Place of upper endoscopy before and after bariatric surgery: A multicenter experience with 3219 patients

Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Screening in Bariatric Surgery Candidates: Correlating the Findings with GERD symptoms

INTRODUCTION

The role of routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in bariatric surgery candidates is controversial. This study compares preoperative EGD outcomes with patient-reported gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms to determine if a case-based EGD is appropriate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted from April 2022 through September 2023 in Mashhad, Iran. All patients underwent EGD. To assess GERD symptoms, we used the GERD-Health Related Quality of Life questionnaire. Patients were categorized into two groups: the asymptomatic group (GERD-HRQL = 0) and the symptomatic group (GERD-HRQL > 0).

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were included, out of which 133 (80.6%) were in the symptomatic group and 32 (19.4%) were in the asymptomatic group. Esophagitis was present in 41 (24.8%) patients. There was no significant difference in the frequency of esophagitis (18.8% vs. 26.3%, p-value = 0.37), hiatal hernia (18.8% vs. 18.8%, p-value = 1.00), gastritis (56.3% vs. 63.9%, p-value = 0.42), and H. pylori infection (9.4% vs. 12.0%, p-value = 1.00) between the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups, respectively. None of the demographic factors or comorbidities of asymptomatic patients were associated with esophagitis, except for hiatal hernia (OR = 7.67, 95% CI 3.01-19.53, p-value < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the GERD-HRQL total scores, as well as the heartburn and regurgitation subscales, were poor predictors of esophagitis (AUC 0.57, 0.51, and 0.56, respectively).

CONCLUSION

EGD findings were not associated with GERD symptoms in candidates for bariatric surgery.

Unveiling the hidden pathologies: preoperative endoscopic findings in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Obesity is closely associated with upper gastrointestinal disorders. The recommendations for routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) before bariatric surgery remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to describe the pathological endoscopic findings in individuals qualified for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted on preoperative gastroscopy reports of patients who underwent bariatric surgery at our hospital between October 2022 and October 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 405 patients were included in the study. The two most prevalent endoscopic findings during EGD in this patient cohort were chronic superficial gastritis (326/405, 80.5%) and reflux esophagitis (82/405, 20.2%). Some patients exhibited two or more abnormalities. Patients with reflux esophagitis were older, had a higher proportion of men, higher BMI, higher rates of smoking and drinking compared to those without it (P = 0.033, P < 0.001, P = 0.003, P = 0.001, and P = 0.003, respectively). Morbid obesity (P = 0.037), smoking habits (P = 0.012), and H. pylori infection (P = 0.023) were significant risk factors for reflux esophagitis in male patients, while age (P = 0.007) was the sole risk factor in female patients. No statistically significant differences were observed in surgical procedures between LA-A and B groups (P = 0.382), but statistically significant differences were noted between the nondiabetic and diabetic groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative EGD can unveil a broad spectrum of pathologies in patients with obesity, suggesting the need for routine examination before bariatric surgery. The findings of this study can guide bariatric surgeons in developing tailored treatments and procedures, thus significantly enhancing prognosis. Gastroscopy should be performed routinely in Chinese patients planning to undergo bariatric surgery.

Preoperative Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and the Effect on Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Preoperative oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) in bariatric surgery remains a controversial topic, with a large variety in practice globally. An electronic database search of Medline, Embase and PubMed was performed in an aim to categorise the findings of preoperative endoscopies in bariatric patients. A total of 47 studies were included in this meta-analysis resulting in 23,368 patients being assessed. Of patients assessed, 40.8% were found to have no novel findings, 39.7% had novel findings which did not affect surgical planning, 19.8% had findings that affected their surgery and 0.3% were ruled to not be suitable for bariatric surgery. Preoperative OGD is altering surgical planning in one-fifth of patients; however, further comparative studies are required to determine if each patient should undergo this procedure especially if asymptomatic.

