The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach

First modified Delphi consensus statement on robotic-assisted da Vinci sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most commonly performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedure. Technical considerations related to the performance of SG are well established and reported in the literature but not in relation to robotic-assisted (RA) SG. We report the results of the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise addressing technical considerations of RA da Vinci (dV) SG.

OBJECTIVES

Develop best practices for the performance of robotic-assisted da Vinci sleeve gastrectomy.

SETTING

Survey based consensus statement.

METHODS

A consensus building committee (CBC) was created comprising 10 experts in the field of RA surgery and MBS based on strict selection criteria. The CBC developed 49 consensus statements which were then shared with 240 experts in RA surgery. Our stopping criterion was stability in responses (≤15%). The consensus cut point was 70%.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 49%. In the first round of voting, there was consensus agreement on 25 statements (51%), consensus disagreement on 14 (28%), and no consensus on the remaining statements (21%). In the second round of voting, we reached agreement on 3 additional statements. Experts recommended the use of the number of pauses generated by the stapler to guide choice of staple height (91.2%) and to upsize the staple height when using buttressing (92%). There was also consensus (81.4%) that the use of the closed staple height of 1.00 mm (white) is acceptable and that stapling of the antrum using a 1.5-mm staple (blue load) is also acceptable (73%).

CONCLUSIONS

Collective expert opinion structured through a modified Delphi consensus statement presents a practical guide for surgeons interested in performing dV-SG.

Therapeutic Options for Recurrence of Weight and Obesity Related Complications After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: An IFSO Position Statement

Obesity is a chronic disease that may require multiple interventions and escalation of therapy throughout the years. Until recently, no universal definition existed for recurrent weight gain and insufficient weight loss. Standardization of reporting is key so outcomes can be compared and data can be pooled. The recent IFSO consensus provided standard terminology and definitions that will likely resolve this in the future, and publishers will need to enforce for authors to use these definitions. This current IFSO position statement provides guidance for the management of recurrent weight gain after bariatric surgery.

Revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term weight loss outcomes and complications of revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). A total of 586 patients underwent LSG from January 2010 to February 2018. Revisional OAGB (rOAGB) was performed in 22 (3.8%) patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 20 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after the revisional OAGB was carried out. The indications for revisional surgery were as follows: insufficient weight loss-4 (20%), weight regain-13 (65%), weight regain and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-2 (10%), and dysphagia with gastroesophageal reflux-1 (5%). The mean interval between the LSG and rOAGB was 35.3 ± 15.4 months (range 4-64). The mean follow-up time after rOAGB was 45.5 ± 17.1 months (range 12-54). At the end of the follow-up after rOAGB, %TWL was 26.4 ± 8.9%, and %EWL was 58.5 ± 21.6%, based on pre-LSG body weight. In all three patients with intractable GERD, the clinical symptoms of reflux retreated after revisional OAGB. The overall complication rate was 20%. In conclusion, the main indications for revision after LSG are weight regain, insufficient weight loss, and intractable GERD. Revisional OAGB emerges as a viable surgical alternative for unsuccessful LSG, presenting notable weight loss outcomes; however, it may be linked to an increased incidence of complications.

Upcoming Italian clinical practice guidelines on endoscopic bariatric treatment of overweight and obesity: design and methodological aspects

Obesity/overweight and its complications are a growing problem in many countries. Italian Society of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery for Obesity (Società Italiana di Chirurgia dell'Obesità e delle Malattie Metaboliche-SICOB) decided to develop the first Italian guidelines for the endoscopic bariatric treatment of obesity. The creation of SICOB Guidelines is based on an extended work made by a panel of 44 members and a coordinator. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology has been used to decide the aims, reference population, and target health professionals. Clinical questions have been created using the PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) conceptual framework. We will perform systematic reviews, formal meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses for each PICO and critical outcomes aimed at assessing and rating the efficacy and safety of endoscopic bariatric procedures in comparison with either no interventions, lifestyle interventions, or approved anti-obesity treatments in trials with a follow-up of at least 52 weeks. For PICO on temporary endoscopic bariatric treatments, we will also consider RCT with a minimum duration of 6 months. The panel proposed 8 questions, organized into four domains: A. Indication for endoscopic bariatric surgery; B. Revisional surgery; C. Temporary gastric and duodenal-jejunal procedures; D. Endoscopic diagnosis/treatment of bariatric and metabolic surgery complications. These guidelines will apply to patients aged ≥ 14 years) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2 and requiring endoscopic bariatric surgery or endoscopic diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures. The areas covered by the clinical questions included indications of endoscopic bariatric surgery, types of surgery, revisional surgery, and management of bariatric and metabolic surgery complications.

Decision-making Considerations in Revisional Bariatric Surgery

OBJECTIVE

With drastic variations in bariatric practices, consensus is lacking on an optimal approach for revisional bariatric surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed and consolidated bariatric surgery literature to provide specific revision suggestions based on each index surgery, including adjustable gastric band (AGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve (SADI-S), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG).

RESULTS

AGB has the highest weight recurrence rate and can be converted to RYGB, SG, and BPD-DS. After index SG, common surgical options include a resleeve or RYGB. The RYGB roux limb can be distalized and pouch resized in context of reflux, and the entire anatomy can be revised into BPD-DS. Data analyzing revisional surgery after a single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve was limited. In patients with one anastomosis gastric bypass and vertical banded gastroplasty anatomy, most revisions were the conversion to RYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

As revisional bariatric surgery becomes more common, the best approach depends on the patient's indication for surgery and preexisting anatomy.

Protein Supplements with Short Peptides Are Better than Complex Protein-Based Supplements on Improving Early Fat-Free Mass Loss Following Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery (BS) patients are advised to consume protein supplements to prevent fat-free mass (FFM) loss. However, limited research has explored the efficacy of diverse protein presentations on FFM preservation. This study assesses if short peptide-based (SPB) supplements surpass complex protein-based (CPB) supplements in reducing early FFM loss post-surgery.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 138 patients who underwent BS other than Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (RYGB) between January 2021 and March 2021 at the Department of Bariatric Surgery of the Third People's Hospital of Chengdu were included for analysis. Patients were divided into two groups based on their consumption of protein supplements after surgery: SPB group and CPB group. Multiple linear regressions separated by sex were employed to examine the associations between SPB supplements and FFM loss and percentage of FFM (%FFM) loss, respectively.

