RESUMEN
Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is widely considered the most effective option for treating obesity, a chronic, relapsing, and progressive disease. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued new guidelines on the indications for MBS, which have superseded the previous 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines. The aim of this study is to establish the first set of consensus guidelines for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, using an Expert Modified Delphi Method. In this study, 78 experienced bariatric surgeons from 32 countries participated in a two-round Modified Delphi consensus voting process. The threshold for consensus was set at an agreement or disagreement of ≥ 70.0% among the experts. The experts reached a consensus on 54 statements. The committee of experts reached a consensus that MBS is a cost-effective treatment option for Class II obesity and for patients with Class I obesity who have not achieved significant weight loss through non-surgical methods. MBS was also considered suitable for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. The committee identified intra-gastric balloon (IGB) as a treatment option for patients with class I obesity and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) as an option for patients with class I and II obesity, as well as for patients with T2DM and a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2. Sleeve gastrectomy (1) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were also recognized as viable treatment options for these patient groups. The committee also agreed that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a suitable option for patients with Class II obesity and T2DM, regardless of the presence or severity of obesity-related medical problems. The recommendations for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, developed through an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus, suggest that the use of standard primary bariatric endoscopic (IGB, ESG) and surgical procedures (SG, RYGB, OAGB) are acceptable in these patient groups, as consensus was reached regarding these procedures. However, randomized controlled trials are still needed in Class I and II Obesity to identify the best treatment approach for these patients in the future.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Derivación Gástrica , Obesidad Mórbida , Humanos , Técnica Delphi , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/cirugía , Obesidad/cirugía , Cirugía Bariátrica/métodos , Derivación Gástrica/métodos , Gastrectomía , Obesidad Mórbida/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
MAJOR UPDATES TO 1991 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is recommended for individuals with a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2, regardless of presence, absence, or severity of co-morbidities.MBS should be considered for individuals with metabolic disease and BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2.BMI thresholds should be adjusted in the Asian population such that a BMI >25 kg/m2 suggests clinical obesity, and individuals with BMI >27.5 kg/m2 should be offered MBS.Long-term results of MBS consistently demonstrate safety and efficacy.Appropriately selected children and adolescents should be considered for MBS.(Surg Obes Relat Dis 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2022.08.013 ) © 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Enfermedades Metabólicas , Obesidad Mórbida , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Obesidad Mórbida/cirugía , Obesidad/complicaciones , Obesidad/cirugía , Cirugía Bariátrica/métodos , Enfermedades Metabólicas/cirugía , Índice de Masa CorporalRESUMEN
Major updates to 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines for bariatric surgery.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Enfermedades Metabólicas , Obesidad Mórbida , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Obesidad/complicaciones , Obesidad/cirugía , Enfermedades Metabólicas/cirugía , Obesidad Mórbida/complicaciones , Obesidad Mórbida/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) is the most common parameter for classifying nutritional status. However, body composition (BC) may vary considerably among individuals with identical BMIs; consequently, we need to assess BC efficiently. Bariatric surgery is the most effective method for treating obesity. To improve quality assessment of postoperative weight loss, it is essential to assess BC. Multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a practical assessment instrument, though limited when applied among the obese population. Despite dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) being the current reference standard, it has physical limitations which restrict its practical application. This study, therefore, sought to correlate the results of BC assessments of same patient population using BIA and DXA. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional validation study with patients invited to undergo a multi-frequency BIA (Inbody 720®) and afterwards a DXA examination Statistical analyses were done using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), paired t-test and the Bland-Altman plot analysis. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were randomly selected, with 73 meeting the criteria for study inclusion. Most were female (89%) and had an average BMI of 40.17 ± 4.08 kg/m(2). An almost perfect correlation of fat (kg) and fat-free mass (kg) was found in results from the BIA and DXA examination (ICC = 0.832 and ICC = 0.899, respectively). A substantial correlation was also found between the percentage of body fat (%BF) and the percentage of fat-free mass (%FFM). The comparison made between the BIA and DXA using the t-test showed significant differences between all parameters. The Bland-Altman plot showed that the BIA method tends to underestimate the FM and overestimate the LM measurements when compared with DXA. CONCLUSION: BIA proved to be a safe alternative for assessing BC in clinically severely obese patients and thus provides a more accessible evaluation tool for this population. But, consideration should be given to the formula added to the BIA measurement, adjusting the values to differences observed in order to reduce errors when compared with the DXA measurements.