Endoscopic Assessment Prior to Bariatric Surgery in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

There are marked local inconsistencies in the Arabian Peninsula about the role of preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in bariatric surgery. Thus, this study was conducted to determine the frequency of endoscopic and histological findings in the Saudi population presenting for pre-bariatric surgery evaluation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included all the patients who were evaluated by EGD at Dammam Medical Complex, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, between 2018 and 2021 as a part of their pre-bariatric-surgery evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 684 patients were included. They consisted of 250 male and 434 female patients (36.5% and 63.5%, respectively). The mean ± standard deviation for the patients' age and body mass index (BMI) were 36.4±10.6 years and 44.6±5.1 kg/m², respectively. Significant endoscopic or histopathological findings as defined by the presence of large (≥ 2 cm) hiatus hernia, esophagitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Barrett esophagus, gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer, or intestinal metaplasia were found in 143 patients (20.9%); 364 patients (53.2%) were diagnosed to have Helicobacter pylori infection.

CONCLUSION

The high number of significant endoscopic and histopathological findings in our study supports the routine use of preoperative EGD in all bariatric surgery patients. However, omitting EGD before Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in asymptomatic patients is still reasonable as the most frequently found significant findings, esophagitis, and hiatus hernia, are less likely to impact the operative plans in RYGB. Similarly, active surveillance and treatment of H. pylori infections in obese patients are important but it is not clear whether H. pylori eradication should be done before bariatric surgery.

Operative management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery in the emergency setting: the OBA guidelines

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain that occurs after months or years following bariatric surgery may present for assessment and management in the local emergency units. Due to the large variety of surgical bariatric techniques, emergency surgeons have to be aware of the main functional outcomes and long-term surgical complications following the most performed bariatric surgical procedures. The purpose of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the WSES in collaboration with IFSO bariatric experienced surgeons, on the management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery focusing on long-term complications in patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

METHOD

A working group of experienced general, acute care, and bariatric surgeons was created to carry out a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and to answer the PICO questions formulated after the Operative management in bariatric acute abdomen survey. The literature search was limited to late/long-term complications following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

The acute abdomen after bariatric surgery is a common cause of admission in emergency departments. Knowledge of the most common late/long-term complications (&gt; 4 weeks after surgical procedure) following sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and their anatomy leads to a focused management in the emergency setting with good outcomes and decreased morbidity and mortality rates. A close collaboration between emergency surgeons, radiologists, endoscopists, and anesthesiologists is mandatory in the management of this group of patients in the emergency setting.

Routine Use of Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in Bariatric Surgery-an International Survey of Our Current Practice

INTRODUCTION

The role of esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) in bariatric surgery has been widely discussed. In 2020, the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued recommendations on the routine use of EGD before and after bariatric surgery. However, little is known of our current practice and the guidance uptake.

METHODS

We conducted an international survey assessing bariatric surgeons' practice on the use of EGD. The survey aimed to identify whether surgeons offer EGD in the following settings: pre-operative, post-operative at 1 year, every 2-3 years following longitudinal sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Among 121 respondents, 72% are aware of the IFSO recommendations. The commonly performed bariatric procedures were LSG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and OAGB. 53.7% surgeons routinely offer pre-operative EGD and 14.3% routinely offer post-operative EGD for bariatric patients at 1 year after surgery. Majority do not routinely offer EGD after LSG (74.8%) or OAGB (79.7%) every 2-3 years as proposed by IFSO.

CONCLUSION

The uptake of IFSO recommendation is variable according to each recommendation with better compliance among surgeons with regard to pre-operative EGD. Further research is necessary to develop robust evidence-base for the role of endoscopy after bariatric surgery with the inclusion of patient and public involvement.

Role of Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in Bariatric Treatment

Background: The recommendations for routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients qualified for bariatric surgeries are still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyze the pathologies on preoperative EGD in patients qualified for bariatric surgeries. Materials and Methods: This study included 222 patients, divided into two groups. The obesity group consisted of patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²), for whom EGD was a routine part of the preparation for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The control group of patients with normal body weight (BMI) qualified for EGD because of gastrointestinal ailments. Results: Regarding preoperative EGD in patients qualified for bariatric surgeries, we analyzed the prevalence of endoscopic pathologies in various gastrointestinal tract segments. Patients with obesity were shown to present with esophageal pathologies significantly more often than persons in the control group (n = 23, 20.91% vs. n = 12, 10.91%, p = 0.042). The odds ratio of esophageal pathologies in patients with obesity versus the control group equaled 2.15 (95%CI: 1.01–4.59). In turn, the odds ratio of duodenal pathologies in patients from the control group was 3.31 (95%Cl: 1.16–9.47), which means that persons from this group were approximately three times more likely to be diagnosed with those pathologies compared to obese patients. Moreover, patient sex was a significant predictor of duodenal pathologies, with an odds ratio of 4.03 (95%CI: 1.53–10.61). Conclusions: Preoperative EGD can identify a broad spectrum of pathologies in obese patients, which suggests a routine examination before bariatric surgery.

