Pre-Operative Group and Save in Elective and Emergency Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Necessity, Cost-Effectiveness, and Own Experience.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a high safety profile. This study seeks to quantify the incidence of blood transfusion in both the elective and emergency settings, examine related patient outcomes, and investigate selection criteria for pre-operative Group and Save (G&S) sampling. Methods: A prospective multi-centre observational study was conducted to investigate patients undergoing either elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the UK between January 2020 and May 2021. Multivariate logistical regression models were used to identify patient factors associated with the risk of transfusion and explore outcomes linked to pre-operative G&S sampling. Results: This study comprised 959 patients, with 631 (65.8%) undergoing elective cholecystectomy and 328 (34.2%) undergoing emergency surgery. The median age was 48 years (range: 35-59), with 724 (75.5%) of the patients being female. Only five patients (0.5%) required blood transfusions, receiving an average of three units, with the first unit administered approximately six hours post-operatively. Among these cases, three patients (60%) had underlying haematological conditions. In adjusted models, male gender was significantly associated with the need for a blood transfusion (OR 11.31, p = 0.013), while the presence of a pre-operative Group and Save sample did not demonstrate any positive impact on patient outcomes. Conclusions: The incidence of blood transfusion following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is very low. Male gender and haematological conditions may present as independent risk factors. Pre-operative G&S sampling did not yield any positive impact on patient outcomes and could be safely excluded in both elective and emergency cases, although certain population subsets will warrant further consideration.

Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) results in substantial patient harm. Upper gastrointestinal surgery (bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection) affects the delicate physiology of pancreatic exocrine function and may result in PEI. The aim of this study was to assimilate the literature on incidence, diagnosis, and management of PEI after bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases identified studies investigating PEI after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analyses were undertaken for incidence of PEI and benefit of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. RESULTS: Among 1620 patients from 24 studies included in quantitative synthesis, 36.0% developed PEI. The incidence of PEI was 23.0 and 50.4% after bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection respectively. Notably, the incidence of PEI was 44% after biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and 66.2% after total gastrectomy. The most common diagnostic test used was faecal elastase 1 (15 of 31 studies), with less than 200 µg/g being diagnostic of PEI. A total of 11 studies considered the management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, with 78.6% of patients responding positively to pancreatic enzyme replacement when it was prescribed. CONCLUSION: PEI is common after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery and patients may benefit from enzyme replacement therapy.

Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency occurs when enzymes from the pancreas are unable to help digest food. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency is known to cause disruptive symptoms after gastrointestinal surgery. Although such symptoms are well known after pancreatic surgery, after other gastrointestinal operations, including bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric cancer resection, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency is often overlooked as a cause of both symptoms and poor nutrition. This study looked at, and combined, all the current evidence on the rate of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after these operations, the way it is diagnosed, and how it is treated. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency may be more common than previously thought after bariatric metabolic surgery or oesophagogastric surgery, and clinicians working with these patients should have a low threshold for starting treatment.

Safety outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced organ disease: the ONWARD study: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing numbers of patients with advanced organ disease are being considered for bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS). There is no prospective study on the safety of BMS in these patients. This study aimed to capture outcomes for patients with advanced cardiac, renal, or liver disease undergoing BMS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multinational, prospective cohort study on the safety of elective BMS in adults (≥18 years) with advanced disease of the heart, liver, or kidney. RESULTS: Data on 177 patients with advanced diseases of heart, liver, or kidney were submitted by 75 centres in 33 countries. Mean age and BMI was 48.56±11.23 years and 45.55±7.35 kg/m 2 , respectively. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was performed in 124 patients (70%). The 30-day morbidity and mortality were 15.9% ( n =28) and 1.1% ( n =2), respectively. Thirty-day morbidity was 16.4%, 11.7%, 20.5%, and 50.0% in patients with advanced heart ( n =11/61), liver ( n =8/68), kidney ( n =9/44), and multi-organ disease ( n =2/4), respectively. Cardiac patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35% and New York Heart Association classification 3 or 4, liver patients with model for end-stage liver disease score greater than or equal to 12, and patients with advanced renal disease not on dialysis were at increased risk of complications. Comparison with a propensity score-matched cohort found advanced disease of the heart, liver, or kidney to be significantly associated with higher 30-day morbidity. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced organ disease are at increased risk of 30-day morbidity following BMS. This prospective study quantifies that risk and identifies patients at the highest risk.

