OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe trends in warfarin dosing after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG).
SETTING: Single academic center.
METHODS: All patients chronically on warfarin anticoagulation before RYGB or SG were retrospectively identified. Indications for anticoagulation, history of bleeding or thrombotic events, perioperative complications, and warfarin dosing were collected.
RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (RYGB n = 31, SG n = 22) on chronic warfarin therapy were identified (56.6% female, mean 54.4 ± 11.7 yr of age). Of this cohort, 34.0% had prior venous thromboembolic events, 43.4% had atrial fibrillation, and 5.7% had mechanical cardiac valves. Preoperatively, the average daily dose of warfarin was similar in the RYGB group (8.3 ± 4.1 mg) and SG group (6.9 ± 2.8 mg). One month after surgery, mean daily dose of warfarin was reduced 24.1% in the RYGB group (P
METHODS: A retrospective review of CAT patients undergoing bariatric surgery at an academic center from 2008 to 2015 was studied.
RESULTS: A total of 153 patients on CAT underwent surgery [Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 79), sleeve gastrectomy (n = 63), and adjustable gastric banding (n = 11)] during the study period: 85 patients (55%) were females; median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49-64), and median BMI was 49 kg/m2 (IQR 43-56). The most common indications for CAT were venous thromboembolism (n = 87) and atrial fibrillation (n = 83). Median duration of procedure and estimated intraoperative blood loss was 150 min (IQR 118-177) and 50 ml (IQR 25-75), respectively. Thirty-day postoperative complications were reported in 33 patients (21.6%) including postoperative bleeding (n = 19), anastomotic leak (n = 3), and pulmonary embolism (n = 1). Nineteen patients (12%) with early postoperative bleeding were further categorized to intra-abdominal (n = 10), intraluminal (n = 6), and at the port site or abdominal wall (n = 3). All-cause readmissions within 30 days of surgery occurred in 19 patients (12%). There was no 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSION: In our experience, patients who require chronic anticoagulation medication are higher than average risk for postoperative complications and all-cause readmission rates. Careful surgical technique and close attention to postoperative anticoagulation protocols are essential to decrease perioperative risk in this high-risk cohort.
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
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: 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.
METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, multicentre randomised trial, patients aged 21-80 years with cT3 or cT4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were enrolled at 22 centres from South Korea, China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery and EIPL (EIPL group) or surgery alone (standard surgery group) via a web-based programme in random permuted blocks in varying block sizes of four and six, assuming equal allocation between treatment groups. Randomisation was stratified according to study site and the sequence was generated using a computer program and concealed until the interventions were assigned. After surgery in the EIPL group, peritoneal lavage was done with 1 L of warm (42°C) normal 0·9% saline followed by complete aspiration; this procedure was repeated ten times. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done assuming intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02140034.
FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2012, and Aug 3, 2018, 800 patients were randomly assigned to the EIPL group (n=398) or the standard surgery group (n=402). Two patients in the EIPL group and one in the standard surgery group withdrew from the trial immediately after randomisation and were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. At the third interim analysis on Aug 28, 2019, the predictive probability of overall survival being significantly higher in the EIPL group was less than 0·5%; therefore, the trial was terminated on the basis of futility. With a median follow-up of 2·4 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), the two groups were similar in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·78-1·52; p=0·62). 3-year overall survival was 77·0% (95% CI 71·4-81·6) for the EIPL group and 76·7% (71·0-81·5) for the standard surgery group. 60 adverse events were reported in the EIPL group and 41 were reported in the standard surgery group. The most common adverse events included anastomotic leak (ten [3%] of 346 patients in the EIPL group vs six [2%] of 362 patients in the standard surgery group), bleeding (six [2%] vs six [2%]), intra-abdominal abscess (four [1%] vs five [1%]), superficial wound infection (seven [2%] vs one [<1%]), and abnormal liver function (six [2%] vs one [<1%]). Ten of the reported adverse events (eight in the EIPL group and two in the standard surgery group) resulted in death.
INTERPRETATION: EIPL and surgery did not have a survival benefit compared with surgery alone and is not recommended for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
FUNDING: National Medical Research Council, Singapore.
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.
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.