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.
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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
METHODS: We studied 101 patients with pre-operative diabetes and albuminuria [defined as urine albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) > 30 mg/g] who underwent bariatric surgery at an academic center from 2005 to 2014.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (56%) were female with a mean age of 53 (± 11) years. The mean pre-operative BMI and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were 43.1 (± 7.6) kg/m2 and 8.4 (± 1.8)%, respectively. The median pre-operative uACR was 80.0 (45.0-231.0) mg/g. Bariatric procedures included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 75, 74%) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 26, 26%). The mean follow-up period was 61 (± 29) months. At last follow-up, the mean BMI was 33.8 (± 8.3) kg/m2. The overall glycemic control improved after bariatric surgery. At last follow-up, 73% had good glycemic control (HbA1c
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: 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.