Matched Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Cases: Formative Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric weight-loss surgery rates are increasing internationally. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel, minimally invasive endoscopic procedure thought to mimic some of the effects of a more common surgery, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Patient factors affecting procedural choice are unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This formative study aimed to determine the preoperative and early postoperative characteristics of adults matched for age, sex, and BMI who chose ESG versus LSG. METHODS: This prospective cohort study recruited ESG and matched LSG adults in Australia. Preoperative outcomes were medical history, glycemic biomarkers, blood lipids, liver function enzymes, albumin, blood pressure, hepatic steatosis index, the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite questionnaire, and body composition via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Adverse events were recorded preoperatively and up to 2 weeks postoperatively. SPSS was used to test if there were differences between cohorts by comparing means or mean ranks, and binary regression was used to understand how characteristics might predict procedure choice. RESULTS: A total of 50 (including 25 ESG and 25 LSG) patients were recruited, who were primarily White (45/50, 90%) and female (41/50, 82%) with a mean age of 41.7 (SD 9.4) years. Participants had a mean of 4.0 (SD 2.2) active comorbid conditions, with the most common being nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (38/50, 76%), back pain (32/50, 64%), anxiety or depression (24/50, 48%), and joint pain (23/50, 46%). The LSG cohort had higher hemoglobin A1c (5.3%, SD 0.2%) than the ESG cohort (5%, SD 0.2%; P=.008). There was a 2.4 kg/m2 difference in median BMI (P=.03) between the groups, but fat and fat-free mass had no meaningful differences. Comparing the LSG and ESG groups showed that the LSG group had lower total quality of life (49.5%, SD 10.6% vs 56.6%, SD 12.7%; P=.045), lower weight-related self-esteem (10.7%, IQR 3.6%-25% vs 25%, IQR 17.9%-39.3%; P=.02), and worse abdominal pain (38.9%, IQR 33.3%-50% vs 53.9%, SD 14.2%, P=.01). For every percent improvement in weight-related self-esteem, the odds for selecting ESG increased by 4.4% (95% CI 1.004-1.085; P=.03). For every percent worsening in hunger pain, the odds for selecting ESG decreased by 3.3% (95% CI 0.944-0.990; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: There was very little evidence that Australian adults who chose an endoscopic versus surgical sleeve had different rates of comorbidities, body fat percentage, or weight-related quality of life. There was evidence against the test hypothesis, that is, there was evidence suggesting that lower self-esteem predicted choosing a more invasive sleeve (ie, LSG rather than ESG). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000337279; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374595.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with 12+ months of adjuvant multidisciplinary support.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and the incisionless endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) weight loss procedures require further investigation of their efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes in the Australian setting. METHODS: The aim was to examine the 6- and 12-month weight loss efficacy, safety, and weight-related quality of life (QoL) of adults with obesity who received the ESG or LSG bariatric procedure with 12+ months of adjuvant multidisciplinary pre- and postprocedural support. Data were from a two-arm prospective cohort study that followed patients from baseline to 12-months postprocedure from a medical center in Queensland. Percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, android:gynoid ratio, bone mineral content) via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, weight-related QoL, lipid, glycemic, and hepatic biochemistry, and adverse events. RESULTS: 16 ESG (19% attrition; 81.2% female; aged:41.4 (SD: 10.4) years; BMI: 35.5 (SD: 5.2) kg/m2) and 45 LSG (9% attrition; 84.4% female; aged:40.4 (SD: 9.0) years; BMI: 40.7 (SD: 5.6) kg/m2) participants were recruited. At 12-months postprocedure, ESG %EWL was 57% (SD: 32%; p < 0.01) and LSG %EWL was 79% (SD: 24%; p < 0.001). ESG and LSG cohorts improved QoL (19.8% in ESG [p > 0.05]; 48.1% in LSG [p < 0.05]), liver function (AST: - 4.4 U/L in ESG [p < 0.05]; - 2.7 U/L in LSG [p < 0.05]), HbA1c (- 0.5% in ESG [p < 0.05]; - 0.1% in LSG [p < 0.05]) and triglycerides (- 0.6 mmol/L in ESG [p > 0.05]; - 0.4 mmol/L in LSG [P < 0.05]) at 12-months. Both cohorts reduced fat mass (p < 0.05). The ESG maintained but LSG decreased fat-free mass at 6-months (p < 0.05); and both cohorts lost fat-free mass at 12-months (p < 0.05). There were no adverse events directly related to the procedure. The ESG reported 25% mild-moderate adverse events possibly related to the procedure, and the LSG reported 27% mild-severe adverse events possibly related to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, the ESG and LSG were safe and effective weight loss treatments for obese adults alongside multidisciplinary support. Patients who elected the ESG maintained fat-free mass at 6-months but both cohorts lost fat-free mass at 12-months postprocedure. Patients who elected the LSG had large and significant improvements to weight-related quality of life. Further well-powered studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively at the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 06/03/2018, Registration Number ACTRN12618000337279 .

Diagnostic Accuracy of Nasal Endoscopy as Compared to Computed Tomography in Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

The study was done with the aims to evaluate the accuracy of nasal endoscopy as compared to computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and to evaluate the correlation between Endoscopy Score and CT Score. It was a cross sectional study. Every consecutive, symptomatic patient of CRS who fulfilled the criteria of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Task Force were included in the study. Rigid diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE) was done and Lund-Kennedy scoring system was used. Plain CT of paranasal sinuses was done on the same day and severity was assessed using Lund-Mackay scoring system. Results were analysed considering CT as a gold standard. Out of 54 study patients, 45 (83.33%) had abnormal endoscopic examination while 50 (92.59%) were showing positive CT scan. Sensitivity and specificity of DNE against CT scan were 94% (95% CI 81.43-98.33%) and 75% (95% CI 42-99.24%), respectively. The positive predictive value was 98% and negative predictive value was 67%. Correlation between Lund-Mackay overall CT and Lund-Kennedy Endoscopy Score was high [Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) = 0.881, p value < 0.0001]. The conclusion was drawn that, endoscopy is valuable in individuals with symptoms consistent with CRS and can be used to confirm the diagnosis and to know the severity of the disease. CT scan can be advised in those with high clinical suspicion of CRS but negative endoscopy and in those having persistent symptoms after optimum medical management requiring Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery.