HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01. Published in final edited form as: Am Surg. 2016 April ; 82(4): 337–342.
Mini-laparotomy with Adjunctive Care versus Laparoscopy for Placement of Gastric Electrical Stimulation ALISON SMITH, M.D.*, ROBERT CACCHIONE, M.D.†, ED MILLER, M.D.*, LINDSAY McELMURRAY*, ROBERT ALLEN, M.D.‡, ABIGAIL STOCKER, M.D.*, THOMAS L. ABELL, M.D.*, and MICHAEL G. HUGHES Jr.†
Author Manuscript
*Department
of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
†Department
of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
‡Anesthesiology,
KentuckyOne Health, Louisville, Kentucky
Abstract
Author Manuscript
We compared outcomes for two gastric electrical stimulation placement strategies, minilaparotomy with adjunctive care (MLAC) versus laparoscopy without adjunctive care (LAPA). For electrode placement, the peritoneal cavity was accessed with either a single 2.5 to 3.0 cm midline incision (MLAC) or three trocar incisions (LAPA). For both groups, generator was placed subcutaneously over the anterior rectus sheath. For MLAC, adjunctive pain control measures were used for placement of both electrode and generator (transversus abdominus plane block). For LAPA, those that could not be completed by laparoscopy were converted to traditional open approach and kept in the analysis. MLAC (n = 128) resulted in shorter operative times than LAPA (n = 37) (median operative time: 87.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01). Hospital length of stay was also shorter for MLAC than for LAPA (median: 2.0 vs 3.0 days, P ≤ 0.01) without any increase in readmission rates to the hospital within 30 days of discharge (11.0 vs 16.2%, P = 0.39). After equalizing learning curves, these differences were even greater (median operative time: 84.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P < 0.01; median length of stay: 1.0 vs 3.0 days; P < 0.01) without increasing 30day readmission rates (9.1 vs 16.2%, P = 0.25). For implantation of gastric electrical stimulators, mini-laparotomy can result in improved outcomes when coupled with adjunctive pain control measures.
Author Manuscript
Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has been used extensively for the treatment of patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis,1–4 but little data exist on short-term outcome such as postoperative hospital lengths of stay (LOS). We have previously shown that hospital LOS for GES implantation varies with type of surgery and perioperative care.5 We now compare
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Michael G. Hughes, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Center for Predictive Medicine, University of Louisville, KentuckyOne Health, Louisville, KY 40202. [email protected]. Dr. Abell has been a consultant, investigator and former licensor to Medtronic. Certain aspects of temporary gastric electrical stimulation are covered by intellectual property from the University of Mississippi, now assigned to ADEPT-GI. Presented at the Academic Surgical Congress February 3, 2015, at Las Vegas, Nevada. Design, data analysis, and preparation of manuscript by AS; Patient recruitment and surgical procedures by BC; Design, data analysis, and preparation of manuscript by EM; Data acquisition by LM; Patient recruitment by RA and AS; Design, data review, and preparation of manuscript by TA; Design, patient recruitment, surgical procedures, and manuscript preparation by MH.
SMITH et al.
Page 2
Author Manuscript
outcomes for GES via minilaparotomy with adjunctive care (MLAC) versus laparoscopy without adjunctive care (LAPA) to measure equivalency.
Methods Patient Selection Patients were evaluated with baseline standardized solid gastric emptying tests6 and underwent pre-operative temporary endoscopic GES in both groups before permanent implant. Only patients responsive to temporary endoscopic GES, which included assessment of symptoms, gastric emptying, and gastric electrical activity,7 underwent permanent GES placement.8 The permanent GES system includes intramuscular electrodes and a battery pack with device and received United States Food and Drug Administration approval as a Humanitarian Use Device in 2000.9, 10
Author Manuscript
Adjunctive Pain Control Measures
Author Manuscript
Two different methods were used to locally control pain and thereby limit need for systemic narcotics. Limiting the need for narcotics was the primary goal of these measures as narcotics may worsen gastroparesis and limit the response to GES. To control pain associated with generator placement, transversus abdominus plane (TAP) block was performed before incision was made with bupivacaine liposome (Exparel, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Parsippany, NJ). To control pain associated with transperitoneal incisions, a pain control system (OnQ Pain Buster PostOp Pain Relief System, I-Flow LLC, Irvine, CA) was placed in the preperitoneum to either side of the wound. The system was loaded with 750 cc of 0.2 per cent ropivacaine and each of the two catheters was set to run at 5 cc/h. The system was removed when empty, typically by patients after discharge. TAP block could not be used alone as it would not cover the subxiphoid laparotomy incision and OnQ could not be used alone as the catheters were not long enough to cover both incisions. Laparoscopy without Adjunctive Care Both strategies for GES placement represent single surgeon experiences. The first cohort of patients was primarily approached with laparoscopy with conversion to open laparotomy if the laparoscopic approach was not feasible. No adjunctive pain control measures were used. Three trocars were used, with one lengthened at the skin level for generator placement. Minilaparotomy with Adjunctive Care
Author Manuscript
The second cohort of patients followed the first as the program transitioned from one surgeon (RC) to another (MH). Patients with MLAC had preoperative TAP block to cover the area of generator placement as the operatively placed pain system (OnQ) could not cover both areas. Laparotomy was performed through a 2.5 to 3.0 cm midline incision and lengthened only if needed for adhesiolysis. If the ribs were widely spaced away from midline, then the incision was made just below the xiphoid process. If the ribs were narrowly spaced close to midline, then the incision was made up to 3 cm below the xiphoid process. Retraction was provided by disposable wound protractor (Alexis Wound Protractor/Retractor (small), Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) that typically lengthened the wound
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
to approximately 4 to 5 cm (Fig. 1). A long 5-mm trocar was used to tunnel the electrodes from the subcutaneous periumbilical pocket to the wound protractor opening. Additional Measures Both operative approaches allowed for the recording of gastric electrical activity using both the permanent and temporary electrodes. The use of two electrodes intraoperatively allows for low-resolution gastric mapping. Outcome Measures
Author Manuscript
Health-related quality of life was measured by investigator-derived independent outcome measure score (IDIOMS)11 at baseline. Follow-up gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were recorded at baseline. Results were reported as median or mean ± standard deviation and were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Student’s t test, respectively. LOS was reported as median because means were not normally distributed.
Results Patient Characteristics
Author Manuscript
For the first cohort of patients (LAPA), 188 underwent surgery by a single surgeon from April 2002 to April 2013, of these, 151 cases were performed at another institution and were not available for this analysis. The learning curve for this surgeon was therefore not considered. Of the remaining 37 cases that were used for this analysis, 4 were converted to open. For the second cohort of patients (MLAC), 128 patients underwent surgery by a second surgeon from June 2013 to December 2014. All these cases were performed at the same institution as the 37 LAPA cases. Therefore, the learning curve was included, unlike for the LAPA group. The two groups were similar in age (44 ± 14 years old for MLAC vs 42 ± 14 years old for LAPA, P =0.40), gender (81.2% female for MLAC vs 91.9% female for LAPA, P =0.43), and baseline GI total symptom scores (15.2 ± 3.4 for MLAC vs 14.8 ± 4.1 for LAPA, P = 0.54). The etiologies of gastroparesis were: idiopathic (MLAC 64.0% and LAPA 45.9%), diabetic (MLAC 23.5% and LAPA 29.8%), and postsurgical (MLAC 12.5% and LAPA 24.3%). Outcomes Data
Author Manuscript
MLAC cases were shorter than LAPA cases (median operative time: 87.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01) (Fig. 2A). As the surgeon placed the pain control system, this additional procedure was accounted for in the operative time. The TAP block performed by the anesthesiologist did not significantly prolong anesthesia only time (total anesthesia time minus operative time, median: 45.5 vs 38.0 minutes; P =0.14). Hospital LOS was significantly shorter for MLAC than for LAPA (median: 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P ≤ 0.01) (Fig. 2B) without any increase in readmission rates to the hospital within 30 days of discharge (11.0 vs 16.2%; P = 0.39). Learning-curve-censured Outcomes Data As the LAPA surgeon’s learning curve likely occurred during the 151 cases performed at his prior institution and was therefore not accounted for in the analysis, the MLAC surgeon’s
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
learning curve was characterized for both operative time (Fig. 3A) and LOS (Fig. 3B). As the decreasing trend in median operative time and LOS appeared to stabilize after 40 cases, these cases were excluded and are reported as learning-curve-censured data (MLAC-LCC). After the first 40 cases, there was also less variability in operative time and LOS. With the learning-curve-censured data, operative time and LOS were reduced even further for MLAC-LCC compared with LAPA [operative time, median: 84.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01 (Fig. 2A); LOS, median: 1.0 vs 3.0 days, P ≤ 0.01 (Fig. 2B)]. Again, no differences in anesthesia only time was observed (median: 44.5 vs 38.0 minutes; P = 0.13). Readmission (30 day) rates for MLAC-LCC were again statistically similar in this group compared to LAPA (median: 9.1 vs 16.2%; P = 0.25) though the MLAC-LCC readmission rate decreased even further.
Author Manuscript
Baseline GI symptoms (vomiting, nausea, anorexia, bloating, and pain) were equivalent in the two groups (P > 0.05); however, there were statistically significant differences in baseline IDIOMS scoring (Table 1). In the MLAC group, patients had lower baseline IDIOMS (MLAC 19.7 ± 3.5, LAPA 21.2 ± 3.7; P = 0.028) and severity of illness (MLAC 7.8 ± 1.2, LAPA 8.4 ± 1.3; P ≤ 0.01) scores, both of which represent lower degree of severity. In the learning-curve-censured group, there were also lower baseline IDIOMS (MLAC-LCC 19.3 ± 3.1; P ≤ 0.01) and severity of illness (MLAC-LCC 7.4 ± 1.1; P ≤ 0.01) scores, as well as lower baseline intensity of service scores (MLAC-LCC 6.4 ± 1.9, LAPA 7.2 ± 2.4; P = 0.05). From the available data, there were 11 IDIOMS scores missing from the MLAC group.
Discussion Author Manuscript
The current study shows that the strategy of MLAC is a reasonable alternative to LAPA. MLAC has been shown here to shorten operative times and LOS without increasing readmission rates. Although these two operative approaches represent contrasting practices of two surgeons, it unlikely that this work is showing surgeon-specific differences: both approaches are straightforward with relatively short operative times. Any surgeon, particularly one accustomed to caring for chronically ill patients, could likely adopt either approach. These adjunctive measures are unlikely to impact laparoscopic cases (though not studied) as trocar sites were too far apart to be effectively covered by the pain control system.
Author Manuscript
Although the learning curve presented here appeared to end at about 40 cases, several technical points can be made to help shorten this for others. First, midline incision placement was varied based on angle of the patient’s costal margin. If the costal margin is steep, then the left lobe of the liver will block access to the antrum when the incision is made immediately below the xiphoid. Second, when tunneling the trocar through the abdominal wall, the fascia was pierced in the midline to avoid penetrating the rectus muscle, which can help avoid several weeks to months of abdominal wall spasm. Third, close attention was paid to the location of the “soaker hose” portion of pain control system (OnQ) catheters. The catheters should lay directly lateral to the wound on either side, as placement too far distally will result in increased pain. Also, pulling the catheters out too proximally
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
will result in leakage from the exit site rather than to the wound even if sealed in place with a tissue adhesive. Fourth, intravenous non-narcotic pain medications were preferentially used (e.g., ketorolac and acetaminophen) as narcotics exacerbate gastroparesis. Fifth, the skin incision for generator placement was placed transversely midway between costal margin and the anterior superior iliac spine. The device was secured at its inferior margin allowing for rotation away from the ribs when the patient flexes at the hip. Although the use of laparoscopy versus traditional surgical approaches5 showed that laparoscopy shortened postoperative LOS, these data show that mini-laparotomy with ancillary measures is shorter still than laparoscopy. The reason for this shorter LOS is most likely attributable to better control of postoperative pain. Although the placement of GES devices can in some cases help with the long-term treatment of abdominal pain,12 both groups should have benefitted equally from the placement of GES devices.
Author Manuscript
The placement of temporary GES devices, pre-operatively, can help with the selection of patients who may respond to permanent GES.13, 14 In this study, both groups had preoperative placement of a temporary device, and thus should have responded equally. Although the mechanism of GES is still debated, one mechanism may be that of normalization of gastric electrical dysrhythmias.15, 16 As with other factors, the possible effects of GES on gastric electrical abnormalities should be the same in each group.
Author Manuscript
The demographics and etiology of the patients’ illness were similar between both groups at baseline. There was a small but statistically significant difference in health-related quality of life between the two groups at baseline with the patients who underwent minilaparotomy with ancillary treatments being slightly less severe. However, all patients were quite significantly symptomatic and had complex illnesses17 and thus the underlying illnesses appear unlikely to explain the differences in postoperative LOS.18 Our next step will be to selectively perform these cases on an outpatient basis. We have found that non-obese, opioid naïve patients with no prior gastric surgery may not need an overnight admission; however, some do. Therefore, adequate safety measures such as a hotel nearby and a clinic visit the next morning are essential for caring for such chronically ill patients. Furthermore, setting consistent and reasonable expectations for the patients facilitates their adherence to the treatment plan since chronically ill patients may have decreased emotional reserve and may exhibit dysfunctional behavior if there is little structure to the program. Although the operation is not usually technically challenging, patient care before and after the procedure can be demanding on both patients and providers.
Author Manuscript
Conclusion For implantation of gastric electrical stimulators in this group of patients with gastroparesis, minilaparotomy is as effective in improving symptoms as laparoscopic implantation and can result in shorter LOS when coupled with adjunctive measures to limit incision size and relieve pain.
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments There was no external funding for this manuscript. Patient care funding covered all procedures. Departmental funds were used for manuscript preparation. We would like to thank the surgical teams, the hospital staff, the Jewish Hospital GI Motility Clinic, and the University of Louisville Surgery Clinic. Catherine McBride assisted with manuscript formatting and submission.
