MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of women undergoing bariatric surgery, between May 2017 and April 2018. FSD was diagnosed using the Malay version of Female Sexual Function Index (MVFSFI) questionnaire. Patients filled up the questionnaire before and 6 months after surgery. Association between BMI reduction and FSFI score improvement was measured using Fisher's exact test. Outcomes between types of surgery (sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass) was compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-two women completed the study. The mean age was 38.77 ± 6.7. There were 44 (84.6%) Malay patients, 7 (13.5%) Indian patients, and 1 (1.9%) Chinese patient. There was a significant reduction in mean BMI, 39.89 ± 6.9 pre-surgery to 30.32 ± 5.4 post-surgery (p value
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients listed for bariatric surgery in a single tertiary referral center were recruited, where 31 (77.4% female, mean age 46.3 ± 8.9 years) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Of the eligible patients, 54.8% and 45.2% underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GB), respectively. LPR symptoms were assessed using the self-reported reflux symptom index (RSI). Video-recorded endolaryngeal signs were scored using the reflux finding score (RFS) by two blinded otolaryngologists. Patients' presurgical and 3-month postsurgical body mass index (BMI), RSI, and RFS were determined. Patients were deemed as having LPR when RSI > 13 or RFS > 7.
RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between the postsurgical RSI and RFS changes (Pearson's r = 0.474, p = 0.007). Of the 31 patients, 12.9% (RSI) and 6.4% (RFS) recovered from preexisting LPR, whereas 22.6% (RSI) and 3.2% (RFS) developed new de novo LPR postsurgery. The postsurgical mean RFS change improved significantly in the GB group compared with that of the SG group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: LPR is best assessed clinically using a multimodal approach (RSI and RFS). Bariatric surgery may worsen or lead to de novo LPR. Recognizing the LPR outcomes in these patients is paramount for optimal voice, speech, and swallowing functions.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until August 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques. The primary outcome was cumulative morphine consumption at 24 h. Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain score at rest and on movement at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h; postoperative nausea and vomiting; and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS: We included 23 studies with a total of 2,178 patients. TAP block is superior to control in reducing opioid consumption at 24 h, improving pain scores at all the time points and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h for IPLA is less than control, while the indirect comparison between IPLA with PSI and control showed a significant reduction in pain scores at rest, at 2 h, and on movement at 12 h, and 24 h postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis plane block is effective for reducing pain intensity and has superior opioid-sparing effect compared to control. Current evidence is insufficient to show an equivalent analgesic benefit of IPLA to TAP block.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective database review was conducted of patients undergoing primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy between 2009 and 2013 in 14 centres from Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, Switzerland, and the USA. All patients with available follow-up data at 12 months and 36 months post-surgery were included in this study. Outcome measures used were percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) and percentage total weight loss (%TWL). Differences in outcomes between ethnicities were analysed after adjusting for age, gender, baseline body mass index (BMI), and presence of diabetes.
RESULTS: The study population (n = 2150) consisted of 1122 Chinese, 187 Malays, 309 Indians, 67 Japanese, 259 Koreans, and 206 Caucasians. 67.1% were female and 32.9% were male. Mean age was 37.1 ± 11.2 years. Mean pre-operative BMI was 40.7 ± 8.1 kg/m2. With the Caucasian population as reference, Japanese had the best %TWL (3.90, 95% CI 1.16-6.63, p
METHOD: All cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery, from 2007 to 2017, were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients were included; eight (62%) were female. The median age was 54 years (interquartile range, IQR 49-60) and median BMI was 48 kg/m2 (IQR 43-55). Portal hypertension was diagnosed based on endoscopy (n = 5), imaging studies (n = 3), intraoperative increased collateral circulation (n = 2), and endoscopy and imaging studies (n = 3). The bariatric procedures included sleeve gastrectomy (n = 10, 77%) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 3, 23%). The median length of hospital stay was 3 days (IQR 2-4). Three 30-day complications occurred including wound infection (n = 1), intra-abdominal hematoma (n = 1), and subcutaneous hematoma (n = 1). No intraoperative or 30-day mortalities. There were 11 patients (85%) at 1-year follow-up and 9 patients (69%) at 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, the median percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) and total weight loss (TWL) were 49 and 25%, respectively. There was significant improvement in diabetes (100%), dyslipidemia (100%), and hypertension (50%) at 2 years after surgery.
CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery in selected cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension is relatively safe and effective.
METHODS: All the patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF) and implanted LVAD who underwent LSG from2013 to January 2017 were studied.
RESULTS: Seven patients with end stage heart failure (ESHF) and implanted LVAD were included. The median age and median preoperative BMI were 39 years (range: 26-62) and 43.6 kg/m2 (range 36.7-56.7), respectively. The median interval between LVAD implantation and LSG was 38 months (range 15-48). The median length of hospital stay was 9 days (rang: 6-23) out of which 4 patients had planned postoperative ICU admission. Thirty-day complications were noted in 5 patients (3 major and 2 minor) without any perioperative mortality. The median duration of follow-up was 24 months (range 2-30). At the last available follow-up, the median BMI, %EWL, and %TWL were 37 kg/m2, 47%, and 16%, respectively. The median LVEF before LSG and at the last follow-up point (before heart transplant) was 19% (range 15-20) and 22% (range, 16-35), respectively. In addition, the median NYHA class improved from 3 to 2 after LSG. Three patients underwent successful heart transplantations.
CONCLUSION: Patients with morbid obesity, ESHF, and implanted LVAD constitute a high-risk cohort. Our results with 7 patients and result from other studies (19 patients) suggested that bariatric surgery may be a reasonable option for LVAD patients with severe obesity. Bariatric surgery appears to provide significant weight loss in these patients and may improve candidacy for heart transplantation.
METHODS: Patients aged 75 years and older who underwent bariatric procedures in two academic centers between 2006 and 2015 were studied.
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients aged 75 years and above were identified. Eleven (58%) were male, the median age was 76 years old (range 75-81), and the median preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 41.4 kg/m2 (range 35.8-57.5). All of the bariatric procedures were primary procedures and performed laparoscopically: sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (n = 11, 58%), adjustable gastric band (AGB) (n = 4, 21%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n = 2, 11%), banded gastric plication (n = 1, 5%), and gastric plication (n = 1, 5%). The median operative time was 120 min (range 75-240), and the median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-7). Three patients (16%) developed postoperative atrial fibrillation which completely resolved at discharge. At 1 year, the median percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was 18.4% (range 7.4-22.0). The 1-year %TWL varied among the bariatric procedures performed: SG (21%), RYGB (22%), AGB (7%), and gastric plication (8%). There were no 30-day readmissions, reoperations, or mortalities.
CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that bariatric surgery in selected patients aged 75 years and older would be safe and effective despite being higher risk. Age alone should not be the limiting factor for selecting patients for bariatric surgery.
METHODS: A committee of 61 well-known metabolic and bariatric surgeons from 24 countries was created to participate in the Delphi consensus. The committee voted on 45 statements regarding recommendations and controversies around fasting after MBS. An agreement/disagreement ≥ of 70.0% was regarded as consensus.
RESULTS: The experts reached a consensus on 40 out of 45 statements after two rounds of voting. One hundred percent of the experts believed that fasting needs special nutritional support in patients who underwent MBS. The decision regarding fasting must be coordinated among the surgeon, the nutritionist and the patient. At any time after MBS, 96.7% advised stopping fasting in the presence of persistent symptoms of intolerance. Seventy percent of the experts recommended delaying fasting after MBS for 6 to 12 months after combined and malabsorptive procedures according to the patient's situation and surgeon's experience, and 90.1% felt that proton pump inhibitors should be continued in patients who start fasting less than 6 months after MBS. There was consensus that fasting may help in weight loss, improvement/remission of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus among 88.5%, 90.2%, 88.5%, 85.2% and 85.2% of experts, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Experts voted and reached a consensus on 40 statements covering various aspects of fasting after MBS.
METHODS: RCTs comparing the early complication rates following LVSG and LRYGB between 2000 and 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included 30-day mortality, major and minor complications and interventions required for their management, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, operating time, and conversions from laparoscopic to open procedures.