IFSO Position Statement on the Role of Esophago-Gastro-Duodenal Endoscopy Prior to and after Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery Procedures

One of the roles of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) is to provide guidance on the management of patients seeking surgery for adiposity-based chronic diseases. The role of endoscopy around the time of endoscopy is an area of clinical controversy. In 2018, IFSO commissioned a task force to determine the role of endoscopy before and after surgery for the management of adiposity and adiposity-based chronic diseases. The following position statement is issued by the IFSO Endoscopy in Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery Taskforce. It has been approved by the IFSO Scientific Committee and Executive Board. This statement is based on current clinical knowledge, expert opinion, and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence. It will be reviewed regularly.

Does Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy lead to Barrett's esophagus, 5-year esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings: A retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most prevalent approaches to tackle obesity and its co-morbidities. The main complication following the LSG is Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), with most patients developing worsening symptoms of GERD, and a small number progressing to Barrett's esophagus. This retrospective analysis aims to assess the rate of GERD pre- and post- LSG as well as the rate of progression to Barrett's.

Methods

Data was collected from 1639 patients. 92 patients fit our inclusion criteria. Data was then analyzed and summarized against similar literature.

Results

Of 64 (69.6%) patients who had normal EGD findings pre-LSG, only 28 patients (30.4%) had the same results 5 years post-LSG (p= < 0.05). The number of patients who had Grade A GERD almost quadrupled post-LSG, increasing from 3 patients (3.3%) to 14 (15.2%). Patients with esophagitis/gastritis/duodenitis increased from 20 (21.7%) to 32 patients (34.8%). Patients with hiatal hernias increased from 4 (4.4%) to 10 patients (10.9%). The most significant result is that 2 out of 92 patients developed Barrett's Esophagus (2.2%), while 7 other patients developed further serious complications.

Conclusion

LSG is a very effective and safe bariatric procedure. However, the major downslide is that it can lead to the aggravation of GERD symptoms. This paper and the included literature demonstrate that LSG does lead to a substantial increase in the rate of GERD, however, the percentages of Barrett's Esophagus are markedly low. Performing an EGD pre- and post- LSG is an important protocol that aids in the diagnosis and management of LSG related GERD.

•

The main complication post-LSG is Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), with some progressing to Barrett’s esophagus.

•

We assessed Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) results pre-LSG and 5 yrs post-op to determine the development of Barrett’s.

•

This paper and the included literature demonstrate that LSG does lead to the development of Barrett’s Esophagus.

•

Performing an EGD pre- and post-LSG is an important protocol that aids in the diagnosis and management of LSG related GERD.

Prevalence of Upper Gastrointestinal Pathology in Patients with Obesity on Preoperative Endoscopy

Background and Objectives:

The preoperative work up for bariatric surgery is variable and not all centers perform a preoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A study was undertaken to determine the frequency of clinically significant gross endoscopic and pathological diagnoses in a large sample of patients with obesity undergoing work-up for bariatric surgery.

Methods:

Routine endoscopy was performed on all preoperative bariatric patients. A retrospective chart review of 1000 consecutive patients was performed. Patients were divided into three groups: Group A (no endoscopic findings), Group B (clinically insignificant findings), Group C (clinically significant findings).

Results:

Patients had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 49 kg/m2 and 79% were female. In this sample one finding was found on preoperative EGD in 95.2% of patients, 33.9% had at least two diagnoses, and 29.9% had three or more diagnoses. Group A (no findings) consisted of 4.8% of patient, 52.5% in Group B (clinically insignificant findings), and 42.7% were in Group C (clinically significant findings). Clinically significant findings included hiatal hernia 23.5%, esophagitis 9.5%, H. pylori 7.1%, gastric erosions 5.7%, duodenitis 3.7%, Barrett's esophagus 3.1%, and Schatzki ring 1.2%. There was no significant correlation between preoperative BMI and any endoscopic findings (all p-value 0.05). Patients in Group C were statistically older than Groups A and B.

Conclusion:

Upper gastrointestinal pathology is highly common in patients with obesity. There is a significant rate of clinically significant endoscopy findings and all bariatric surgery patients should undergo preoperative endoscopy.

Hiatal Hernia Evaluation Before Bariatric Surgery: Should It Be Routinely Done?

PURPOSE

The necessity of routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS) in the evaluation of hiatal hernia (HH) among bariatric surgery candidates is controversial since most are detected during surgery, regardless of the preoperative work-up. The aim is to determine the accuracy of preoperative EGD and UGIS for HH diagnosis among bariatric surgery candidates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The records of bariatric surgery patients between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. Patients underwent routine UGIS and/or EGD before the surgery. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for each study were calculated based on operative findings.

RESULTS

A total of 463 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 44.34 ± 12.99 years. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 42.7 ± 5.15 kg/m². A total of 450 patients (97.2%) had a UGIS, 263 patients underwent EGD (56.8%), and 258 (55.7%) patients had both tests. HH was diagnosed in 26 (5.8%), 60 (13%), and 72 (27.8%) patients, respectively. HH was found intra-operatively in 53 patients (11.4%). It was associated with heartburn (P = 0.005) and previous bariatric surgery (P = 0.008). EGD had a greater sensitivity than UGIS (47.4% vs. 30.2%) and a lower specificity (81.4% vs. 97.5%). PPV and NPV for UGIS and EGD were 61.5% and 91.3% vs. 30% and 90.2%, respectively. The sensitivity of both tests when combined together reached 60.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EGD and UGIS, whether solely performed or combined, have low sensitivity for diagnosis of HH and can probably be omitted from the preoperative evaluation, except for high-risk patients.

Is Routine Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Prior to Bariatric Surgery Mandatory? Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 10,685 Patients

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched, retrieved and synthesized the evidence as to whether preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (p-EGD) should be routine before bariatric surgery (BS).

METHODS

Databases searched for retrospective, prospective, and randomized (RCT) or quasi-RCT studies (01 January 2000-30 April 2019) of outcomes of routine p-EGD before BS. STROBE checklist assessed the quality of the studies. P-EGD findings were categorized: Group 0 (no abnormal findings); Group 1 (abnormal findings that do not necessitate changing the surgical approach or postponing surgery); Group 2 (abnormal findings that change the surgical approach or postpone surgery); and Group 3 (findings that signify absolute contraindications to surgery). We assessed data heterogeneity and publication bias. Random effect model was used.

RESULTS

Twenty-five eligible studies were included (10,685 patients). Studies were heterogeneous, and there was publication bias. Group 0 comprised 5424 patients (56%, 95% CI: 45-67%); Group 1, 2064 patients (26%, 95% CI: 23-50%); Group 2, 1351 patients (16%, 95% CI: 11-21%); and Group 3 included 31 patients (0.4%, 95% CI: 0-1%).

CONCLUSION

For 82% of patients, routine p-EGD did not change surgical plan/ postpone surgery. For 16% of patients, p-EGD findings necessitated changing the surgical approach/ postponing surgery, but the proportion of postponements due to medical treatment of H Pylori as opposed to "necessary" substantial change in surgical approach is unclear. For 0.4% patients, p-EGD findings signified absolute contraindication to surgery. These findings invite a revisit to whether p-EGD should be routine before BS, and whether it is judicious to expose many obese patients to an invasive procedure that has potential risk and insufficient evidence of effectiveness. Further justification is required.

The role of preoperative upper endoscopy in adolescents undergoing laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) has been associated with gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and, in adults, with a development of Barrett's esophagus. Adults with Barrett's esophagus identified at baseline before bariatric operation are generally advised against VSG operations. The role of preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in adolescents preparing for bariatric surgery is not clearly defined.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to report the frequency of abnormalities identified on EGD performed at baseline in adolescents undergoing VSG for severe obesity.