References
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
1. Gourcerol G, Huet E, Vandaele N, et al. Long term efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation in intractable nausea and vomiting. Dig Liver Dis. 2012; 44:563–8. [PubMed: 22387288] 2. Anand C, Al-Juburi A, Familoni B, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation is safe and effective: a longterm study in patients with drug-refractory gastroparesis in three regional centers. Digestion. 2007; 75:83–9. [PubMed: 17519527] 3. McCallum RW, Lin Z, Forster J, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation improves outcomes of patients with gastroparesis for up to 10 years. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 9:314–9. e311. [PubMed: 21185396] 4. Camilleri M, Parkman HP, Shafi MA, et al. Clinical guideline: management of gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013; 108:18–37. quiz 38. [PubMed: 23147521] 5. Al-Juburi A, Granger S, Barnes J, et al. Laparoscopy shortens length of stay in patients with gastric electrical stimulators. JSLS. 2005; 9:305–10. [PubMed: 16121877] 6. Tougas G, Huizinga JD. Gastric pacing as a treatment for intractable gastroparesis: shocking news? Gastroenterology. 1998; 114:598–601. [PubMed: 9496952] 7. Familoni BO, Abell TL, Gan Z, et al. Driving gastric electrical activity with electrical stimulation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2005; 33:356–64. [PubMed: 15868726] 8. Familoni BO, Abell TL, Voeller G, et al. Electrical stimulation at a frequency higher than basal rate in human stomach. Dig Dis Sci. 1997; 42:885–91. [PubMed: 9149038] 9. Abell TL, Van Cutsem E, Abrahamsson H, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation in intractable symptomatic gastroparesis. Digestion. 2002; 66:204–12. [PubMed: 12592096] 10. Abell T, McCallum R, Hocking M, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for medically refractory gastroparesis. Gastroenterology. 2003; 125:421–8. [PubMed: 12891544] 11. Cutts TF, Luo J, Starkebaum W, et al. Is gastric electrical stimulation superior to standard pharmacologic therapy in improving GI symptoms, healthcare resources, and long-term health care benefits? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005; 17:35–43. [PubMed: 15670262] 12. Lahr CJ, Griffith J, Subramony C, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for abdominal pain in patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Am Surg. 2013; 79:457–64. [PubMed: 23635579] 13. Daram SR, Tang SJ, Vick K, et al. Novel application of GI electrical stimulation in Roux stasis syndrome (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74:683–6. [PubMed: 21872718] 14. Daram SR, Tang SJ, Abell TL. Video: temporary gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis: endoscopic placement of electrodes (ENDOstim). Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:3444–5. [PubMed: 21556999] 15. O’Grady G, Angeli TR, Du P, et al. Abnormal initiation and conduction of slow-wave activity in gastroparesis, defined by high-resolution electrical mapping. Gastroenterology. 2012; 143:589–98. e581–583. [PubMed: 22643349] 16. Williams PA, Nikitina Y, Kedar A, et al. Long-term effects of gastric stimulation on gastric electrical physiology. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013; 17:50–5. discussion 55–6. [PubMed: 22956404] 17. Abell TL, Familoni B, Voeller G, et al. Electrophysiologic, morphologic, and serologic features of chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting: lessons learned from 121 consecutive patients. Surgery. 2009; 145:476–85. [PubMed: 19375605] 18. Soffer E, Abell T, Lin Z, et al. Review article: gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis— physiological foundations, technical aspects and clinical implications. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 30:681–94. [PubMed: 19573170]
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Fig. 1.
Author Manuscript
(A) Wound protractor in place and electrodes tunneled using a 5-mm laparoscopic trocar. (B) Incisions closed after protractor removal and pain system placement.
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 8
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Fig. 2.
(A) Median operative time and (B) LOS for MLAC (learning curve included) and LAPA groups (left) and MLAC-LCC (learning-curve-censored) and LAPA groups (right). For both comparisons, the LAPA group did not include surgeon learning curve.
Author Manuscript Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 9
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Fig. 3.
Learning curve associated with MLAC for both (A) operative time and (B) LOS.
Author Manuscript Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript 7.8 ± 1.2 5.4 ± 1.2 6.5 ± 2.2 19.7 ± 3.5
Severity of illness
Organ systems involved
Intensity of service
Total IDIOMS score
19.3 ± 3.1
6.4 ± 1.9
5.4 ± 1.2
7.4 ± 1.1
14.2 ± 3.3
3.1 ± 1.1
2.9 ± 1.2
2.9 ± 1.1
3.0 ± 0.9
2.3 ± 1.4
79.5
44 ± 15
MLAC-LCC
21.2 ± 3.7
7.2 ± 2.4
5.5 ± 1.0
8.4 ± 1.3
14.8 ± 4.1
2.9 ± 1.4
2.9 ± 1.3
3.3 ± 1.0
3.4 ± 1.0
2.4 ± 1.4
91.9
42 ± 14.2
LAPA
0.03
0.09
0.62
0.01
0.54
0.08
0.40
0.32
0.60
0.61
0.43
0.40
MLAC vs LAPA
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01. Published in final edited form as: Am Surg. 2016 April ; 82(4): 337–342.
