Weight recurrence after Sleeve Gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score matched nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Literature remains scarce on patients experiencing weight recurrence after initial adequate weight loss following primary bariatric surgery. Therefore, this study compared the extent of weight recurrence between patients who received a Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adequate weight loss at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: All patients undergoing primary RYGB or SG between 2015 and 2018 were selected from the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. Inclusion criteria were achieving ≥ 20% total weight loss (TWL) at 1-year and having at least one subsequent follow-up visit. The primary outcome was ≥ 10% weight recurrence (WR) at the last recorded follow-up between 2 and 5 years, after ≥ 20% TWL at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included remission of comorbidities at last recorded follow-up. A propensity score matched logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the difference between RYGB and SG. RESULTS: A total of 19.762 patients were included, 14.982 RYGB and 4.780 SG patients. After matching 4.693 patients from each group, patients undergoing SG had a higher likelihood on WR up to 5-year follow-up compared with RYGB [OR 2.07, 95% CI (1.89-2.27), p < 0.01] and less often remission of type 2 diabetes [OR 0.69, 95% CI (0.56-0.86), p < 0.01], hypertension (HTN) [OR 0.75, 95% CI (0.65-0.87), p < 0.01], dyslipidemia [OR 0.44, 95% CI (0.36-0.54), p < 0.01], gastroesophageal reflux [OR 0.25 95% CI (0.18-0.34), p < 0.01], and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) [OR 0.66, 95% CI (0.54-0.8), p < 0.01]. In subgroup analyses, patients who experienced WR after SG but maintained ≥ 20%TWL from starting weight, more often achieved HTN (44.7% vs 29.4%), dyslipidemia (38.3% vs 19.3%), and OSAS (54% vs 20.3%) remission compared with patients not maintaining ≥ 20%TWL. No such differences in comorbidity remission were found within RYGB patients. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing SG are more likely to experience weight recurrence, and less likely to achieve comorbidity remission than patients undergoing RYGB.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018­2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.

Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy: Patient Selection and Short-term Outcome of 47,101 Primary Operations From the Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch National Quality Registries.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the use and short-term outcome of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is performed in high volumes worldwide, no consensus exists regarding the choice of bariatric procedure for specific groups of patients. METHODS: Data from 3 national registries for bariatric surgery were used. Patient selection, perioperative data (severe complications, mortality, and rate of readmissions within 30 days), and 1-year results (follow-up rate and weight loss) were studied. RESULTS: A total of 47,101 primary operations were registered, 33,029 (70.1%) RYGB and 14,072 (29.9%) SG. Patients receiving RYGB met international guidelines for having bariatric surgery more often than those receiving SG (91.9% vs 83,0%, P < 0.001). The 2 procedures did not differ in the rate of severe complications (2.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.382), nor 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.03%, P = 0.821). Readmission rates were higher after RYGB (4.3% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001).One-year post surgery, less RYGB-patients were lost-to follow-up (12.1% vs 16.5%, P < 0.001) and RYGB resulted in a higher rate of patients with total weight loss of more than 20% (95.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001). While the weight-loss after RYGB was similar between hospitals, there was a great variation in weight loss after SG. CONCLUSION: This study reflects the pragmatic use and short-term outcome of RYGB and SG in 3 countries in North-Western Europe. Both procedures were safe, with RYGB having higher weight loss and follow-up rates at the cost of a slightly higher 30-day readmission rate.

Measuring quality of life in bariatric surgery: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Current studies mainly focus on total weight loss and comorbidity reduction. Only a few studies compare Quality of Life (QoL) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study was conducted to examine the extent of improvement in QoL on different domains after primary bariatric surgery and compare these results to Dutch reference values. METHODS: The study included prospectively collected data from patients who underwent primary bariatric surgery in five Dutch hospitals. The RAND-36 questionnaire was used to measure the patient's QoL; preoperatively and twelve months postoperatively. Postoperative scores were compared to Dutch reference values, standardized for age, using t-test. A difference of more than 5% was considered a minimal important difference. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to compare SG and RYGB on the extent of improvement, adjusted for case-mix factors. RESULTS: In total, 4864 patients completed both the pre- and postoperative questionnaire. Compared with Dutch reference values, patients postoperatively reported clinically relevant better physical functioning (RYGB + 6.8%), physical role limitations (SG + 5.6%; RYGB + 6.2%) and health change (SG + 77.1%; RYGB + 80.0%), but worse general health perception (SG - 22.8%; RYGB - 17.0%). Improvement in QoL was similar between SG and RYGB, except for physical functioning (ß 2.758; p-value 0.008) and general health perception (ß 2.607; p-value < 0.001) for which RYGB patients improved more. CONCLUSIONS: SG and RYGB patients achieved a better postoperative score in physical functioning, physical role limitations and health change compared to Dutch reference values, and a worse score in general health perception.