Safety and Efficacy of 12-Month Intra-gastric Balloon-Series of over 1100 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Intra-gastric balloons (IGB) are a mainstay of endoscopic treatment of overweight and obesity. In recent years, an IGB which can remain in situ for 12 months has been developed. The current study aimed to analyse the safety and efficacy of this 12-month IGB. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving the Orbera 365TM IGB (Apollo Endosurgery, TX, USA) between September 2017 and August 2021 were included in a prospective database. Patients received regular follow-up consultations followed by endoscopic removal at 12 months. Demographic data along with weight loss data were collected. All adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 1149 patients were included in the study. A majority of the patients were female (87.13%). Median body mass index (BMI) prior to insertion was 36.30 kg/m2 (IQR 32.60-40.00 kg/m2). Median absolute weight loss for all patients was 11.36 kg (IQR 6.70-16.82 kg). There was ongoing sustained weight loss until device removal at week 52. For patients with a weight recording at point of IGB removal, median weight loss was greater (15.88 kg, IQR 10.43-21.72) with percentage total body weight loss of 15.38% (IQR 10.99-21.77) and excess weight loss of 53.99% (IQR 32.44-76.30). Increased patient engagement with post-procedural follow-up was associated with increased weight loss (p<0.001). There were 60 total complications (5.22%). Fifty patients required balloon removal due to intolerance. There were eight cases of balloon rupture. There were only two severe complications (0.17%). CONCLUSION: The current study has confirmed safety of this IGB at 12 months with adverse events comparable to published literature. Weight loss increased up until the point of removal at 12 months.

Tackling a Post-COVID-19 Cholecystectomy Waiting List: Are We Meeting the Challenge?

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a tremendous backlog in elective surgical activity. Our hospital trust adopted an innovative approach to dealing with elective waiting times for cholecystectomy during the recovery phase from COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate trends in overall cholecystectomy activity and the effect on waiting times. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was undertaken, investigating patients who received a cholecystectomy at a large United Kingdom hospital trust between February 2021 and February 2022. There were multiple phased strategies to tackle a 533-patient waiting list: private sector, multiple sites including emergency operating, mobile theatre, and seven-day working. The correlation of determination (R2) and Kruskal-Wallis analysis were used to evaluate trends in waiting times across the study period. Results: A total of 657 patients underwent a cholecystectomy. The median age was 49 years, 602 (91.6%) patients had an ASA of 1-2, and 494 (75.2%) were female. A total of 30 (4.6%) patients were listed due to gallstone pancreatitis, 380 (57.8%) for symptomatic cholelithiasis, and 228 (34.7%) for calculous cholecystitis. Median waiting times were reduced from 428 days (IQR 373-508) to 49 days (IQR 34-96), R2 = 0.654, p < 0.001. For pancreatitis specifically, waiting times had decreased from a median of 218 days (IQR 139-239) to 28 (IQR 24-40), R2 = 0.613, p < 0.001. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the methodology utilised to safely and effectively tackle the cholecystectomy waiting list locally. The approach utilised here has potential to be adapted to other units or similar operation types in order to reduce elective waiting times.

Global trends in BMS research using publication as a surrogate marker: A 30 year review.

Obesity is a global pandemic with increasing prevalence and long-term negative health outcomes. Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) is the most effective treatment option for achieving long-term weight loss. A systematic search was performed from 1990 to 2020 of BMS procedures using standardised groups. Data were collected on operation type reported, country and continent of publication. North America and Europe were the leading contributors to global publications in BMS, producing 41.3 % (n = 4931) and 37.1 % (n = 4436) of publications respectively, with increasing publications from Asia. Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) and Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) were the most studied procedure types with number of publications continuing to increase over time. A plateau and downward trend was seen for Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band (LAGB) publication from 2015 to 2019. An increase in emerging/experimental techniques over the past decade is observed.