Mini-laparotomy with Adjunctive Care versus Laparoscopy for Placement of Gastric Electrical Stimulation ALISON SMITH, M.D.*, ROBERT CACCHIONE, M.D.†, ED MILLER, M.D.*, LINDSAY McELMURRAY*, ROBERT ALLEN, M.D.‡, ABIGAIL STOCKER, M.D.*, THOMAS L. ABELL, M.D.*, and MICHAEL G. HUGHES Jr.†
Author Manuscript
*Department
of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
†Department
of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
‡Anesthesiology,
KentuckyOne Health, Louisville, Kentucky
Abstract
Author Manuscript
We compared outcomes for two gastric electrical stimulation placement strategies, minilaparotomy with adjunctive care (MLAC) versus laparoscopy without adjunctive care (LAPA). For electrode placement, the peritoneal cavity was accessed with either a single 2.5 to 3.0 cm midline incision (MLAC) or three trocar incisions (LAPA). For both groups, generator was placed subcutaneously over the anterior rectus sheath. For MLAC, adjunctive pain control measures were used for placement of both electrode and generator (transversus abdominus plane block). For LAPA, those that could not be completed by laparoscopy were converted to traditional open approach and kept in the analysis. MLAC (n = 128) resulted in shorter operative times than LAPA (n = 37) (median operative time: 87.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01). Hospital length of stay was also shorter for MLAC than for LAPA (median: 2.0 vs 3.0 days, P ≤ 0.01) without any increase in readmission rates to the hospital within 30 days of discharge (11.0 vs 16.2%, P = 0.39). After equalizing learning curves, these differences were even greater (median operative time: 84.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P < 0.01; median length of stay: 1.0 vs 3.0 days; P < 0.01) without increasing 30day readmission rates (9.1 vs 16.2%, P = 0.25). For implantation of gastric electrical stimulators, mini-laparotomy can result in improved outcomes when coupled with adjunctive pain control measures.
Author Manuscript
Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has been used extensively for the treatment of patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis,1–4 but little data exist on short-term outcome such as postoperative hospital lengths of stay (LOS). We have previously shown that hospital LOS for GES implantation varies with type of surgery and perioperative care.5 We now compare
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Michael G. Hughes, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Center for Predictive Medicine, University of Louisville, KentuckyOne Health, Louisville, KY 40202. [email protected]. Dr. Abell has been a consultant, investigator and former licensor to Medtronic. Certain aspects of temporary gastric electrical stimulation are covered by intellectual property from the University of Mississippi, now assigned to ADEPT-GI. Presented at the Academic Surgical Congress February 3, 2015, at Las Vegas, Nevada. Design, data analysis, and preparation of manuscript by AS; Patient recruitment and surgical procedures by BC; Design, data analysis, and preparation of manuscript by EM; Data acquisition by LM; Patient recruitment by RA and AS; Design, data review, and preparation of manuscript by TA; Design, patient recruitment, surgical procedures, and manuscript preparation by MH.
SMITH et al.
Page 2
Author Manuscript
outcomes for GES via minilaparotomy with adjunctive care (MLAC) versus laparoscopy without adjunctive care (LAPA) to measure equivalency.
Methods Patient Selection Patients were evaluated with baseline standardized solid gastric emptying tests6 and underwent pre-operative temporary endoscopic GES in both groups before permanent implant. Only patients responsive to temporary endoscopic GES, which included assessment of symptoms, gastric emptying, and gastric electrical activity,7 underwent permanent GES placement.8 The permanent GES system includes intramuscular electrodes and a battery pack with device and received United States Food and Drug Administration approval as a Humanitarian Use Device in 2000.9, 10
Author Manuscript
Adjunctive Pain Control Measures
Author Manuscript
Two different methods were used to locally control pain and thereby limit need for systemic narcotics. Limiting the need for narcotics was the primary goal of these measures as narcotics may worsen gastroparesis and limit the response to GES. To control pain associated with generator placement, transversus abdominus plane (TAP) block was performed before incision was made with bupivacaine liposome (Exparel, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Parsippany, NJ). To control pain associated with transperitoneal incisions, a pain control system (OnQ Pain Buster PostOp Pain Relief System, I-Flow LLC, Irvine, CA) was placed in the preperitoneum to either side of the wound. The system was loaded with 750 cc of 0.2 per cent ropivacaine and each of the two catheters was set to run at 5 cc/h. The system was removed when empty, typically by patients after discharge. TAP block could not be used alone as it would not cover the subxiphoid laparotomy incision and OnQ could not be used alone as the catheters were not long enough to cover both incisions. Laparoscopy without Adjunctive Care Both strategies for GES placement represent single surgeon experiences. The first cohort of patients was primarily approached with laparoscopy with conversion to open laparotomy if the laparoscopic approach was not feasible. No adjunctive pain control measures were used. Three trocars were used, with one lengthened at the skin level for generator placement. Minilaparotomy with Adjunctive Care
Author Manuscript
The second cohort of patients followed the first as the program transitioned from one surgeon (RC) to another (MH). Patients with MLAC had preoperative TAP block to cover the area of generator placement as the operatively placed pain system (OnQ) could not cover both areas. Laparotomy was performed through a 2.5 to 3.0 cm midline incision and lengthened only if needed for adhesiolysis. If the ribs were widely spaced away from midline, then the incision was made just below the xiphoid process. If the ribs were narrowly spaced close to midline, then the incision was made up to 3 cm below the xiphoid process. Retraction was provided by disposable wound protractor (Alexis Wound Protractor/Retractor (small), Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) that typically lengthened the wound
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
to approximately 4 to 5 cm (Fig. 1). A long 5-mm trocar was used to tunnel the electrodes from the subcutaneous periumbilical pocket to the wound protractor opening. Additional Measures Both operative approaches allowed for the recording of gastric electrical activity using both the permanent and temporary electrodes. The use of two electrodes intraoperatively allows for low-resolution gastric mapping. Outcome Measures
Author Manuscript
Health-related quality of life was measured by investigator-derived independent outcome measure score (IDIOMS)11 at baseline. Follow-up gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were recorded at baseline. Results were reported as median or mean ± standard deviation and were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Student’s t test, respectively. LOS was reported as median because means were not normally distributed.