Colorectal cancer surgery for obese patients: Financial and clinical outcomes of a Dutch population-based registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore the association among adverse events, body mass index (BMI), and hospital costs after colorectal cancer surgery in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution. METHODS: All colorectal cancer procedures in 29 Dutch hospitals listed in a 2010-2012 population-based database and with a BMI > 18.5 were included (n = 8687). Hospital costs were measured uniformly and based on time-driven activity-based costing. The BMI classification of the World Health Organization was used. RESULTS: Patients in obesity classes 1 (23.6% [after risk-adjustment OR 1.245, CI 1.064-1.479, P = 0.007]) and ≥2 (28.1% [after risk-adjustment OR 1.816, CI 1.382-2.388, P < 0.001]) were associated with more severe complications and higher hospital costs (€14,294, +9.6%, after risk-adjustment +7.9%, P < 0.001; and €15,913 +22.0%, after risk-adjustment +21.2%, P < 0.001, respectively) than normal weight patients (20.8% and €13,040, respectively). Pre-obese patients had significantly lower mortality rates (2.7%, after risk-adjustment, OR 0.756, CI 0.577-0.991, P = 0.042) than normal-weight patients (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Obese surgical colorectal cancer patients in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution are associated with a significant increase in hospital costs because these patients suffer from more severe complications. This is the first study to provide evidence for the "obesity-paradox" for mortality in colorectal cancer surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:489-495. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with type A distal radius fractures, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal radius are common and account for an estimated 17% of all fractures diagnosed. Two-thirds of these fractures are displaced and require reduction. Although distal radius fractures, especially extra-articular fractures, are considered to be relatively harmless, inadequate treatment may result in impaired function of the wrist. Initial treatment according to Dutch guidelines consists of closed reduction and plaster immobilisation. If fracture redisplacement occurs, surgical treatment is recommended. Recently, the use of volar locking plates has become more popular. The aim of this study is to compare the functional outcome following surgical reduction and fixation with a volar locking plate with the functional outcome following closed reduction and plaster immobilisation in patients with displaced extra-articular distal radius fractures. DESIGN: This single blinded randomised controlled trial will randomise between open reduction and internal fixation with a volar locking plate (intervention group) and closed reduction followed by plaster immobilisation (control group). The study population will consist of all consecutive adult patients who are diagnosed with a displaced extra-articular distal radius fracture, which has been adequately reduced at the Emergency Department. The primary outcome (functional outcome) will be assessed by means of the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand Score (DASH). Secondary outcomes comprise the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), quality of life, pain, range of motion, radiological parameters, complications and cross-overs. Since the treatment allocated involves a surgical procedure, randomisation status will not be blinded. However, the researcher assessing the outcome at one year will be unaware of the treatment allocation. In total, 90 patients will be included and this trial will require an estimated time of two years to complete and will be conducted in the Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam and its partners of the regional trauma care network. DICUSSION: Ideally, patients would be randomised before any kind of treatment has been commenced. However, we deem it not patient-friendly to approach possible participants before adequate reduction has been obtained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR3113) and was granted permission by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Academic Medical Centre on 01-10-2012.

The Impact of Longer Biliopancreatic Limb Length on Weight Loss and Comorbidity Improvement at 5 Years After Primary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Different limb lengths are used in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery, as there is no consensus which limb length strategy has the best outcomes. The biliopancreatic limb (BPL) is thought to play an important role in achieving weight loss and associated comorbidity resolution. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a longer BPL on weight loss and comorbidity improvement at 5 years after primary RYGB. METHODS: All patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing primary RYGB between 2014-2017 with registered follow-up 5 years after surgery were included. Long BPL was defined as BPL ≥ 100 cm and short BPL as BPL < 100 cm. The primary outcome was achieving at least 25% total weight loss (TWL) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included absolute %TWL and improvement of comorbidities. A propensity score matched logistic and linear regression was used to estimate the difference in outcomes between patients with long and short BPL. RESULTS: At 5 years, long BPL had higher odds to achieve ≥ 25% TWL (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.01 - 1.41]) and was associated with 1.26% higher absolute TWL (ß = 1.26, 95% CI [0.53 - 1.99]). Furthermore, long BPL was more likely to result in improved diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.17, 95% CI [1.31 - 3.60]) and hypertension (OR = 1.45, 95% CI [1.06 - 1.99]). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing RYGB with longer BPL achieved higher weight loss and were more likely to achieve improvement of comorbidities at 5 years.

