METHODS: Data of seven patients undergoing laparoscopic transgastric resection were identified and retrospectively reviewed with regard to procedural steps and patient outcomes.
RESULTS: Seven patients (4 men; mean age 64.1 ± 14.6 years) with gastric GISTs underwent laparoscopic transgastric resection from January 2010 to May 2015. Three of the seven GISTs were located near the gastroesophageal junction and the rest were found in the posterior wall of the stomach. All seven patients underwent successful laparoscopic resection without any conversions. There were no mortalities and no significant postoperative complications. Intraoperative endoscopy was performed for all patients. The mean operative time was 164.0 ± 59.1 minutes. Regular diet was resumed within 3 days on average and mean postoperative stay was 3.6 ± 1.3 days. All patients achieved complete R0 resection with a mean tumor size of 5.5 ± 1.1 cm. At a mean follow-up of 48.0 ± 13.4 months, all patients were recurrence free.
CONCLUSIONS: GISTs of the posterior wall and in close proximity to the gastroesophageal junction can be safely resected laparoscopically using such an approach. Standard technique is required to achieve good oncological outcomes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.