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.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Outcomes of 736 patients with T2DM who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) at an academic center (2004-2012) and had ≥5 years' glycemic follow-up were assessed. Of 736 patients, 425 (58%) experienced diabetes remission (HbA1c <6.5% [48 mmol/mol] with patients off medications) in the 1st year after surgery. These 425 patients were followed for a median of 8 years (range 5-14) to characterize late relapse of diabetes.
RESULTS: In 136 (32%) patients who experienced late relapse, a statistically significant improvement in glycemic control, number of diabetes medications including insulin use, blood pressure, and lipid profile was still observed at long-term. Independent baseline predictors of late relapse were preoperative number of diabetes medications, duration of T2DM before surgery, and SG versus RYGB. Furthermore, patients who relapsed lost less weight during the 1st year after surgery and regained more weight afterward. Prediction models were constructed and externally validated.
CONCLUSIONS: While late relapse of T2DM is a real phenomenon (one-third of our cohort), it should not be considered a failure, as the trajectory of the disease and its related cardiometabolic risk factors is changed favorably after bariatric surgery. Earlier surgical intervention, RYGB (compared with SG) and more weight loss (less late weight regain) are associated with less diabetes relapse in the long-term.
BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) account for >95% of bariatric procedures in United States in patients with T2DM. To date, there is no validated model to guide procedure selection based on long-term glucose control in patients with T2DM.
METHODS: A total of 659 patients with T2DM who underwent RYGB and SG at an academic center in the United States and had a minimum 5-year follow-up (2005-2011) were analyzed to generate the model. The validation dataset consisted of 241 patients from an academic center in Spain where similar criteria were applied.
RESULTS: At median postoperative follow-up of 7 years (range 5-12), diabetes remission (HbA1C <6.5% off medications) was observed in 49% after RYGB and 28% after SG (P < 0.001). Four independent predictors of long-term remission including preoperative duration of T2DM (P < 0.0001), preoperative number of diabetes medications (P < 0.0001), insulin use (P = 0.002), and glycemic control (HbA1C < 7%) (P = 0.002) were used to develop the Individualized Metabolic Surgery (IMS) score using a nomogram. Patients were then categorized into 3 stages of diabetes severity. In mild T2DM (IMS score ≤25), both procedures significantly improved T2DM. In severe T2DM (IMS score >95), when clinical features suggest limited functional β-cell reserve, both procedures had similarly low efficacy for diabetes remission. There was an intermediate group, however, in which RYGB was significantly more effective than SG, likely related to its more pronounced neurohormonal effects. Findings were externally validated and procedure recommendations for each severity stage were provided.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported cohort (n = 900) with long-term postoperative glycemic follow-up, which, for the first time, categorizes T2DM into 3 validated severity stages for evidence-based procedure selection.
Presentation of case: We describe the successful management of MLL of the left medial thigh in a 35-year-old man weighing 220 kgs (BMI 80.8 kgs/m2). He underwent a concurrent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with surgical resection of the MLL. He recovered well and during our last follow up six months after the operation, he is ambulating well and weighs 148 kgs (BMI 54.4 kgs/m2).
Discussion: MLL is a form of secondary lymphedema resulting in disruption or compression of normal lymphatic drainage due to fat accumulation in obese patients. Patients usually delay treatment for even up to a decade, when it becomes sufficiently large enough to restrict mobility and daily activities, or when it becomes infected. MLL is primarily a clinical diagnosis. A detailed history regarding its slow growth spanning over the years makes malignancy less likely. However, if left untreated, MLL may progress to angiosarcoma. Imaging studies such as computed tomography (CT) and a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are usually performed to rule out malignancy or vascular malformations. A tissue biopsy is not recommended unless there are suspicious pigmented lesions.
Conclusion: MLL remains to be underdiagnosed. Due to the obesity epidemic, clinicians must be aware of this once rare disease. The role of concurrent bariatric surgery with surgical resection of MLL warrants further studies.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to look at our intermediate outcomes after LDJB-SG.
SETTING: An academic medical center.
METHODS: A prospective analysis of T2D patients who underwent LDJB-SG between October 2011 and October 2014 was performed. Data collected included baseline demographic, body mass index, fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, C-peptide, resolution of co-morbidities, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with minimum of follow-up >1 year were enrolled in this study (57 men and 106 women). The mean age and body mass index were 47.7 (±10.7) years and a 30.2 (±5.1) kg/m2, respectively. There were 119 patients on oral hypoglycemic agents only, 29 patients were on oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin, 3 patients were on insulin only, and the other 12 patients were not on diabetic medication. Mean operation time and length of hospital stay were 144.7 (± 45.1) minutes and 2.4 (± 1.0) days, respectively. Seven patients (3.6%) needed reoperation due to bleeding (n = 1), anastomotic leak (n = 2), sleeve strictures (n = 2), and incisional hernia (n = 2). At 2 years of follow-up, there were 56 patients. None of the patients were on insulin and only 20% of patients were on oral hypoglycemic agents. Mean body mass index significantly dropped to 22.9 (±5.6) kg/m2 at 2 years. The mean preoperative fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, and C-peptide levels were 174.7 mg/dL (± 61.0), 8.8% (±1.8), and 2.6 (±1.7) ng/mL, respectively. The mean fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, and C-peptide at 2 years were 112.5 (±60.7) mg/dL, 6.4% (±2.0), and 1.5 (±0.6) ng/mL, respectively. No patient needed revisional surgery because of dumping syndrome, marginal ulcer, or gastroesophageal reflux disease at the last follow up period.
CONCLUSION: At 2 years, LDJB-SG is a relatively safe and effective metabolic surgery with significant weight loss and resolution of co-morbidities.
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.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.
METHODS: Electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched for RCTs conducted in adults (>18y) that compared the 5-year- outcomes of LVSG to LRYGB and described comorbidity outcomes were included. Where data allowed, effect sizes were calculated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model. Presence of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and funnel plots, and certainty of evidence evaluated by GRADE. The study prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112054).
RESULTS: Three RCTs (LVSG=254, LRYGB=255) met inclusion criteria and reported on chronic disease outcomes. Improvement and/or resolution of hypertension favoured LRYGB (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.29, 0.84; P =0.03). Trends favoring LRYGB were seen for type 2 diabetes and dysplidemia, and LVSG for sleep apnea and back/joint conditions ( P >0.05). The certainty of evidence associated with each assessed outcome ranged from low to very low, in the setting of 'some' to 'high' bias assessed as being present.
CONCLUSION: Both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in providing long-term improvements in commonly experienced obesity-related comorbidities; however, the limited certainty of the evidence does not allow for strong clinical conclusions to be made at this time regarding benefit of one procedure over the other.