RESULTS

Among participants, 69.6% were female, with a mean age of 33.3 years. In multiple linear regression analyses, SPB supplements were significantly and positively associated with a lower FFM loss in both female (ꞵ =  - 1.14, P = 0.047) and male (ꞵ =  - 2.36, P = 0.024), and were positively associated with a lower %FFM loss in both female (ꞵ =  - 1.83) and male (ꞵ =  - 2.26) but only significant in male (P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

SPB supplements may be more effective in preventing early FFM loss after BS, compared to CPB supplements, particularly among male patients. Therefore, SPB supplements may be recommended to patients undergoing BS. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

30-day morbidity and mortality of revisional bariatric surgery - An international multi-centre collaborative (BROAD) study

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is increasing worldwide. There is currently no large multinational, prospective data on 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS at participating centres.

METHODS

An international steering group was formed to oversee the study. The steering group members invited bariatric surgeons worldwide to participate in this study. Ethical approval was obtained at the lead centre. Data were collected prospectively on all consecutive RBS patients operated between 15th May 2021 to 31st December 2021. Revisions for complications were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 65 global centres submitted data on 750 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy (n = 369, 49.2 %) was the most common primary surgery for which revision was performed. Revisional procedures performed included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 41.1 % (n = 308) patients, One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in 19.3 % (n = 145), Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) in 16.7 % (n = 125) and other procedures in 22.9 % (n = 172) patients. Indications for revision included weight regain in 615(81.8 %) patients, inadequate weight loss in 127(16.9 %), inadequate diabetes control in 47(6.3 %) and diabetes relapse in 27(3.6 %). 30-day complications were seen in 80(10.7 %) patients. Forty-nine (6.5 %) complications were Clavien Dindo grade 3 or higher. Two patients (0.3 %) died within 30 days of RBS.

CONCLUSION

RBS for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is associated with 10.7 % morbidity and 0.3 % mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common primary procedure to undergo revisional bariatric surgery, while Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most commonly performed revision.

Patients' perspectives on weight recurrence after bariatric surgery: a single-center survey

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence (WR) affects nearly 20% of patients after bariatric surgery and may decrease its benefits, affecting patients' quality of life negatively. Patient perspectives on WR are not well known.

OBJECTIVES

Assess patient needs, goals, and preferences regarding WR treatment.

SETTING

Single MBSAQIP-accredited academic center, and online recruitment.

METHODS

An 18-item, web-based survey was distributed to adults seeking treatment for WR after a primary bariatric surgery (PBS), in addition to online recruitment, between 2021 and 2023. Survey items included somatometric data, questions about the importance of factors for successful weight loss, procedure decision-making, and treatment expectations.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with > 10% increase from their nadir weight were included in the study. Patients had initially undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (62.5%), sleeve gastrectomy (28.6%), adjustable gastric banding (3.6%), or other procedures (5.3%). When assessing their satisfaction with PBS, 57.1% were somewhat/extremely satisfied, 33.9% somewhat/extremely dissatisfied, while 8.9% were ambivalent. Patients considered the expected benefits (for example, weight loss) as the most important factor when choosing a treatment option for WR. Patient goals included "feeling good about myself" (96.4% very/extremely important), "being able to resume activities I could not do before" (91% very/extremely important), and "improved quality of life" and "-life expectancy" (> 90% very/extremely important). Finally, RBS, lifestyle modification with peer support, and anti-obesity medication were ranked as first treatment options for WR by 40%, 38.8%, and 29.8% of the respondents, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considered weight loss as the most important factor when choosing treatment modality for WR, with RBS and lifestyle changes being preferred over weight-loss medications. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to counsel this patient population better.

Revisional One-Step Bariatric Surgical Techniques After Unsuccessful Laparoscopic Gastric Band: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has high reported rates of revision due to poor weight loss (WL) and high complication rates. Yet, there is yet to be a consensus on the best revisional procedure after unsuccessful LAGB, and studies comparing different revisional procedures after LAGB are still needed.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the outcomes of one-step revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (rOAGB), or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (rLSG) after LAGB. WL, complications, resolution of associated medical conditions, and food tolerance were assessed with a post hoc pairwise comparison one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) throughout a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 102 (rRYGB), 80 (rOAGB), and 70 (rLSG) patients. After 2 years, an equal percentage of excess weight loss was observed in rOAGB and rRYGB (both >90%; p=0.998), significantly higher than that in rLSG (83.6%; p<0.001). In our study, no leaks were observed. rRYGB had higher complication rates according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (10.8% vs. 3.75% and 5.7% in rOAGB and rLSG, respectively, p=0.754), and re-operations were not statistically significant. Food tolerance was comparable between rOAGB and rRYGB (p = 0.987), and both had significantly better food tolerance than rLSG (p<0.001). The study cohorts had comparable resolution rates for associated medical problems (p>0.60).

CONCLUSION

rOAGB and rRYGB had better outcomes after LAGB than rLSG regarding WL, feasibility, food tolerance, and safety. rOAGB had significantly higher rates of nutritional deficiencies.

ReSleeve or revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass for failed primary sleeve gastrectomy with dilated gastric tube: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has been increasingly performed due to weight loss failure (WLF). Many revisional procedures have been proposed after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (pLSG) failure, including ReSleeve gastrectomy (ReLSG), and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB). Choosing the RBS post-pLSG failure represents a challenge. WLF without gastric tube (GT) dilation is undoubtedly converted to a malabsorptive procedure, but the presence of GT dilation makes it more difficult to select a RBS. This study aimed to compare two relatively simple revisional procedures after pLSG failure with dilated GT to help decision making on which procedure better done to which patient.