Results Patient Characteristics
Author Manuscript
For the first cohort of patients (LAPA), 188 underwent surgery by a single surgeon from April 2002 to April 2013, of these, 151 cases were performed at another institution and were not available for this analysis. The learning curve for this surgeon was therefore not considered. Of the remaining 37 cases that were used for this analysis, 4 were converted to open. For the second cohort of patients (MLAC), 128 patients underwent surgery by a second surgeon from June 2013 to December 2014. All these cases were performed at the same institution as the 37 LAPA cases. Therefore, the learning curve was included, unlike for the LAPA group. The two groups were similar in age (44 ± 14 years old for MLAC vs 42 ± 14 years old for LAPA, P =0.40), gender (81.2% female for MLAC vs 91.9% female for LAPA, P =0.43), and baseline GI total symptom scores (15.2 ± 3.4 for MLAC vs 14.8 ± 4.1 for LAPA, P = 0.54). The etiologies of gastroparesis were: idiopathic (MLAC 64.0% and LAPA 45.9%), diabetic (MLAC 23.5% and LAPA 29.8%), and postsurgical (MLAC 12.5% and LAPA 24.3%). Outcomes Data
Author Manuscript
MLAC cases were shorter than LAPA cases (median operative time: 87.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01) (Fig. 2A). As the surgeon placed the pain control system, this additional procedure was accounted for in the operative time. The TAP block performed by the anesthesiologist did not significantly prolong anesthesia only time (total anesthesia time minus operative time, median: 45.5 vs 38.0 minutes; P =0.14). Hospital LOS was significantly shorter for MLAC than for LAPA (median: 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P ≤ 0.01) (Fig. 2B) without any increase in readmission rates to the hospital within 30 days of discharge (11.0 vs 16.2%; P = 0.39). Learning-curve-censured Outcomes Data As the LAPA surgeon’s learning curve likely occurred during the 151 cases performed at his prior institution and was therefore not accounted for in the analysis, the MLAC surgeon’s
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
learning curve was characterized for both operative time (Fig. 3A) and LOS (Fig. 3B). As the decreasing trend in median operative time and LOS appeared to stabilize after 40 cases, these cases were excluded and are reported as learning-curve-censured data (MLAC-LCC). After the first 40 cases, there was also less variability in operative time and LOS. With the learning-curve-censured data, operative time and LOS were reduced even further for MLAC-LCC compared with LAPA [operative time, median: 84.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01 (Fig. 2A); LOS, median: 1.0 vs 3.0 days, P ≤ 0.01 (Fig. 2B)]. Again, no differences in anesthesia only time was observed (median: 44.5 vs 38.0 minutes; P = 0.13). Readmission (30 day) rates for MLAC-LCC were again statistically similar in this group compared to LAPA (median: 9.1 vs 16.2%; P = 0.25) though the MLAC-LCC readmission rate decreased even further.
Author Manuscript
Baseline GI symptoms (vomiting, nausea, anorexia, bloating, and pain) were equivalent in the two groups (P > 0.05); however, there were statistically significant differences in baseline IDIOMS scoring (Table 1). In the MLAC group, patients had lower baseline IDIOMS (MLAC 19.7 ± 3.5, LAPA 21.2 ± 3.7; P = 0.028) and severity of illness (MLAC 7.8 ± 1.2, LAPA 8.4 ± 1.3; P ≤ 0.01) scores, both of which represent lower degree of severity. In the learning-curve-censured group, there were also lower baseline IDIOMS (MLAC-LCC 19.3 ± 3.1; P ≤ 0.01) and severity of illness (MLAC-LCC 7.4 ± 1.1; P ≤ 0.01) scores, as well as lower baseline intensity of service scores (MLAC-LCC 6.4 ± 1.9, LAPA 7.2 ± 2.4; P = 0.05). From the available data, there were 11 IDIOMS scores missing from the MLAC group.