RESULTS: Six RCTs involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on early major complications. A statistically significant reduction in relative odds of early major complications favoring the LVSG procedure was noted (p = 0.05). Five RCTs representing 633 patients (LVSG n = 317, LRYGB n = 316) reported early minor complications. A non-statically significant reduction in relative odds of 29 % favoring the LVSG procedure was observed for early minor complications (p = 0.4). However, other outcomes directly related to complications which included reoperation rates, readmission rate, and 30-day mortality rate showed comparable effect size for both surgical procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs suggests that fewer early major and minor complications are associated with LVSG compared with LRYGB procedure. However, this does not translate into higher readmission rate, reoperation rate, or 30-day mortality for either procedure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing postoperative comorbid disease resolution such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, joint and musculoskeletal conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and menstrual irregularities following LVSG and LRYGB were included for analysis. The studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database and reported on at least one comorbidity resolution or improvement. The present work was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Jadad method for assessment of methodological quality was applied to the included studies.
RESULTS: Six RCTs performed between 2005 and 2015 involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on the resolution or improvement of comorbid disease following LVSG and LRYGB procedures. Both bariatric procedures provide effective and almost comparable results in improving or resolving these comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative nondiabetic comorbid diseases in obese patients. While results are not conclusive at this time, LRYGB may provide superior results compared to LVSG in mediating the remission and/or improvement in some conditions such as dyslipidemia and arthritis.
METHODS: A 37-item questionnaire-based survey was conducted to capture the perioperative practices of the global community of bariatric surgeons. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Response of 863 bariatric surgeons from 67 countries with a cumulative experience of 520,230 SGs were recorded. A total of 689 (80%) and 764 (89%) surgeons listed 13 absolute and relative contraindications, respectively. 65% (n = 559) surgeons perform routine preoperative endoscopy and 97% (n = 835) routinely use intraoperative orogastric tube for sizing the resection. A wide variation is observed in the diameter of the tube used. 73% (n = 627) surgeons start dividing the stomach at a distance of 3-5 cm from the pylorus, and 54% (n = 467) routinely use staple line reinforcement. Majority (65%, n = 565) of surgeons perform routine intraoperative leak test at the end of the procedure, while 25% (n = 218) surgeons perform a routine contrast study in the early postoperative period. Lifelong multivitamin/mineral, iron, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin B12 supplementation is advocated by 66%, 29%, 40%, 38% and 44% surgeons, respectively.
CONCLUSION: There is a considerable variation in the perioperative practices concerning SG. Data can help in identifying areas for future consensus building and more focussed studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blinded RCT enrolled 110 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz UKM from November 2020 to May 2021. Any patients with previous abdominal surgery, chronic kidney disease, or liver disease were excluded. The patients were randomised into two groups: (i) the IPLA group which received ropivacaine intraperitoneal instillation at the dissected left crus and (ii) the placebo group (sterile water instillation). Perioperative analgesia was standardised. The first 24-h postoperative pain was assessed using a VAS. The respiratory effort was assessed using incentive spirometry simultaneously.
RESULTS: Total of 110 patients were recruited. The VAS score was lower with an enhanced recovery of respiratory effort in the local anaesthetic group compared to the placebo group (P < 0.05) within the first 24 h postoperatively. In addition, the placebo group required additional postoperative analgesia (P < 0.05). No side effects were reported with the use of intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine.
CONCLUSION: The use of intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is recommended as it is safe, effectively reduces acute postoperative pain, and enhances the recovery of respiratory effort postoperatively.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Individuals undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) from February 2008 to December 2015 were included. Impaired mobility (WC) was defined as using a wheelchair or motorized scooter for at least part of a typical day. The WC group was propensity score matched to ambulatory patients (1:5 ratio). Comparisons were made for 30-day morbidity and mortality and 1-year improvement in weight-related comorbidities.
RESULTS: There were 93 patients in the WC group matched to 465 ambulatory controls. The median operative time (180 vs 159 min, p = 0.003) and postoperative length of stay (4 vs 3 days, p ≤ 0.001) was higher in the WC group. There were no differences in readmission or all-cause morbidity within 30 days. The median percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1 year was similar (WC group, 65% available, 53% EWL vs AMB group, 73% available, 54% EWL); however, patients with impaired mobility were less likely to experience improvement in diabetes (76 vs 90%, p = 0.046), hypertension (63 vs 82%, p