METHODS

Data of 52 patients who completed one year follow-up (FU) after their RBS (ReLSG: 27 or LOAGB: 25) for their failed pLSG were collected, assessed, correlated to weight loss (WL) and compared.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 97 ± 18.4 min. with revisional LOAGB (RLOAGB) and 62 ± 11 min. with ReLSG. Six patients (11.5%) had seven postoperative procedure-specific complications. Significant hemorrhage occurred in three patients. Two cases of leakage were encountered with each procedure. LOAGB Patients had lower mean final weight (76.2 ± 10.5 vs 85.3 ± 13), lower mean Final BMI (26.4 ± 2.5 vs 29.7 ± 2.9) and higher mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) (83.6 ± 13.5% vs 60.29 ± 14.6%). All RLOAGB patients and 77.8% of ReLSG patients had EWL% > 50%. RLOAGB patients had higher EWL% compared to ReLSG (p < 0.001). Insufficient WL (IWL) patients had higher EWL% compared to weight regain (WR) patients (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Both procedures (RLOAGB and ReLSG) were relatively safe and effective in terms of WL. RLOAGB led to higher WL compared to ReLSG in all types of patients despite higher Caloric intake. IWL patients had more WL compared to WR patients. WL was not related to GT dilation type. Large-scale longer-FU studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR202310644487566 (retrospectively registered).

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure: Could the Number of Previous Operations Influence the Outcome?

After a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as revisional surgery. Those patients that receive a second restrictive procedure fall into a small subgroup of patients with more than one restrictive procedure (MRP). If also the second restrictive procedure fails, the correct surgical strategy is a challenge for the surgeon. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be an option but there is no evidence in the literature on whether the procedure is effective in treating failures after MRP. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the previous number of restrictive interventions (MRP vs single LSG) in the results of RYGB as revisional surgery. We have retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent conversion from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or from multiple restrictive procedures (MRP), to RYGB for weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) between 2009 and 2019. The number of patients analyzed was 69 with conversion to RYGB after LSG and 44 after MRP. The reduction of excess weight (%TWL) at 3, 6, 12, 24 RYGB postoperative months was respectively of 11.03%, 16.39%, 21.43%, and 24.22% in the MRP group, and of 10.97%, 16.4%, 21.22%, and 22.71% in the LSG group. No significant difference was found in %TWL terms after RYGB for the MRP group and the LSG group with an overall %TWL, which was 11.00 ± 6.03, 16.40 ± 8.08, 21.30 ± 9.43, and 23.30 ± 9.91 respectively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The linear regression model highlighted a positive relationship between the %EWL post-bypass at 24 months and the time elapsed only between the LSG and RYGB in the MRP group patients (p < 0.001). RYGB has proved to be a reliable technique with good results in terms of weight loss after failed bariatric surgery both in patients who previously underwent MRP and in those who underwent exclusively LSG. RYGB showed better results in patients who experienced WR than in those who had IWL from previous techniques.

[Results of the first All-Russian consensus conference on bariatric surgery]

Until now, there has not been organized consensus for standardization in bariatric surgery In Russia. We present the results of the first Bariatric Surgery Consensus Conference conducted in Barnaul (March, 2023). A list of questions was proposed within 6 blocks: 1) general issues of bariatric surgery, 2) sleeve gastrectomy, 3) one-anastomosis gastric bypass («mini-gastric bypass»), 4) Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass, 5) Single Anastomosis Duodenal Switch and other options for biliopancreatic bypass, 6) rare procedures. Consensus (>70% agreement) was reached for 51 out of 96 statements. Stratification by the level of expertise was carried out, and responses of the expert group were compared with responses of all participants.

Trends and safety of bariatric revisional surgery in Italy: multicenter, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) represents a further solution for patients who experience inadequate weight loss (IWL) following primary bariatric surgery (BS) or significant weight regain (WR) following initial satisfactory response. RBS guidelines are lacking; however, an increased trend in further BS offerings has been reported recently.

OBJECTIVE

Analyze trend, mortality, complication, readmission, and reoperation rates for any reason at 30 days after RBS in Italy.

SETTING

Ten Italian high-volume BS centers (university hospitals and private centers).

METHODS

Prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolling patients undergoing RBS between October 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, registering reasons for RBS, technique, mortality, intraoperative and perioperative complications, readmissions, and reinterventions for any reason. Patients undergoing RBS during the same calendar interval in 2016-2020 were considered control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were enrolled and compared with 560 control-group patients. Mortality was .45% versus .35% (n.s), with an overall mortality of .25%, while open surgery or conversion to open surgery was registered in 1%. No difference was found for mortality, morbidity, complications, readmission (1.3%), and reoperation rates (2.2%). IWL/WR was the most frequent cause, followed by gastroesophageal reflux disease; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was the most used revisional procedure (56%). Sleeve gastrectomy was the most revised procedure in the study group, while gastric banding was the most revised in the control group. RBS represents up to 9% of the total BS in the Italian participating centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy represents the standard approach for RBS, which appears safe. Current Italian trends show a shift toward sleeve gastrectomy being the most revised procedure and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass being the most frequent revisional procedure.

Revisional surgery after restrictive surgery: midterm outcomes of a tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is a challenging type of procedure for the surgeons due to its specific morbidity and efficiency. The RBS has a higher prevalence nowadays and this study may help to improve scarce data upon this specific topic.

METHODS

Data from 252 patients undergoing RBS after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2005 and 2019, were analyzed at 2 years of follow up. A subgroup analysis of third procedure was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the LSG group and 40 patients (25%) in the LAGB group (p = 0.045). At 2 years of RBS, mean weight was 92.8 ± 26.7 kg, BMI was 33.1 ± 8.56 kg/m2 for patients who had RBS after LSG. When RBS was performed after LAGB, mean weight at 2 years was 90.1 ± 20.7 kg and BMI was 32.5 ± 6.45 kg/m2. TWL for RBS performed after LSG was 12.7 ± 16.4% versus 25.5 ± 10.3% after LAGB (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RBS after LSG seems to lead to higher overall morbidity whereas RBS after LAGB lead to more perioperative issues.