SETTING

Free-standing academic children's hospital. United States.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to describe findings of EGD performed just before VSG in a cohort of 40 adolescents and young adults (age range 14-25 yr) immediately before VSG. Review of findings from gross and histopathological evaluation of the esophagus, resected stomach, and duodenum was performed.

RESULTS

Five individuals reported preoperative symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. Anatomic findings at EGD were normal in 98% of individuals. Histopathology of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum was normal in 88%, 70%, and 95%, respectively. Abnormal findings of gastritis (18%), esophagitis (13%), and/or Helicobacter pylori (10%) infection were most common. Those with evidence of H. pylori in gastric resection specimens were treated appropriately with eradication therapy postoperatively. With the exception of 2 patients with incidentally detected esophageal mucosal eosinophilia, EGD findings did not lead to additional changes in medical or surgical management. There were no complications of the EGD procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine EGD at the time of VSG was safe but resulted in low yield of abnormal findings requiring a change in clinical management.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass on Barrett's Esophagus

BACKGROUND

Obesity is associated with a twofold risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and thrice the risk of Barrett's esophagus (BE). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) leads to weight loss and improvement of GERD in population with obesity, but its effect on BE is less clear.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases were searched systematically for relevant articles till January 31, 2019. Studies evaluating the effect of RYGB on BE with preoperative and postoperative endoscopy and biopsy were included. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using Mantel-Haenszel, random effects model and presented as risk difference (RD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 10,779 patients undergoing RYGB reported on 117 patients with BE with follow-up of > 1 year. Significant regression of BE after RYGB was observed (RD - 0.56.95% c.i. - 0.69 to - 0.43; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed regression of both short-segment BE [ssBE] (RD - 0.51.95% c.i. - 0.68 to - 0.33; P < 0.001) and long-segment BE [lsBE] (RD - 0.46.95% c.i. - 0.71 to - 0.21; P < 0.001). RYGB also caused improvement in GERD in patients of BE (RD - 0.93, 95% c.i. - 1.04 to - 0.81; P < 0.001). RYGB was strongly associated with regression of BE compared with progression (OR 31.2.95% c.i. 11.37 to 85.63; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB leads to significant improvement of BE at > 1 year after surgery in terms of regression and resolution of the associated GERD. Both ssBE and lsBE improve after RYGB significantly.

Endoscopic balloon dilation for treatment of sleeve gastrectomy stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric stenosis is a rare but potentially serious adverse event after sleeve gastrectomy. Despite current suboptimal treatments, endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) has emerged as a safe and efficacious approach. The purpose of this study is to assess the overall success of EBD for sleeve gastrectomy stenosis (SGS) as first-line therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was defined as overall success rate of clinical resolution of SGS obstructive symptoms with EBD, expressed as pooled event rate and 95% confidence interval (CI). The secondary predefined outcomes include EBD success rates for SGS in the proximal (cardia) location or mid-distal location (antrum/incisura), in early SGS (up to 3 months after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy), and late SGS (3 months or longer after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy) and success rate of cases requiring stents or salvage surgery.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies encompassing 426 patients were analyzed. The average age and body mass index were 41.7 years and 40.1 kg/m², respectively, and the average number of dilations for all cases was 1.8 per person. Overall EBD success rate was 76% (95% CI, .67-.86). EBD success rate in the proximal SGS was 90% (95% CI, 63%-98%), distal SGS was 70% (95% CI, 47%-86%), early SGS within 3 months was 59% (95% CI, 34%-79%), and late SGS after 3 months was 61% (95% CI, 41%-78%). Seventeen percent of patients underwent secondary salvage surgery, with a success rate of 91% (95% CI, 80%-96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic balloon dilation appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to surgical revision and should be used as first-line therapy for SGS.