Discussion Author Manuscript
The current study shows that the strategy of MLAC is a reasonable alternative to LAPA. MLAC has been shown here to shorten operative times and LOS without increasing readmission rates. Although these two operative approaches represent contrasting practices of two surgeons, it unlikely that this work is showing surgeon-specific differences: both approaches are straightforward with relatively short operative times. Any surgeon, particularly one accustomed to caring for chronically ill patients, could likely adopt either approach. These adjunctive measures are unlikely to impact laparoscopic cases (though not studied) as trocar sites were too far apart to be effectively covered by the pain control system.
Author Manuscript
Although the learning curve presented here appeared to end at about 40 cases, several technical points can be made to help shorten this for others. First, midline incision placement was varied based on angle of the patient’s costal margin. If the costal margin is steep, then the left lobe of the liver will block access to the antrum when the incision is made immediately below the xiphoid. Second, when tunneling the trocar through the abdominal wall, the fascia was pierced in the midline to avoid penetrating the rectus muscle, which can help avoid several weeks to months of abdominal wall spasm. Third, close attention was paid to the location of the “soaker hose” portion of pain control system (OnQ) catheters. The catheters should lay directly lateral to the wound on either side, as placement too far distally will result in increased pain. Also, pulling the catheters out too proximally
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
will result in leakage from the exit site rather than to the wound even if sealed in place with a tissue adhesive. Fourth, intravenous non-narcotic pain medications were preferentially used (e.g., ketorolac and acetaminophen) as narcotics exacerbate gastroparesis. Fifth, the skin incision for generator placement was placed transversely midway between costal margin and the anterior superior iliac spine. The device was secured at its inferior margin allowing for rotation away from the ribs when the patient flexes at the hip. Although the use of laparoscopy versus traditional surgical approaches5 showed that laparoscopy shortened postoperative LOS, these data show that mini-laparotomy with ancillary measures is shorter still than laparoscopy. The reason for this shorter LOS is most likely attributable to better control of postoperative pain. Although the placement of GES devices can in some cases help with the long-term treatment of abdominal pain,12 both groups should have benefitted equally from the placement of GES devices.
Author Manuscript
The placement of temporary GES devices, pre-operatively, can help with the selection of patients who may respond to permanent GES.13, 14 In this study, both groups had preoperative placement of a temporary device, and thus should have responded equally. Although the mechanism of GES is still debated, one mechanism may be that of normalization of gastric electrical dysrhythmias.15, 16 As with other factors, the possible effects of GES on gastric electrical abnormalities should be the same in each group.
Author Manuscript
The demographics and etiology of the patients’ illness were similar between both groups at baseline. There was a small but statistically significant difference in health-related quality of life between the two groups at baseline with the patients who underwent minilaparotomy with ancillary treatments being slightly less severe. However, all patients were quite significantly symptomatic and had complex illnesses17 and thus the underlying illnesses appear unlikely to explain the differences in postoperative LOS.18 Our next step will be to selectively perform these cases on an outpatient basis. We have found that non-obese, opioid naïve patients with no prior gastric surgery may not need an overnight admission; however, some do. Therefore, adequate safety measures such as a hotel nearby and a clinic visit the next morning are essential for caring for such chronically ill patients. Furthermore, setting consistent and reasonable expectations for the patients facilitates their adherence to the treatment plan since chronically ill patients may have decreased emotional reserve and may exhibit dysfunctional behavior if there is little structure to the program. Although the operation is not usually technically challenging, patient care before and after the procedure can be demanding on both patients and providers.
Author Manuscript
Conclusion For implantation of gastric electrical stimulators in this group of patients with gastroparesis, minilaparotomy is as effective in improving symptoms as laparoscopic implantation and can result in shorter LOS when coupled with adjunctive measures to limit incision size and relieve pain.
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments There was no external funding for this manuscript. Patient care funding covered all procedures. Departmental funds were used for manuscript preparation. We would like to thank the surgical teams, the hospital staff, the Jewish Hospital GI Motility Clinic, and the University of Louisville Surgery Clinic. Catherine McBride assisted with manuscript formatting and submission.