Bariatric Surgeon Perspective on Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) for Weight Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence (WR) after bariatric surgery occurs in nearly 20% of patients. Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) may benefit this population but remains controversial among surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

Explore surgeon perspectives and practices for patients with WR after primary bariatric surgery (PBS).

SETTING

Web-based survey of bariatric surgeons.

METHODS

A 21-item survey was piloted and posted on social media closed groups (Facebook) utilized by bariatric surgeons. Survey items included demographic information, questions pertaining to the definition of suboptimal and satisfactory response to bariatric surgery, and general questions related to different WR management options.

RESULTS

One hundred ten surgeons from 19 countries responded to the survey. Ninety-eight percent responded that WR was multifactorial, including behavioral and biological factors. Failure of PBS was defined as excess weight loss < 50% by 31.4%, as excess weight loss <25% by 12.8%, and as comorbidity recurrence by 17.4%. Surgeon responses differed significantly by gender (P = .036). 29.4% believed RBS was not successful, while 14.1% were unsure. Nevertheless, 73% reported that they would perform RBS if sufficient evidence of benefit existed. Most frequently performed revisional procedures included conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band to RYGB, and RYGB revision (21.9% versus 18.2% versus 15.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrates significant variability in surgeon perception regarding causes and the effectiveness of RBS. Moreover, they disagree on what constitutes a nonsatisfactory response to PBS and to whom they offer RBS. These findings may relate to limited available clinical evidence on best management options for this patient population. Clinical trials investigating the comparative effectiveness of various treatment options are needed.

Distalization of Standard Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Indications, Technique, and Long-Term Results

INTRODUCTION

Weight loss failure or weight regain after primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a challenge for bariatric surgeons. Failure to achieve a body mass index (BMI) <35 kg/m2 after RYGB occurs in up to 40.0%. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term results of a novel technique for distalization of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (DRYGB) as a revisional procedure.

METHODS

Retrospective data were reviewed for 22 patients who had undergone RYGB and failed to achieve an excess weight loss (EWL) >50% or BMI <35 kg/m2 and underwent limb distalization between 2013 and 2022. For this DRYGB procedure, the length of the common channel was 100 cm, and the lengths of the biliopancreatic limb and the alimentary limb were 1/3 and 2/3 of the remaining bowel, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean BMI values before and after DRYGB were 43.7 kg/m2 and 33.5 kg/m2, respectively. Five years after DRYGB, mean % EWL was 74.3% and mean % total weight loss (TWL) was 28.8%. Mean % EWL and mean % TWL of the two procedures (RYGB and DRYGB) after 5 years were 80.9% and 44.7%, respectively. Three patients experienced protein calorie malnutrition. One was reproximalized and the others were treated with parenteral nutrition with no recurrence. There was a significant decrease in the incidence of diabetes type 2 and dyslipidemia after DRYGB.

CONCLUSION

The DRYGB procedure results in substantial and sustained long-term weight loss. Due to the risk of malnutrition, patients must be strictly followed for life after the procedure.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

Curriculum for bariatric endoscopy and endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing, degenerative, multifactorial disease that is associated with many co-morbidities. The global increasing burden of obesity has led to calls for an urgent need for additional treatment options. Given the rapid expansion of bariatric endoscopy and bariatric surgery across Europe, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize and enhance training in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. This manuscript represents the outcome of a formal Delphi process resulting in an official Position Statement of the ESGE and provides a framework to develop and maintain skills in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. This curriculum is set out in terms of the prerequisites prior to training, minimum number of procedures, the steps for training and quality of training, and how competence should be defined and evidenced before independent practice. 1: ESGE recommends that every endoscopist should have achieved competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before commencing training in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. 2: Trainees in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery should have basic knowledge of the definition, classification, and social impact of obesity, its pathophysiology, and its related co-morbidities. The recognition and management of gastrointestinal diseases that are more common in patients with obesity, along with participation in multidisciplinary teams where obese patients are evaluated, are mandatory. 3 : ESGE recommends that competency in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery can be learned by attending validated training courses on simulators initially, structured training courses, and then hands-on training in tertiary referral centers.

[Non-surgical treatment of staple-line suture leakage after redo sleeve gastrectomy]

Redo bariatric procedures are common. However, redo sleeve gastrectomy is not a frequent case of repeated bariatric surgery and can be performed rather as a necessary measure in difficult intraoperative conditions. We report a patient who underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric band placement, its blockage and surgical removal, sleeve gastrectomy and redo sleeve gastrectomy. After that, staple-line suture failure developed that required endoscopic clipping.

Analysis of the risk factors for perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic revisional bariatric procedures: results from the multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study

BACKGROUND

The growing number of primary bariatric operations has led to an increase in demand for revision surgeries. Higher numbers of revisional operations are also observed in Poland, yet their safety and efficacy remain controversial because of a lack of current recommendations and guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To review risk factors influencing perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the results of surgical treatment among 12 Polish bariatric centers. Inclusion criteria were laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries and patients ≥18 years of age. The study included 795 patients, of whom 621 were female; the mean age was 47 years (range: 40-55 years).

RESULTS

Perioperative morbidity occurred in 92 patients (11.6%) enrolled in the study, including 76 women (82.6%). The median age was 45 years (range: 39-54 years). Statistically significant risk factors in univariate logistic regression models for perioperative complications were the duration of obesity, revisional surgery after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or adjustable gastric band (AGB), difference in body mass index before revisional surgery and the lowest achieved after primary surgery, and postoperative morbidity of the primary surgery as the cause for revisional bariatric surgery. These factors were included in the multivariate regression model. Revisional surgery after AGB (odds ratio [OR] = 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-3.69; P = .004), revisional surgery performed after RYGB (OR = 6.52; 95% CI: 1.98-21.49; P = .002), and revisions due to complication of the primary surgery (OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.06-3.34; P = .030) remained independent risk factors for perioperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Revisional operations after RYGB or AGB and those performed because of postoperative morbidity after primary surgery as the main cause for revisional surgery were associated with a significantly increased risk of postoperative morbidity.

