Best practice updates for surgical care in weight loss surgery

Perioperative care map improves compliance with best practices for the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND

Morbid obesity can complicate perioperative management. Best practice guidelines have been published but are typically followed only in bariatric patients. Little is known regarding physician awareness of and compliance with these clinical recommendations for nonbariatric operations. Our study evaluated if an educational intervention could improve physician recognition of and compliance with established best practices for all morbidly obese operatively treated patients.

METHODS

A care map outlining best practices for morbidly obese patients was distributed to all surgeons and anesthesiologists at 4 teaching hospitals in 2013. Pre- and postintervention surveys were sent to participants in 2012 and in 2015 to evaluate changes in clinical practice. A chart audit performed postintervention determined physician compliance with distributed guidelines.

RESULTS

In the study, 567 physicians completed the survey in 2012 and 375 physicians completed the survey in 2015. Postintervention, statistically significant improvements were seen in the percentage of surgeons and anesthesiologists combined who reported changing their management of morbidly obese, operatively treated patients to comply with best practices preoperatively (89% vs 59%), intraoperatively (71% vs 54%), postoperatively (80% vs 57%), and overall (88% vs 72%). Results were similar when surgeons and anesthesiologists were analyzed separately. A chart audit of 170 cases from the 4 hospitals found that 167 (98%) cases were compliant with best practices.

CONCLUSION

After care map distribution, the percentage of physicians who reported changing their management to match best practices significantly improved. These findings highlight the beneficial impact this educational intervention can have on physician behavior. Continued investigation is needed to evaluate the influence of this intervention on clinical outcomes.

Volume-outcome association in bariatric surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the association between annual hospital and surgeon case volume and patient outcomes in bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery remains a technically demanding field with significant risk for morbidity and mortality. To mitigate this risk, minimum annual hospital and surgeon case volume requirements are being set and certain hospitals are being designated as "Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence." The effects of these interventions on patient outcomes remain unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review on volume-outcome association in bariatric surgery was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases. Abstracts of identified articles were reviewed and pertinent full-text versions were retrieved. Manual search of bibliographies was performed and relevant studies were retrieved. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were completed in a systematic fashion. Pooling of results was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of the studies. A qualitative summary of results is presented.

RESULTS

From a total of 2928 unique citations, 24 studies involving a total of 458,032 patients were selected for review. Two studies were prospective cohorts (level of evidence [LOE] 1), 3 were retrospective cohorts (LOE 3), 2 were retrospective case controls (LOE 3), and 17 were retrospective case series (LOE 4). The overall methodological quality of the reviewed studies was fair. A positive association between annual surgeon volume and patient outcomes was reported in 11 of 13 studies. A positive association between annual hospital volume and patient outcomes was reported in 14 of 17 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence of improved patient outcomes in the hands of high-volume surgeons and high-volume centers. This study supports the concept of "Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence" accreditation; however, future research into the quality of care characteristics of successful bariatric programs is recommended. Understanding the characteristics of high-volume surgeons, which lead to improved patient outcomes, also requires further investigation.

Influence of the learning curve on safety and efficiency of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a relatively new bariatric procedure, and data regarding the learning curve are scarce. The aim of this study is to assess how the procedure can be safely implanted in a newly established bariatric unit and to define the learning curve.

METHODS

Proctorship and mentorship in bariatric surgery were attended by two surgeons who were previously experienced in advanced laparoscopic surgery. The first consecutive 102 patients who underwent LSG in our newly established bariatric center were included. Patients were divided into three groups of 34 (groups 1, 2, and 3) according to case sequence. Data on demographics, operative time, conversion rate, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and excess weight loss (EWL) over time were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly lower in groups 2 (p = 0.016) and 3 (p = 0.003) compared to group 1. The learning curve was flat up to the 68th case. A significant decrease in hospital stay was noted for group 3 compared to groups 1 (p < 0.001) and 2 (p = 0.002). The conversion rate, mortality and morbidity rates, and EWL did not differ significantly between the groups. Mortality was 0.98% and procedure-related morbidity was 7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

LSG can be safely and efficiently performed in a newly established bariatric center following a mentorship procedure. Proficiency seems to require 68 cases. The operative time and hospital stay may significantly decrease with experience early in the learning curve, as opposed to mortality and morbidity rates, conversion rate, and EWL.