References
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
1. Gourcerol G, Huet E, Vandaele N, et al. Long term efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation in intractable nausea and vomiting. Dig Liver Dis. 2012; 44:563–8. [PubMed: 22387288] 2. Anand C, Al-Juburi A, Familoni B, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation is safe and effective: a longterm study in patients with drug-refractory gastroparesis in three regional centers. Digestion. 2007; 75:83–9. [PubMed: 17519527] 3. McCallum RW, Lin Z, Forster J, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation improves outcomes of patients with gastroparesis for up to 10 years. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 9:314–9. e311. [PubMed: 21185396] 4. Camilleri M, Parkman HP, Shafi MA, et al. Clinical guideline: management of gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013; 108:18–37. quiz 38. [PubMed: 23147521] 5. Al-Juburi A, Granger S, Barnes J, et al. Laparoscopy shortens length of stay in patients with gastric electrical stimulators. JSLS. 2005; 9:305–10. [PubMed: 16121877] 6. Tougas G, Huizinga JD. Gastric pacing as a treatment for intractable gastroparesis: shocking news? Gastroenterology. 1998; 114:598–601. [PubMed: 9496952] 7. Familoni BO, Abell TL, Gan Z, et al. Driving gastric electrical activity with electrical stimulation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2005; 33:356–64. [PubMed: 15868726] 8. Familoni BO, Abell TL, Voeller G, et al. Electrical stimulation at a frequency higher than basal rate in human stomach. Dig Dis Sci. 1997; 42:885–91. [PubMed: 9149038] 9. Abell TL, Van Cutsem E, Abrahamsson H, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation in intractable symptomatic gastroparesis. Digestion. 2002; 66:204–12. [PubMed: 12592096] 10. Abell T, McCallum R, Hocking M, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for medically refractory gastroparesis. Gastroenterology. 2003; 125:421–8. [PubMed: 12891544] 11. Cutts TF, Luo J, Starkebaum W, et al. Is gastric electrical stimulation superior to standard pharmacologic therapy in improving GI symptoms, healthcare resources, and long-term health care benefits? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005; 17:35–43. [PubMed: 15670262] 12. Lahr CJ, Griffith J, Subramony C, et al. Gastric electrical stimulation for abdominal pain in patients with symptoms of gastroparesis. Am Surg. 2013; 79:457–64. [PubMed: 23635579] 13. Daram SR, Tang SJ, Vick K, et al. Novel application of GI electrical stimulation in Roux stasis syndrome (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74:683–6. [PubMed: 21872718] 14. Daram SR, Tang SJ, Abell TL. Video: temporary gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis: endoscopic placement of electrodes (ENDOstim). Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:3444–5. [PubMed: 21556999] 15. O’Grady G, Angeli TR, Du P, et al. Abnormal initiation and conduction of slow-wave activity in gastroparesis, defined by high-resolution electrical mapping. Gastroenterology. 2012; 143:589–98. e581–583. [PubMed: 22643349] 16. Williams PA, Nikitina Y, Kedar A, et al. Long-term effects of gastric stimulation on gastric electrical physiology. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013; 17:50–5. discussion 55–6. [PubMed: 22956404] 17. Abell TL, Familoni B, Voeller G, et al. Electrophysiologic, morphologic, and serologic features of chronic unexplained nausea and vomiting: lessons learned from 121 consecutive patients. Surgery. 2009; 145:476–85. [PubMed: 19375605] 18. Soffer E, Abell T, Lin Z, et al. Review article: gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis— physiological foundations, technical aspects and clinical implications. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 30:681–94. [PubMed: 19573170]
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Fig. 1.
Author Manuscript
(A) Wound protractor in place and electrodes tunneled using a 5-mm laparoscopic trocar. (B) Incisions closed after protractor removal and pain system placement.
Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 8
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Fig. 2.
(A) Median operative time and (B) LOS for MLAC (learning curve included) and LAPA groups (left) and MLAC-LCC (learning-curve-censored) and LAPA groups (right). For both comparisons, the LAPA group did not include surgeon learning curve.
Author Manuscript Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
SMITH et al.
Page 9
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Fig. 3.
Learning curve associated with MLAC for both (A) operative time and (B) LOS.
Author Manuscript Am Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 01.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript 7.8 ± 1.2 5.4 ± 1.2 6.5 ± 2.2 19.7 ± 3.5
Severity of illness
Organ systems involved
Intensity of service
Total IDIOMS score
19.3 ± 3.1
6.4 ± 1.9
5.4 ± 1.2
7.4 ± 1.1
14.2 ± 3.3
3.1 ± 1.1
2.9 ± 1.2
2.9 ± 1.1
3.0 ± 0.9
2.3 ± 1.4
79.5
44 ± 15
MLAC-LCC
21.2 ± 3.7
7.2 ± 2.4
5.5 ± 1.0
8.4 ± 1.3
14.8 ± 4.1
2.9 ± 1.4
2.9 ± 1.3
3.3 ± 1.0
3.4 ± 1.0
2.4 ± 1.4
91.9
42 ± 14.2
LAPA
0.03
0.09
0.62
0.01
0.54
0.08
0.40
0.32
0.60
0.61
0.43
0.40
MLAC vs LAPA