Quality evaluation of metabolic and bariatric surgical guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of surgical guidelines on bariatric/metabolic surgery.

METHODS

Four independent reviewers used the AGREE II (The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) tool to assess the methodological quality of the included guidelines and conducted a comparative analysis of the main recommendations for surgical methods of these guidelines.

RESULTS

Nine surgical guidelines were included in this study. Five articles with AGREE II scores over 60% are worthy of clinical recommendation. The field of rigor of development was relatively low, with an average score of 50.82%. Among 15 key recommendations and the corresponding best evidence in the guidelines, only 4 key recommendations were grade A recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of metabolic and bariatric guidelines is uneven, and there is much room for improvement.

Efficacy and Safety of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

The objective of this review is to systematically review the efficacy and safety outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). From inception to July 4, 2022, a systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials comparing OAGB with RYGB in obesity. A meta-analysis performed using the RevMan 5.4.1 software evaluations was completed. We identified 1217 reports; after exclusions, eight trials with a total of 931 patients were eligible for analysis. Compared with RYGB, OAGB had multiple advantageous indexes. Examples include percent of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 months (P = 0.009), body mass index (BMI) at 2 years (P < 0.00001), early postoperative complication (P = 0.04), remission of dyslipidemia (P < 0.0001), and operative time (P < 0.00001). No significant statistical difference was observed in BMI at 6 months, %EWL at 6 months, BMI at 12 months, percent of excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) at 2 years, BMI at 5 years, intraoperative complications, late postoperative complications, remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia or gastroesophageal reflux disease remission between OAGB and RYGB. OAGB is no less effective than RYGB; no significant differences in weight loss efficacy were observed, and more large and long-term randomized controlled trials are needed to verify this. In addition, studies have shown that OAGB has a shorter operation time, fewer early postoperative complications, and a shorter learning curve, making it easier for young surgeons to perform.

[Database's development for prospective national collection of clinical data on cervical cancer: A Delphi survey identifying consensual variables]

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer (CC) is associated with poor prognosis and therapeutic morbidity in young women. The impact of European recommendations for treatments and follow-up of these patients must be assessed. There is no real-time CCU tracking basis. Main objective of our study was to identify the items of the clinical and therapeutic data necessary for the constitution of a national, dynamic and prospective clinical database allowing to characterize treatments and follow-up of patients with CC in France.

METHODS

An exhaustive bibliographic research was lead with the help of the ESGO recommendations. A list of qualitative and quantitative variables characterizing CC was established. These variables were assessed by a panel of national experts from the Francogyn group, using the Delphi survey. The rate of agreement was calculated for each variable.

RESULTS

345 variables divided into 6 sections were identified and submitted to 26 experts. 17 experts responded to the three rounds of the Delphi method. A total of 273 items were validated. The majority of experts (90 %) also gave a favorable opinion on the addition of a quality of life section in the database.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study identifying 273 items chosen by consensus. The items are collected in a future national gynecological database "Epigyn".

Bariatric Surgery Conversions in MBSAQIP Centers: Current Indications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The demand for revisional bariatric surgery has increased, and bariatric conversions (BC) to a different procedure represent most of the revisional cases. The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditfnation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was expanded to include additional variables on BC. This study aims to analyze the indications and outcomes of BC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP database was performed. Patients who underwent BC were included in the analysis. Index procedures, rates, and indications for BC of the different bariatric operations were described. Outcomes of the most frequent BC were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 168,548 bariatric surgeries were done; 20,387 (12.1%) were revisional, and from those 15,031 (73.7%) were BC. The most converted index operations were sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (49.3%) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (45.9%). The most frequent conversions were SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (40.3%) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (54.2%) and weight loss failure (WLF) (35.8%), AGB to SG (27%) or RYGB (16.2%) for WLF (67% and 61.3%, respectively), and SG to biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (3.2%) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (2%) for WLF (91.2% and 92.4%, respectively). Postoperative overall morbidity, serious morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates ranged from 5.3 to 20.8%, 2.3 to 19.2%, 1.5 to 10%, and 0 to 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC represents the most frequent revisional bariatric procedure. GERD and WLF are the main causes for BC. Further research is needed to define the ideal BC according to the index procedure and indication.

Regional anaesthesia in patients on antithrombotic drugs: Joint ESAIC/ESRA guidelines

BACKGROUND

Bleeding is a potential complication after neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks. The risk is increased in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs. This joint guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia aims to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations and suggestions on how to reduce the risk of antithrombotic drug-induced haematoma formation related to the practice of regional anaesthesia and analgesia.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed, examining seven drug comparators and 10 types of clinical intervention with the outcome being peripheral and neuraxial haematoma. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies and for formulating recommendations. A Delphi process was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

Clinical studies were limited in number and quality and the certainty of evidence was assessed to be GRADE C throughout. Forty clinical practice statements were formulated. Using the Delphi-process, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 57.5% of recommendations and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 42.5%.

DISCUSSION

Specific time intervals should be observed concerning the adminstration of antithrombotic drugs both prior to, and after, neuraxial procedures or those peripheral nerve blocks with higher bleeding risk (deep, noncompressible). These time intervals vary according to the type and dose of anticoagulant drugs, renal function and whether a traumatic puncture has occured. Drug measurements may be used to guide certain time intervals, whilst specific reversal for vitamin K antagonists and dabigatran may also influence these. Ultrasound guidance, drug combinations and bleeding risk scores do not modify the time intervals. In peripheral nerve blocks with low bleeding risk (superficial, compressible), these time intervals do not apply.

CONCLUSION

In patients taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, practitioners must consider the bleeding risk both before and after nerve blockade and during insertion or removal of a catheter. Healthcare teams managing such patients must be aware of the risk and be competent in detecting and managing any possible haematomas.