High Cost for Low Yield: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Assess Cost of Routine Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Before Bariatric Surgery

Routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is an area of continued controversy in the preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery; more information is needed regarding its impact on surgical management and associated costs. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports rates of abnormalities detected on preoperative EGD that changed operative management or delayed bariatric surgery. Sensitivity analysis examined the impact of controversial findings of hiatal hernia, Helicobacter pylori, gastritis, peptic ulcer disease. Data were used to calculate the cost per surgical alteration made due to abnormalities detected by routine EGD, compactly termed "cost-of-routine-EGD." Thirty-one retrospective observational studies were included. Meta-analysis found 3.9% of EGDs resulted in a change in operative management; this proportion decreased to 0.3% after sensitivity analysis, as detection of hiatal hernia comprised 85.7% of findings that changed operative management. Half of the 7.5% of cases that resulted in surgical delay involved endoscopic detection of H. pylori. Gastric pathology was detected in a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (65.0%) than in asymptomatic patients (34.1%; P<0.001). Cost-of-routine-EGD to identify an abnormality that changed operative management was $601,060, after excluding controversial findings. The cost-of-routine-EGD to identify any abnormality that led to a change in type of bariatric operation was $281,230 and $766,352 when controversial findings were included versus excluded, respectively. Cost-of-routine-EGD to identify a malignancy was $2,554,506. Cost-of-routine-EGD is high relative to the low proportion of abnormalities that alter bariatric surgery. Our results highlight the need to develop alternative strategies to preoperative screening, in order to improve access and decrease cost associated with bariatric surgery.

Is routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenscopy prior to bariatric surgery mandatory? protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenscopy (p-EGD) prior to bariatric surgery (BS) is currently widely undertaken, and hence an important issue with many clinical and financial repercussions. Yet, the true extent of why p-EGD is routinely undertaken for all bariatric patients remains not well understood.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To address this, we will undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of routine p-EGD prior to BS from around the world. This protocol describes the methodological approach to be adopted and outlines the search strategies and eligibility criteria that will be employed to identify and select studies, and the way by which data from the selected studies will be extracted for analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov and Google scholar will be searched from 01 January 2000 to 30 April 2019 for original studies written in English that provided prevalence estimates of the outcomes of routine p-EGD prior to BS. STROBE criteria will assess the methodological quality of the selected studies. The use of fixed or random effects model will depend on the results of statistical tests for heterogeneity. Publication bias will be visually estimated by assessing funnel plots. Pooled estimates will be calculated. This protocol conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and has been submitted for registration at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews. No ethical clearance is required for this study. This review will be published in a peer- reviewed journal and will be presented at various national and international conferences.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Preoperative Upper-GI Endoscopy Prior to Bariatric Surgery: Essential or Optional?

Introduction

The role of preoperative upper-gastrointestinal (GI) gastroscopy has been discussed with controversy in bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of upper-GI pathologies detected via endoscopy prior to bariatric surgery along with their clinical significance for patients’ management.

Material and Methods

In our single center prospectively established database of obese patients, who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2011 to December 2017, we retrospectively analyzed the perioperative endoscopic findings along with their influence on patients’ management.

Results

In total, 636 obese patients with median BMI (body mass index) of 49 kg/m² [range 31–92] received an upper-GI endoscopy prior to bariatric surgery. Among the surgical procedures, laparoscopic Roux-Y-gastric bypass (72.6%; n = 462) was the most frequent operation. Endoscopically detected pathological conditions were peptic ulcer 3.5% (22/636), Helicobacter pylori (Hp) gastritis 22.4% (143/636), and gastric or duodenal polyps 6.8% (43/636). Reflux esophagitis could be detected in 139/636 patients (21.9%). Barrett’s esophagus (BE) was histologically diagnosed in 95 cases (15.0%), whereas BE was suspected endoscopically in 75 cases (11.3%) only. Esophageal adenocarcinomas were detected in 3 cases (0.5%). Change of the operative strategy due to endoscopically or histologically detected pathologic findings had to be performed in 10 cases (1.6%).

Conclusion

Preoperative upper-GI endoscopy identifies a wide range of abnormal endoscopic findings in obese patients, which may have a significant impact on decision-making, particularly regarding the most suitable bariatric procedure and the appropriate follow-up. Therefore, preoperative upper-GI endoscopy should be considered in all obese patients prior to bariatric procedure.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Findings in Patients on the Waiting List for Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery (BS) is one of the most effective approaches to weight loss. Performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) prior to BS is controversial but allows the detection and treatment of mucosal lesions that may affect surgical decision and type of surgery.

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of gastric lesions and Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection in a group of asymptomatic patients on the waiting list for BS.