First report from the American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the band and the bypass

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as compared to the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and the open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (ORYGB) for the treatment of obesity and obesity-related diseases.

BACKGROUND

LSG is a newer procedure being done with increasing frequency. However, limited data are currently available comparing LSG to the other established procedures. We present the first prospective, multiinstitutional, nationwide, clinically rich, bariatric-specific data comparing sleeve gastrectomy to the adjustable gastric band, and the gastric bypass.

METHODS

This is the initial report analyzing data from the American College of Surgeons-Bariatric Surgery Center Network accreditation program, and its prospective, longitudinal, data collection system based on standardized definitions and collected by trained data reviewers. Univariate and multivariate analyses compare 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes including morbidity and mortality, readmissions, and reoperations as well as reduction in body mass index (BMI) and weight-related comorbidities.

RESULTS

One hundred nine hospitals submitted data for 28,616 patients, from July, 2007 to September, 2010. The LSG has higher risk-adjusted morbidity, readmission and reoperation/intervention rates compared to the LAGB, but lower reoperation/intervention rates compared to the LRYGB and ORYGB. There were no differences in mortality. Reduction in BMI and most of the weight-related comorbidities after the LSG also lies between those of the LAGB and the LRYGB/ORYGB.

CONCLUSION

LSG has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the LAGB and the LRYGB/ORYGB for data up to 1 year. As obesity is a lifelong disease, longer term comparative effectiveness data are most critical, and are yet to be determined.

Prevalence of endocrine diseases in morbidly obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery: beyond diabetes

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery allows stable body weight reduction in morbidly obese patients. In presurgical evaluation, obesity-related co-morbidities must be considered, and a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. Precise guidelines concerning the endocrinological evaluation to be performed before surgery are not available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of common endocrine diseases in a series of obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We examined 783 consecutive obese subjects (174 males and 609 females) aged 18-65 years, who turned to the obesity centre of our department from January 2004 to December 2007 for evaluation before bariatric surgery. Thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal and pituitary function was evaluated by measurement of serum hormones. Specific imaging or supplementary diagnostic tests were performed when indicated.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of endocrine diseases, not including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was 47.4%. The prevalence of primary hypothyroidism was 18.1%; pituitary disease was observed in 1.9%, Cushing syndrome in 0.8%, while other diseases were found in less than 1% of subjects. Remarkably, the prevalence of newly diagnosed endocrine disorders was 16.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

A careful endocrinological evaluation of obese subjects scheduled for bariatric surgery may reveal undiagnosed dysfunctions that require specific therapy and/or contraindicate the surgical treatment in a substantial proportion of patients. These results may help to define the extent of the endocrinological screening to be performed in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Adiposopathy and bariatric surgery: is 'sick fat' a surgical disease?

OBJECTIVE

To review how bariatric surgery in obese patients may effectively treat adiposopathy (pathogenic adipose tissue or 'sick fat'), and to provide clinicians a rationale as to why bariatric surgery is a potential treatment option for overweight patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia.

METHODS

A group of clinicians, researchers, and surgeons, all with a background in treating obesity and the adverse metabolic consequences of excessive body fat, reviewed the medical literature regarding the improvement in metabolic disease with bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

Bariatric surgery improves metabolic disease through multiple, likely interrelated mechanisms including: (i) initial acute fasting and diminished caloric intake inherent with many gastrointestinal surgical procedures; (ii) favourable alterations in gastrointestinal endocrine and immune responses, especially with bariatric surgeries that reroute nutrient gastrointestinal delivery such as gastric bypass procedures; and (iii) a decrease in adipose tissue mass. Regarding adipose tissue mass, during positive caloric balance, impaired adipogenesis (resulting in limitations in adipocyte number or size) and visceral adiposity are anatomic manifestations of pathogenic adipose tissue (adiposopathy). This may cause adverse adipose tissue endocrine and immune responses that lead to metabolic disease. A decrease in adipocyte size and decrease in visceral adiposity, as often occurs with bariatric surgery, may effectively improve adiposopathy, and thus effectively treat metabolic disease. It is the relationship between bariatric surgery and its effects upon pathogenic adipose tissue that is the focus of this discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

In selective obese patients with metabolic disease who are refractory to medical management, adiposopathy is a surgical disease.