Roux-en-Y Versus One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Redo-Operations Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to improve knowledge about the best conversional bariatric procedure following sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

METHODS

Data of conversional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after SG were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Weight loss parameters, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and comorbidities outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Total of 123 patients (90 female, mean age 44 ± 0.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) 42 ± 0.8 kg/m²) had either RYGB (n = 68) or OAGB (n = 55). Perioperative mortality was zero. Mean surgery time was significantly shorter for OAGB (168 ± 7.2 vs. 201 ± 6.8 min). Perioperative complication rates were not significantly (ns) different between RYGB and OAGB. Total body weight loss (TBWL) in RYGB and OAGB was 18 ± 2.2% and 18 ± 1.9% (12 months) and 18 ± 3.0% and 23 ± 2.6% (24 months; ns), respectively. Length of (individualized) biliopancreatic limb (BPL) correlated significantly with weight loss. Remission rates after 12 months of RYGB and OAGB for arterial hypertension (aHt) were 89% and 92%, for obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS) 56% and 82%, for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) 100% and 92%, for osteoarthritis 64% and 85% and for GERD 89% versus 87% (ns), respectively. Nutritional deficiencies were comparable in RYGB (n = 11) and OAGB (n = 14) group (ns).

CONCLUSION

Both RYGB and OAGB are effective conversional procedures after SG, leading to comparable TBWL, BMI-loss and high remission rates of comorbidities including GERD. Significantly shorter operation times were in favor of OAGB. BPL, which was longer in OAGB was significantly related to higher %TBWL and %BMI-loss compared to RYGB.

Conversion from Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass to Single Anastomosis Duodenoileal Bypass (SADI-S) for Weight Regain

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery presents a challenge for bariatric surgeons. This procedure can be considered for patients with inadequate weight loss or weight regain after an initial satisfactory response following bariatric surgery. However, the surgical management of weight regain following RYGB remains controversial. We present a case of successful weight gain management after a single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADIS) as a revisional procedure for patients with weight regain after RYGB.

METHODS

A 23-year-old female with a body mass index (BMI) of 52 kg/m2 and no comorbidities underwent RYGB. Postoperatively, she reached an excess weight loss of 75% of her initial body weight, with a BMI of 32 kg/m2. Eight years after her RYGB, she started regaining weight, reaching a BMI of 47 kg/m2. The surgical team decided to perform a revisional surgery, a conversion of RYGB to SADIS.

RESULTS

There were no intraoperative complications. An upper gastrointestinal series was obtained on the third postoperative day which resulted normal and oral feedings were resumed. The patient was then discharged on fifth postoperative day. There were no complications within the first 30 postoperative days.

CONCLUSIONS

We attach a video that illustrates the management and technique used to deal with the weight regain after primary bariatric surgery RYGB. We consider that in patients with super morbid obesity refractory to RYGB, conversion to SADIS is an excellent alternative due to its safety and feasibility.

How to Establish Benchmarks for Surgical Outcomes?: A Checklist Based on an International Expert Delphi Consensus

OBJECTIVE

To define a standardized methodology for establishing benchmarks for relevant outcomes in surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Benchmarking is an established tool to improve quality in industry and economics, and is emerging in assessing outcome values in surgery. Despite a recent 10-step approach to identify such benchmark values, a standardized and more widely agreed-on approach is still lacking.

METHODS

A multinational web-based Delphi survey with a focus on methodological requirements for establishing benchmarks for surgical outcomes was performed. Participants were selected among internationally renowned specialists in abdominal, vascular, and thoracic surgery. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and results were used to develop a checklist to establish benchmarks in surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-one surgical opinion leaders from 19 countries and 5 continents were involved. Experts' response rates were 98% and 80% in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Upon completion of the final Delphi round, consensus was successfully achieved for 26 of 36 items covering the following areas: center eligibility, validation of databases, patient cohort selection, procedure selection, duration of follow-up, statistical analysis, and publication requirements regarding center-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This multinational Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process for developing a standardized approach for establishing benchmarks for relevant outcome measures in surgery. The provided consensual checklist customizes the methodology of outcome reporting in surgery and thus improves reproducibility and comparability of data and should ultimately serve to improve quality of care.

Good Clinical Practices on Argon Plasma Coagulation Treatment for Weight Regain Associated with Dilated Gastrojejunostomy Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Brazilian-Modified Delphi Consensus

Introduction

Argon plasma coagulation (APC) alone is effective and safe at treating weight regain following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). However, technical details of the treatment vary widely among studies. Therefore, we aimed to create good clinical practice guidelines through a modified Delphi consensus, including experts from the collaborative Bariatric Endoscopy Brazilian group.

Methods

Forty-one locally renowned experts were invited to the consensus by email. Experiences of > 150 APC-treated cases or authorship of relevant articles were the eligibility criteria. An initial questionnaire with short-answer questions was distributed to the experts. The organizing committee converted the responses into statements for an online 2-day voting webinar. Consensus was defined as more than 67% of positive answers. Three consecutive voting rounds were planned with discussion and statement refinements between rounds.

Results

Thirty-seven experts fulfilled eligibility criteria and attended the live webinar voting. The total number of patients treated by the panel was 12,349. By the third round, all 79 statements reached consensus. The recommendations include the definition of dilated gastrojejunal anastomosis as ≥ 15 mm, minimum regain of 20% of the lost weight to indicate the APC therapy, 6 to 8 weeks as the ideal interval between ablation sessions, and stopping treatment when the stoma reaches < 12 mm of breadth.

Conclusions

This consensus provides several recommendations based on a highly experienced panel of endoscopists. Although it covers most aspects of the treatment, the level of evidence is low for the majority of the statements. Therefore, bariatric endoscopists should be constantly attentive to new evidence on APC treatment.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-021-05795-y.

The Panoramic View of Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction: Obesity remains a major public chronic disease, and the multifactorial components of its relapse in many patients remain inevitable. Methods: This article provides a panoramic view of the most commonly performed revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). RBS is a complex procedure; thus, primary procedures should be well chosen and performed to avoid the increasing number of RBS cases. Results: Bariatric surgery is the only successful long-term treatment for obesity. However, a proportion of primary bariatric surgeries has failed during the follow-up period. In recent decades, the solution for these complications is by performing RBS. It is mandatory to understand obesity as a chronic disease to appropriately treat patients. Treatment strategies are needed to determine the indications for revision. RBS requires a meticulous evaluation to facilitate good long-term results. Conclusions: Treatment strategies will be a fundamental pillar to wisely determine the indications for revision and identify the factors influencing failure by prudently and rationally evaluating the revisional procedure that the patient will benefit from and acquiring a high level of surgical skills.