METHODS

This is a retrospective descriptive study including patients undergoing EGD before BS.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients were included with a mean age of 42.1 ± 10.8 years, 319 (88.6%) were females, with a mean body mass index of 42.8 ± 5.44 kg/m2. Regarding endoscopic findings, 25.6% presented no endoscopic lesions, 61.6% presented hyperemic gastropathy, 11.4% erosive gastropathy, 1.1% gastric polyp, and 0.3% gastric ulcer. Histologically, no changes were observed in 20.8% of the patients, 239 (66.4%) presented with superficial gastritis, 11.7% (n = 42) had chronic atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia (n = 34 in the antrum, n = 1 in the body, and n = 7 in both the antrum and the body), and 1.7% (n = 6) had low-grade dysplasia. Hp was positive in 251 (69.7%) patients. We found that patients with metaplasia or dysplasia were more frequently submitted to surgical techniques that did not exclude the stomach (55.8 vs. 16.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

EGD with histological analysis plays an important role in the pre-surgical evaluation in BS, with a high rate of pathological findings in asymptomatic patients. These findings may have an impact on the long-term management and outcomes of these patients.

Development of Bariatric and Metabolic Endoscopy

Objective:

With the evolution of society and changes in human lifestyle, obesity is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide, and obesity-related comorbidities such as diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and coronary heart disease are more common. As a result, new devices and methods for bariatric and metabolic endoscopy are being developed for clinical use, offering new options for patients. This review discussed the progress in bariatric and metabolic endoscopy.

Data Sources:

This review was based on data in articles published in the PubMed database up to September 2017, with the following keywords: “obesity”, “endoscopy”, “weight loss”, and “metabolism”.

Study Selection:

Original articles about various endoscopic methods of weight loss and other reviews of bariatric and metabolic endoscopy were included and analyzed.

Results:

The technology of bariatric and metabolic endoscopy has advanced rapidly in recent years. The intragastric balloon (IGB), with its comparatively long period of development, is the most mature and widely used instrument. Multiple new endoscopic devices have been created in recent years, with different targets to achieve weight loss. Despite the proliferation of new devices, the lack of clinical data results in a shortage of clinical experience and instruction in the use of this new equipment.

Conclusions:

Bariatric and metabolic endoscopy would help obese people lose weight or prepare for bariatric surgery and hopefully alleviate some of the complications of bariatric procedures. Adequate studies and data are still needed for the new endoscopic devices.

The utility of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Helicobacter pylori screening in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing bariatric surgery: A cross-sectional, single-center study in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND/AIM

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and Helicobacter pylori screening are routine parts of the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing bariatric surgery at many centers around the world. The reason for this step is to identify abnormalities that may change the surgical approach. In this study, we aim to evaluate the extent to which endoscopic findings and H. pylori testing affect the plan of care in bariatric patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the investigational processes of 356 patients planned for bariatric surgery (2014-2016) at our center. Patients were categorized into two main groups (4 subgroups) from endoscopic findings. One group included patients with normal EGD and patients who had abnormal findings that did not change the surgical approach, whereas the other included patients who had findings that changed or canceled the surgical plan. A logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate how strongly can factors such as patient demographics, BMI, comorbidities, symptomatology, and H. pylori status predict the risk of having plan-changing endoscopic abnormalities.

RESULTS

The ages ranged between 15 and 66 years with a mean ± SD of 37 ± 11 years, and 56% were females. The majority of patients (75%; 95% CI: 73 - 82%) had either no findings (41%) or had abnormalities that did not change the surgical approach (34%). Only 25% (95% CI: 21-29%) were found to have pathologies that altered the surgical approach, and 0.6% of them had findings that were considered contraindications for surgery. In spite the relatively high prevalence of H. pylori in our cohort (41%; 95% CI 36-46%), the proportion of patients who had plan-changing abnormalities did not differ markedly from other studies. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and obstructive sleep apnea symptoms were the only significant predictors of EGD findings (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

GERD and sleep apnea symptoms can be strong predictors of EGD abnormalities. However, this evidence is still not enough to safely recommend changing the current practice. Therefore, until a sensitive clinical prediction score is derived and validated according to the symptoms, we suggest that EGD should continue as the standard of care in all patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Role of routine upper endoscopy before bariatric surgery in the Middle East population: a review of 1278 patients

