Surg Endosc. 2021 Aug;35(8):4550-4554. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07928-3.Epub 2020 Sep 9.

Doris Kim ¹, Ryan Gedney ², Shelby Allen ², Haley Zlomke ², Elizabeth Winter ², John Craver ², A D Pinnola ³, Will Lancaster ², David Adams ²

Author information

¹Department of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. kimdor@musc.edu.

²Department of General Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.

³Department of General Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, 29572, USA.

Abstract

Background: Gastroparesis is a condition characterized by impaired gastric motility that may result in weight loss and malnutrition. There have been promising studies demonstrating improvement in symptoms after gastric electrical stimulation (GES) implantation for medically refractory gastroparetics [1-10]. With the heterogeneous population of gastroparetics, the aim of this study was to assess if etiology correlated with response to GES.

Methods: A retrospective review and analysis was performed on patients who underwent GES over a 10-year period at a single institution. Each patient was stratified into an etiological subset (diabetes, idiopathic, post-surgical). Patients were compared by demographics, medical and surgical history, subsequent GES explantation vs continued therapy, need for supplemental nutrition postoperatively, weight gain, weight loss or weight maintenance, and readmission rates.

Results: 183 patients underwent GES from 2005 to 2015. 50% were diabetic (n = 91), 42% idiopathic (n = 76), and 9% post-surgical (n = 16). Diabetic patients (DM) demonstrated the highest likelihood of continued therapy compared to post-surgical (PS) and idiopathic patients (ID) (54.7% vs 9.5% vs 35.8%, respectively, p < 0.05). DM patients saw a greater incidence of weight gain > 4 kg, compared to PS and IS patients (67.6% vs 8.1% vs. 24.3%, respectively, p < 0.05). ID patients were most likely to have it removed compared to DM and PS patients (65.7% vs 28.6% vs 5.7%, respectively, p = < 0.05). PS patients were least likely to have their GES removed. They were also least likely to utilize supplemental nutrition compared to DM and ID (9.4% vs 49.1% vs 41.51%, respectively, p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Patients with gastroparesis had different clinical outcomes after GES therapy based on underlying etiology. By gaining a better understanding of the effects of GES, it can be offered to the appropriate patient.