Clinical practice recommendations on the management of perioperative cardiac arrest: A report from the PERIOPCA Consortium

Background

Perioperative cardiac arrest is a rare complication with an incidence of around 1 in 1400 cases, but it carries a high burden of mortality reaching up to 70% at 30 days. Despite its specificities, guidelines for treatment of perioperative cardiac arrest are lacking. Gathering the available literature may improve quality of care and outcome of patients.

Methods

The PERIOPCA Task Force identified major clinical questions about the management of perioperative cardiac arrest and framed them into the therapy population [P], intervention [I], comparator [C], and outcome [O] (PICO) format. Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published until September 2020 were performed. Consensus-based treatment recommendations were created using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of consensus among the Task Force members about the recommendations was assessed through a modified Delphi consensus process.

Results

Twenty-two PICO questions were addressed, and the recommendations were validated in two Delphi rounds. A summary of evidence for each outcome is reported and accompanied by an overall assessment of the evidence to guide healthcare providers.

Conclusions

The main limitations of our work lie in the scarcity of good quality evidence on this topic. Still, these recommendations provide a basis for decision making, as well as a guide for future research on perioperative cardiac arrest.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03695-2.

Global Variations in Practices Concerning Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-an Online Survey of 651 Bariatric and Metabolic Surgeons with Cumulative Experience of 158,335 Procedures

INTRODUCTION

There is significant variation in practices concerning Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) among bariatric surgeons, but there is currently a lack of robust data on the nature and extent of these variations. The purpose of this study was to understand global variations in practices concerning RYGB.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey on Survey Monkey® was created, and the link was shared freely on various social media platforms. The link was also distributed through a personnel email network of authors.

RESULTS

A total of 657 surgeons from 65 countries completed the survey. Crohn's disease and liver cirrhosis were considered absolute contraindications for RYGB by 427 surgeons (64.98%) and 347 surgeons (53.30%), respectively. More than 68.5% of surgeons performed routine upper GI endoscopy while 64.17% performed routine ultrasound of abdomen preoperatively. The majority of surgeons (77.70%) used the perigastric technique for Gastric pouch creation. Approximately, 79.5% used orogastric bougie. More than 70% of the respondents did not use any staple line reinforcement routinely. Only 17.67% of surgeons measured the whole small bowel length, and the majority of surgeons (86.5%) used constant length of BP limb. Approximately, 89% used constant length of alimentary limb. Approximately, 95% of surgeons preferred antecolic bypass, and more than 86% routinely closed the Petersen defect. Marginal ulcer prophylaxis was used by the majority (91.17%). Almost 95% of surgeons recommended lifelong vitamin and mineral supplements.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies global variations in practices concerning RYGB. It identifies several areas for future research and consensus building.

Remote unaffiliated presurgical psychosocial evaluations: a qualitative assessment of the attitudes of ASMBS members

BACKGROUND

A psychosocial evaluation is an important component of the preoperative assessment process for people seeking metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), and is required for accreditation of MBS programs. Recently, independent companies without affiliations with MBS programs have been marketing remotely administered, unaffiliated psychosocial evaluations for MBS (RUS), and American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) members have raised concerns about these evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

To explore ASMBS members' beliefs about RUS.

SETTING

Online survey.

METHODS

We developed a survey to evaluate ASMBS members' opinions, experiences, and/or concerns about in-person and RUS psychosocial evaluations for MBS.

RESULTS

In total, 635 ASMBS members responded to the online survey and 156 responded to an open-ended question on RUS. Responses were coded based on a manual developed for this study, yielding themes of concerns about the quality of RUS, lack of ongoing relationships in RUS, and conditions under which/reasons why RUS evaluations could be acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Respondents expressed both interest in and concerns about RUS in pre-MBS psychosocial evaluations. Use of RUS has the potential to improve access to MBS by providing a convenient and efficient means of completing the psychosocial evaluation. Conversely, respondents expressed concerns about the background and training of RUS providers, the quality of the reports, and the limited relationships between the RUS provider and both the MBS patient and the MBS team. We discuss the clinical and research implications of response themes, particularly for patients in rural areas or those who have other barriers to care.

The first modified Delphi consensus statement on sleeve gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet there is significant variation in practice concerning its various aspects. This paper report results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on SG.

METHODS

We established a committee of 54 globally recognized opinion makers in this field. The committee agreed to vote on several statements concerning SG. An agreement or disagreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was construed as a consensus.

RESULTS

The committee achieved a consensus of agreement (n = 71) or disagreement (n = 7) for 78 out of 97 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. The committee agreed with 96.3% consensus that the characterization of SG as a purely restrictive procedure was inaccurate and there was 88.7% consensus that SG was not a suitable standalone, primary, surgical weight loss option for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) without dysplasia. There was an overwhelming consensus of 92.5% that the sleeve should be fashioned over an orogastric tube of 36-40 Fr and a 90.7% consensus that surgeons should stay at least 1 cm away from the angle of His. Remarkably, the committee agreed with 81.1% consensus that SG patients should undergo a screening endoscopy every 5 years after surgery to screen for BE.

CONCLUSION

A multinational team of experts achieved consensus on several aspects of SG. The findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of SG, the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide, and guide future research on this topic.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared.

RESULTS

Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass after Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure: Does a Single Procedure Fit for all?

INTRODUCTION

Considering the multitude of bariatric procedures performed all over the world, the necessity of revisional surgery increased accordingly. Several authors argued that with the great diffusion of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), the number of patients who experienced a weight regain at long follow-up was congruous and physiologic, even if not negligible. Recent studies showed that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) was an effective and safe option also as redo surgery. The aim of the study was to evaluate effectiveness of OAGB as redo surgery after SG in term of anthropometric features and remission of comorbidities.