Introduction  The routine use of preoperative endoscopy for patients undergoing bariatric surgery is controversial. Although many surgeons find it unnecessary, others still consider it a mandatory tool in preoperative assessment. Patients and methods  We reviewed the medical records of all patients who had undergone preoperative endoscopy before bariatric surgery in Rashid Hospital between January 2013 and June 2016. The patients were divided into three groups: Group 0 included patients with normal endoscopy; Group 1 included patients with abnormalities that did not affect the timing or type of procedure; Group 2 included patients with abnormalities that had a direct impact on the procedure. Results  The files of 1473 patients were reviewed. Endoscopy results were not present in 195 files, so those patients were excluded, and the remaining 1278 files were included. The mean age of patients was 41.3 ± 12.7 years, 61 % were female and 39 % were male. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 43.7 ± 8 kg/m ² . Endoscopy was normal in 10.6 % of patients and abnormal in 89.4 %. The most common abnormalities were gastritis, positive Campylobacter-like organism test (CLO test), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with esophagitis and hiatal hernia. Group 0 included 10.6 % of patients (n = 135), Group 1 included 25.6 % of patients (n = 327), while Group 2 included 63.8 % of patients (n = 816). Conclusion  Routine endoscopy seems to play an important part in the preoperative preparation of patients planned for bariatric surgery in the Middle East population. Further studies or meta-analysis could help in building up clear solid evidence and guidelines that could be approved by international bariatric associations with regard to indications for preoperative upper endoscopy in bariatric patients.

Is Routine Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Screening Necessary Prior to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy? Review of 1555 Cases and Comparison with Current Literature

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists as to whether routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (p-OGD) in bariatric surgery should be routinely undertaken or undertaken selectively based on patients' symptoms. As very few studies have focused on the role of p-OGD prior to the increasingly common laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), we assessed the role/impact of p-OGD in LSG patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of records of all LSG patients operated upon at Hamad General Hospital, Qatar (2011-2014, n = 1555). All patients were screened by p-OGD. Patient characteristics were analyzed, and p-OGD findings were categorized into four groups employing Sharaf et al.'s classification (Obes Surg 14:1367-1372, 23). We assessed the impact of p-OGD findings on any change in surgical management or lack thereof.

RESULTS

p-OGD findings indicated that 89.5% of our patients had normal or mild findings and were asymptomatic (groups 0 and 1, not necessitating any change in surgical management), and no patients had gastric cancer or varices (group 3). A total of 10.5% of our sample were categorized as group 2 patients who, according to Sharaf et al. (Obes Surg 14:1367-1372, 23), might have their surgical approach changed. All patients diagnosed preoperatively with hiatal hernia (HH) had LSG with crural repair and their symptoms resolved postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Due to effectiveness and best utilization of resources, routine p-OGD screening in patients scheduled for LSG may require further justification for asymptomatic patients especially in regions with low upper GI cancers. p-OGD findings had low impact on the management of asymptomatic patients. Crural repair plus LSG was effective for hiatal hernia.

Alfentanil versus ketamine combined with propofol for sedation during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy in morbidly obese patients

Objectives:

To observe the effects of both propofol/alfentanil and propofol/ketamine on sedation during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy in morbidly obese patients (UGSEMOP).

Methods:

In a prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical study, 52 patients scheduled for UGSEMOP were assigned to either group A (n=26; 10 µg/kg intravenous [IV] alfentanil) or group K (n=26; 0.5 mg/kg IV ketamine). Each patient was administered 0.7 mg/kg propofol for induction. If it was needed, the patients were administered an additional dose of IV propofol. This study was performed in Sehitkamil State Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey, between January 2014-2015. Total propofol consumption, time to achieve Modified Aldrete Scores (MAS) of 5 and 10 following the procedure, physician and patient satisfaction scores, and instances of side effects, such as bradycardia and hypotension were recorded.

Results:

Time to onset of sedation and duration of sedation were both significantly shorter in group A. Patients in group A also required less time to achieve an MAS of 5. Total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group A.

Conclusion:

Both propofol/alfentanil and propofol/ketamine combinations provided appropriate hypnosis and analgesia during UGSEMOP. However, propofol consumption was significantly higher using the propofol/ketamine combination.