Results of the ARROW survey of anti-reflux practice in the United Kingdom.

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, significant health burden. United Kingdom guidance states that surgery should be considered for patients with a diagnosis of GERD not suitable for long-term acid suppression. There is no consensus on many aspects of patient pathways and optimal surgical technique, and an absence of information on how patients are currently selected for surgery. Further detail on the delivery of anti-reflux surgery (ARS) is required. A United Kingdom-wide survey was designed to gather surgeon opinion regarding pre-, peri- and post-operative practice of ARS. Responses were received from 155 surgeons at 57 institutions. Most agreed that endoscopy (99%), 24-hour pH monitoring (83%) and esophageal manometry (83%) were essential investigations prior to surgery. Of 57 units, 30 (53%) had access to a multidisciplinary team to discuss cases; case-loads were higher in those units (median 50 vs. 30, P < 0.024). The most popular form of fundoplication was a Nissen posterior 360° (75% of surgeons), followed by a posterior 270° Toupet (48%). Only seven surgeons stated they had no upper limit of body mass index prior to surgery. A total of 46% of respondents maintain a database of their practice and less than a fifth routinely record quality of life scores before (19%) or after (14%) surgery. While there are areas of consensus, a lack of evidence to support workup, intervention and outcome evaluation is reflected in the variability of practice. ARS patients are not receiving the same level of evidence-based care as other patient groups.

Ursodeoxycholic acid in the management of symptomatic gallstone disease: systematic review and clinician survey.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic gallstones are common. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is a bile acid that dissolves gallstones. There is increasing interest in UDCA for symptomatic gallstones, particularly in those unfit for surgery. METHOD: A UK clinician survey of use and opinions about UDCA in symptomatic gallstones was performed, assessing clinicians' beliefs and perceptions of UDCA effectiveness. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for studies of UDCA for symptomatic gallstones (key terms included 'ursodeoxycholic acid'; 'UDCA'; 'biliary pain'; and 'biliary colic'). Information was assessed by two authors, including bias assessment, with independent review of conflicts. RESULTS: Overall, 102 clinicians completed the survey, and 42 per cent had previous experience of using UDCA. Survey responses demonstrated clinical equipoise surrounding the benefit of UDCA for the management of symptomatic gallstones, with no clear consensus for benefit or non-benefit; however, 95 per cent would start using UDCA if there was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrating a benefit. Eight studies were included in the review: four RCTs, three prospective studies, and one retrospective study. Seven of eight studies were favourable of UDCA for biliary pain. Outcomes and follow-up times were heterogenous, as well as comparator type, with only four of eight studies comparing with placebo. CONCLUSION: Evidence for UDCA in symptomatic gallstones is scarce and heterogenous. Clinicians currently managing symptomatic gallstone disease are largely unaware of the benefit of UDCA, and there is clinical equipoise surrounding the benefit of UDCA. Level 1 evidence is required by clinicians to support UDCA use in the future.

Single-centre review of the management of intra-thoracic oesophageal perforation in a tertiary oesophageal unit: paradigm shift, short- and long-term outcomes over 15 years.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal perforation is an uncommon surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. The timing and type of intervention is crucial and there has been a major paradigm shift towards minimal invasive management over the last 15 years. Herein, we review our management of spontaneous and iatrogenic oesophageal perforations and assess the short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients presenting with intra-thoracic oesophageal perforation between January 2004 and Dec 2020 in a single tertiary hospital. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were identified with oesophageal perforations: 58.1% were male; mean age of 68.28 ± 13.67 years. Aetiology was spontaneous in 42 (56.76%), iatrogenic in 29 (39.2%) and foreign body ingestion/related to trauma in 3 (4.1%). The diagnosis was delayed in 29 (39.2%) cases for longer than 24 h. There was change in the primary diagnostic modality over the period of this study with CT being used for diagnosis for 19 of 20 patients (95%). Initial management of the oesophageal perforation included a surgical intervention in 34 [45.9%; primary closure in 28 (37.8%), resection in 6 (8.1%)], endoscopic stenting in 18 (24.3%) and conservative management in 22 (29.7%) patients. On multivariate analysis, there was an effect of pathology (malignant vs. benign; p = 0.003) and surgical treatment as first line (p = 0.048) on 90-day mortality. However, at 1-year and overall follow-up, time to presentation (≤ 24 h vs. > 24 h) remained the only significant variable (p = 0.017 & p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Oesophageal perforation remains a condition with high mortality. The paradigm shift in our tertiary unit suggests the more liberal use of CT to establish an earlier diagnosis and a higher rate of oesophageal stenting as a primary management option for iatrogenic perforations. Time to diagnosis and management continues to be the most critical variable in the overall outcome.

Handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic and Its Effects on Bariatric Surgical Practice: Analysis of GENEVA Study Database.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a worldwide suspension of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) services. The current study analyses data on patterns of service delivery, recovery of practices, and protective measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic by bariatric teams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current study is a subset analysis of the GENEVA study which was an international cohort study between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Data were specifically analysed regarding the timing of BMS suspension, patterns of service recovery, and precautionary measures deployed. RESULTS: A total of 527 surgeons from 439 hospitals in 64 countries submitted data regarding their practices and handling of the pandemic. Smaller hospitals (with less than 200 beds) were able to restart BMS programmes more rapidly (time to BMS restart 60.8 ± 38.9 days) than larger institutions (over 2000 beds) (81.3 ± 30.5 days) (p = 0.032). There was a significant difference in the time interval between cessation/reduction and restart of bariatric services between government-funded practices (97.1 ± 76.2 days), combination practices (84.4 ± 47.9 days), and private practices (58.5 ± 38.3 days) (p < 0.001). Precautionary measures adopted included patient segregation, utilisation of personal protective equipment, and preoperative testing. Following service recovery, 40% of the surgeons operated with a reduced capacity. Twenty-two percent gave priority to long waiters, 15.4% gave priority to uncontrolled diabetics, and 7.6% prioritised patients requiring organ transplantation. CONCLUSION: This study provides global, real-world data regarding the recovery of BMS services following the COVID-19 pandemic.

De Novo Inflammatory Bowel Disease Following Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The incidence of both obesity and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising globally. The influence of bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) upon IBD development is largely unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the relationship between BMS and the risk of de novo IBD development following surgery. A systematic literature search and meta-analysis were performed using PubMed and Scopus databases. Inclusion criteria were any study reporting risk of de novo IBD development following BMS relative to an appropriate control cohort. Pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated. A total of 31 articles were identified by the literature search. Four studies including 149,385 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimation of a meta-analysis of risk ratios studies demonstrated a POR for the development of IBD following BMS of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.06-1.29). This indicates a 17% increase in relative risk of de novo IBD development for those patients receiving BMS compared to those treated by non-surgical methods. Based on the present data, there appears to be an association between BMS and risk of de novo IBD. Compared to the proven benefits of BMS on other aspects of patient health, this potential risk remains proportionally low but may be an important consideration for patients both pre- and post-operatively.

Safety of Bariatric Surgery in ≥ 65-Year-Old Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Age ≥ 65 years is regarded as a relative contraindication for bariatric surgery. Advanced age is also a recognised risk factor for adverse outcomes with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) which continues to wreak havoc on global populations. This study aimed to assess the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) in this particular age group during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with the younger cohort. METHODS: We conducted a prospective international study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into two groups - patients ≥ 65-years-old (Group I) and patients < 65-years-old (Group II). The two groups were compared for 30-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: There were 149 patients in Group 1 and 6923 patients in Group II. The mean age, preoperative weight, and BMI were 67.6 ± 2.5 years, 119.5 ± 24.5 kg, and 43 ± 7 in Group I and 39.8 ± 11.3 years, 117.7±20.4 kg, and 43.7 ± 7 in Group II, respectively. Approximately, 95% of patients in Group 1 had at least one co-morbidity compared to 68% of patients in Group 2 (p = < 0.001). The 30-day morbidity was significantly higher in Group I (11.4%) compared to Group II (6.6%) (p = 0.022). However, the 30-day mortality and COVID-19 infection rates were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher complication rate in those ≥ 65 years of age compared to those < 65 years old. However, the mortality and postoperative COVID-19 infection rates are not significantly different between the two groups.

