AML risk. When predisposing factors, such as young age, are combined with an increasing number of potentially leukemogenic treatments that may not confer large risk singly, the risk of t-MDS/AML appears to increase. Patient and treatment factors combine to form a biological cascade that can trigger a myelodysplastic event. Patients with breast cancer are often exposed to many of these risk factors in the course of their treatment, and triple-negative patients, who are often younger and/or BRCA positive, are often exposed to all of them. It is important going forward to identify effective therapies without these adverse associated effects and choose existing therapies that minimize the risk of t-MDS/AML without sacrificing therapeutic gain.

Implications for Practice

Breast cancer is far more curable than in the past but requires multimodality treatment. Great care must be taken to use the least leukemogenic treatment programs that do not sacrifice efficacy. Elimination of radiation and anthracycline/alkylating agent regimens will be helpful where possible, particularly in younger patients and possibly those with homologous repair deficiency (HRD). Use of colony-stimulating factors should be limited to those who truly require them for safe chemotherapy administration. Further study of a possible leukemogenic association with HRD and the various forms of colony-stimulating factors is badly needed.