Acute bleeding after argon plasma coagulation for weight regain after gastric bypass: A case report

Gastric Emptying and Its Correlation With Weight Loss and Body Mass Index in Patients With an Intragastric Balloon: A Prospective Study With Six Years of Follow-Up

Background Obesity is the most well-established and prolonged pandemic in modern society. Having a better understanding of the available tools is important to improve weight loss and make the strategies more productive. This study aims to evaluate the effect of intragastric balloon (IGB) on gastric emptying time, its relationship with weight loss after IGB removal, and weight maintenance after six years. Methodology This prospective study analyzed data from patients undergoing IGB placement. A six-years follow-up was performed and data about weight maintenance were collected. We analyzed the impact of the IGB on gastrointestinal motility and its correlation with weight loss. Results Of the 20 patients included in the study, 52.4% were diagnosed with class I obesity and 47.6% with class II obesity. The mean weight of the patients was 96.5 ± 11.9 kg at baseline, 79.6 ± 11.4 kg at the time of IGB removal, 81.8 ± 9.1 kg at six months, and 93.2 ± 14.3 kg six years after IGB removal. The mean difference between the initial weight and that measured immediately after IGB removal was 16.68 ± 5.71 kg. Regarding gastric emptying time, there was a difference in retention on comparing the measurement before balloon placement to that after the balloon was in place (72.9% vs. 86.8%) after one hour of food intake. Comparing two hours after food intake, patients before IGB placement had a 30.6% food retention, while patients with IGB in place had a 69.2% retention. Conclusions In patients with class I or II obesity, the use of an IGB delayed gastric emptying of foods but showed no direct correlation with weight loss. Weight loss achieved after IGB placement was maintained in half of the patients at a six-year follow-up.

Status of bariatric endoscopy–what does the surgeon need to know? A review

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a chronic and multifactorial disease with a variety of potential treatment options available. Currently, there are several multidisciplinary therapeutic options for its management, including conservative, endoscopic, and surgical treatment.

AIM

To clarify indications, technical aspects, and outcomes of bariatric endoscopy.

METHODS

Narrative review of current literature based on electronic databases including MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and SciELO.

RESULTS

Bariatric endoscopy is in constant development and comprises primary and revisional treatment options as well as management of surgical complications. Various devices act upon different mechanisms of action, which may be individualized to each patient. Despite favorable results for the endoscopic treatment of obesity, prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are required to fully validate primary and revisional endoscopic therapies. Regarding the management of bariatric surgery complications, endoscopic therapy may be considered the procedure of choice in a variety of situations. Still, as there is no standardized algorithm, local experience should be considered in decision-making.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of patients with obesity is complex, and a multidisciplinary approach is essential. Bariatric endoscopy has shown impressive results both in the treatment of obesity and its surgical complications, and therefore, must be part of the armamentarium in the fight against this disease.

Efficacy of Intragastric Balloons for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Intragastric balloons (IGB) are the most widely used endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IGB in comparison with sham or lifestyle interventions for weight loss in overweight and obese patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, which compared IGB with sham or lifestyle intervention. Thirteen RCTs with 1523 patients were included. The difference in mean %EWL and %TWL at follow-up was 17.98%, and 4.40%, respectively, which was significantly higher in the IGB group. Similarly, the difference in mean AWL and BMIL was 6.12 kg, and 2.13 kg/m², respectively. IGB therapy is more effective than lifestyle intervention alone for weight loss in overweight and obese adults.