How safe bariatric surgery is-An update on perioperative mortality for clinicians and patients.

Bariatric, metabolic or weight loss surgery produces sustained weight loss and imporovement in obesity related diseases. Bariatric surgery has existed for decades but there is limited reliable data on the risk of perioperative mortality following the procedures. This commentary focuses on a recent meta-analysis which has produced contemporaneous mortality data, and the findings are significant. Utilising data from 3.6 million patients the study has shown an overall pooled perioperative mortality of 0.08%, a significantly reduced risk compared to previous, smaller studies. This finding increases our knowledge of surgical risk for these procedures and should now equip health care groups to challenge barriers to uptake of bariatric surgery. Barriers currently include a worldwide lack of focus on treating obesity, lack of funding and resource from commissioners, and a general public and professional view that bariatric surgery may be high risk. In reality, this figure equates to mortality risk for procedures generally considered 'safe' such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy and knee arthroplasty. Bariatric surgery is a safe option for achieving sustained weight-loss and the treatment of obesity related diseases, and refusing access to surgery on the grounds of perioperative safety should now be an outdated premise.

Assurance of surgical quality within multicenter randomized controlled trials for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical quality assurance methods aim to ensure standardization and high quality of surgical techniques within multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thereby diminishing the heterogeneity of surgery and reducing biases due to surgical variation. This study aimed to establish the measures undertaken to ensure surgical quality within multicenter RCTs investigating bariatric and metabolic surgery, and their influence upon clinical outcomes. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed from the Embase, Medline, and Web of Science databases to identify multicenter RCTs investigating bariatric and metabolic surgery. Each RCT was evaluated against a checklist of surgical quality measures within 3 domain: (1) standardization of surgical techniques; (2) credentialing of surgical experience; and (3) monitoring of performance. Outcome measures were postoperative weight change and complications. RESULTS: Nineteen multicenter RCTs were included in the analysis. Three studies undertook pretrial education of surgical standard. Fourteen studies described complete standardization of surgical techniques. Four studies credentialed surgeons by case volume prior to enrollment. Two studies used intraoperative or video evaluation of surgical technique prior to enrollment. Only two studies monitored performance during the study. Although there were limited quality assurance methods undertaken, utilization of these techniques was associated with reduced overall complications. Standardization of surgery was associated with reduced re-operation rates but did not influence postoperative weight loss. CONCLUSION: The utilization of methods for surgical quality assurance are very limited within multicenter RCTs of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Future studies must implement surgical quality assurance methods to reduce variability of surgical performance and potential bias within RCTs.

30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of the GENEVA data.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data comparing 30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study aimed to compare the 30-day safety of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis utilised data collected from the GENEVA study which was a multicentre observational cohort study of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in 185 centres across 42 countries between 01/05/2022 and 31/10/2020 during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 30-day complications were categorised according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients receiving SG, RYGB, or OAGB were propensity-matched according to baseline characteristics and 30-day complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 6770 patients (SG 3983; OAGB 702; RYGB 2085) were included in this analysis. Prior to matching, RYGB was associated with highest 30-day complication rate (SG 5.8%; OAGB 7.5%; RYGB 8.0% (p = 0.006)). On multivariate regression modelling, Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia were associated with increased 30-day complications. Being a non-smoker was associated with reduced complication rates. When compared to SG as a reference category, RYGB, but not OAGB, was associated with an increased rate of 30-day complications. A total of 702 pairs of SG and OAGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 7.3% (n = 51) as compared to 7.5% (n = 53) in the OAGB group (p = 0.68). Similarly, 2085 pairs of SG and RYGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 6.1% (n = 127) as compared to 7.9% (n = 166) in the RYGB group (p = 0.09). And, 702 pairs of OAGB and RYGB were matched. The complication rate in both groups was the same at 7.5 % (n = 53; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This global study found no significant difference in the 30-day morbidity and mortality of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS). BACKGROUND: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. METHODS: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years. RESULTS: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ±â€Š10 years, 8.4 ±â€Š5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ±â€Š7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. CONCLUSION: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.