METHODS

Bariatric patients experiencing weight regain and insufficient weight loss after SG and undergoing OAGB as redo surgery were retrospectively analyzed. During post-OAGB outpatient visit weight, %EWL, BMI, comorbidities, and vitamin deficiencies were evaluated. A further visit was scheduled for the evaluation of postoperative esophagitis/gastritis at upper endoscopy.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine (Reviewer #3-1) patients underwent OAGB as redo-surgery consequently to the worsening of the bariatric outcomes at 29.42 ± 7.29 months from SG (mean weight, BMI and %EWL were 120.89 ± 16.79 kg, 43 ± 4.39 and 19.84 ± 30.29, respectively). Conversely, at a mean follow-up of 34.32 ± 1.71 months (Reviewer #3-3) after OAGB, no weight regain or insufficient weight loss cases were recorded (mean weight 71.25 ± 10.22 kg, mean BMI 24.46 ± 2.06 kg/m2, mean %EWL 69.49 ± 14.4, p < 0.0001) (Reviewer #3-2).

CONCLUSION

OAGB is a safe and effective bariatric procedure in terms of morbidity, mortality, and %EWL also as revision surgery after SG. Further larger studies are needed to address this issue.

Multidisciplinary Approach for Weight Regain-how to Manage this Challenging Condition: an Expert Review

Weight regain is a multifactorial condition that affects many patients following bariatric surgery. The purpose of the paper is to review the multidisciplinary approach for the management of weight regain. We performed a search in current clinical evidence regarding the causes, consequences, and treatments of weight regain. The multidisciplinary approach with periodic monitoring is of fundamental importance to prevent or treat weight regain. Several therapeutic options are ranging from nutritional to surgical options, which should be tailored according to patients' anatomy, lifestyle behavior, and compliance. Specialized multidisciplinary care is the key to achieve optimal long-term weight loss and maintenance goals following bariatric surgery.

Third bariatric procedure for insufficient weight loss or weight regain: how far should we go?

BACKGROUND

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are increasing with several debated failure risk factors, such as super obesity and old age. No study has yet evaluated the outcomes and risks of a third bariatric procedure indicated for weight loss failure or weight regain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess failure risks of a third bariatric procedure according to Reinhold's criteria (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL] ≤50% and/or body mass index [BMI] ≥35 kg/m²).

SETTING

A university-affiliated tertiary care center, France.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2019, clinical data and weight loss results of patients who benefited from 3 bariatric procedures for weight loss failure or weight regain were collected prospectively and analyzed using a binary logistic regression. Weight loss failure was defined according to Reinhold's criteria.

RESULTS

Among 1401 bariatric procedures performed, 336 patients benefited from 2 or more procedures, and 45 had a third surgery. Eleven patients that were reoperated on because of malnutrition or gastroesophageal reflux disease were excluded from the final analysis. Among 34 patients with 3 procedures because of weight loss failure or regain, mean BMI was 48.3 ± 8.3 kg/m², and mean age was 30 ± 10.7 years. Three out of 34 patients (9%) presented a severe complication (Dindo-Clavien IIIb) and 2 (6%) had a minor one. Achieving Reinhold's weight loss criteria after the second bariatric procedure was a significant predictor of success of the third procedure (β = 2.9 ± 1.3 S.E.).

CONCLUSION

Not reaching Reinhold's criteria after a second bariatric procedure was identified as a significant risk factor of failure of a third procedure. A third surgery should be carefully discussed especially in case of primary failure of previous procedures.

Bariatric revisional surgery: What are the challenges for the patient and the practitioner?

Bariatric revisional surgery represents an important new issue for obese patients because of the considerable rate of failure and complications following bariatric surgery. As the frequency of bariatric procedures increases, so too does the incidence of revisional surgery, which has become becoming increasingly important. The surgeon must know the indications and the results of the various revisional procedures in order to best guide the therapeutic decision. The current challenge is to correctly select the patients for revisional surgery and to choose the appropriate procedure in each case. Multidisciplinary management is essential to patient re-assessment and to prepare the patient for a re- intervention. The objective of this update, based on data from all the most recent studies concerning revisional surgery, is to guide the surgeon in the choice of the revisional procedure, depending on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, the previously performed procedure, the type of failure or complication observed, but also on the surgeon's own habits and the center's expertise. The collected results show that revisional surgery is difficult, with higher complication rates and weight-loss results that are often lower than those of first-intent surgery. For these reasons, patient selection must be rigorous and multidisciplinary and the management in expert centers of these difficult situations must be encouraged.

Comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failure of gastric banding: a two-center study with a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies on series comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after failure of gastric banding (GB) are available. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of SG and RYGB after GB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2017, patients undergoing SG (n = 186) or RYGB (n = 107) for failure of primary GB were included in this two-center study. Propensity-score matching was performed based on preoperative factors with a 2:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was the weight loss at 2 years between the SG and RYGB groups. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, reoperation, correction of comorbidities and the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In our propensity score matching analysis, operative time was significantly less in the SG group (95 min vs. 179 min; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were lower in the SG group (9.5% vs. 35.4%; p = 0.003). At 2 years follow-up, the mean EWL was similar as same as comorbidities. There was a significant difference in favor of SG concerning the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Revision of GB by SG or RYGB is feasible, with a higher rate of early post-operative complications for RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years follow-up is similar; however, RYGB appears to result in a higher rate of adverse events than SG.

The First Modified Delphi Consensus Statement for Resuming Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery in the COVID-19 Times

The purpose of this study was to achieve consensus amongst a global panel of expert bariatric surgeons on various aspects of resuming Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery (BMS) during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A modified Delphi consensus-building protocol was used to build consensus amongst 44 globally recognised bariatric surgeons. The experts were asked to either agree or disagree with 111 statements they collectively proposed over two separate rounds. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% of experts was construed as consensus as per the predetermined methodology. We present here 38 of our key recommendations. This first global consensus statement on the resumption of BMS can provide a framework for multidisciplinary BMS teams planning to resume local services as well as guide future research in this area.