Optimizing Hospital Performance Evaluation in Total Weight Loss Outcomes After Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis to Guide Further Improvement in Dutch Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery aims for optimal patient outcomes, often evaluated through the percentage total weight loss (%TWL). Quality registries employ funnel plots for outcome comparisons between hospitals. However, funnel plots are traditionally used for dichotomous outcomes, requiring %TWL to be dichotomized, potentially limiting feedback quality. This study evaluates whether a funnel plot around the median %TWL has better discriminatory performance than binary funnel plots for achieving at least 20% and 25% TWL. METHODS: All hospitals performing bariatric surgery were included from the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. A funnel plot around the median was constructed using 5-year %TWL data. Hospitals positioned above the 95% control limit were colored green and those below red. The same hospitals were plotted in the binary funnel plots for 20% and 25% TWL and colored according to their performance in the funnel plot around the median. We explored the hospital's procedural mix in relation to %TWL performance as possible explanatory factors. RESULTS: The median-based funnel plot identified four underperforming and four outperforming hospitals, while only one underperforming and no outperforming hospitals were found with the binary funnel plot for 20% TWL. The 25% TWL binary funnel plot identified two underperforming and three outperforming hospitals. The proportion of sleeve gastrectomies performed per hospital may explain part of these results as it was negatively associated with median %TWL (ß = - 0.09, 95% confidence interval [- 0.13 to - 0.04]). CONCLUSION: The funnel plot around the median discriminated better between hospitals with significantly worse and better performance than funnel plots for dichotomized %TWL outcomes.

Surgical Aspects of Sleeve Gastrectomy Are Related to Weight Loss and Gastro-esophageal Reflux Symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: A large variation in outcome has been reported after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) across countries and institutions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of surgical technique on total weight loss (TWL) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Observational cohort study based on data from the national registries for bariatric surgery in the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. A retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained data from surgeries during 2015-2017 was performed based on 2-year follow-up. GERD was defined as continuous use of acid-reducing medication. The relationship between TWL, de novo GERD and operation technical variables were analyzed with regression methods. RESULTS: A total of 5927 patients were included. The average TWL was 25.6% in Sweden, 28.6% in the Netherlands, and 30.6% in Norway (p < 0.001 pairwise). Bougie size, distance from the resection line to the pylorus and the angle of His differed between hospitals. A minimized sleeve increased the expected total weight loss by 5-10 percentage points. Reducing the distance to the angle of His from 3 to just above 0 cm increased the risk of de novo GERD five-fold (from 3.5 to 17.8%). CONCLUSION: Smaller bougie size, a shorter distance to pylorus and to the angle of His were all associated with greater weight loss, whereas a shorter distance to angle of His was associated with more de novo reflux.

Food and Health Literacy in Patients Awaiting Metabolic-Bariatric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Specialized lifestyle programmes for patients undergoing metabolic-bariatric surgery (MBS) are provided to facilitate adjustment and adherence to a healthy lifestyle after surgery. However, pre-programme food and health literacy in MBS patients is often unknown. In the general population, approximately three-quarters of people exhibit sufficient health literacy. This study aimed to examine food and health literacy of patients awaiting MBS and to identify patient-specific factors associated with these literacies. METHODS: Patients awaiting MBS completed questionnaires on food literacy (Self-Perceived Food Literacy scale) and health literacy (European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire-16) at the start of a preoperative lifestyle programme. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations between multiple variables and preoperative food and health literacy. RESULTS: Among 216 patients, the preoperative mean food literacy score was 3.49 ± 0.44, on a five-point scale. Furthermore, 96.3% of patients showed sufficient health literacy, with scores of 13 or more out of 16. Patients with sufficient health literacy had higher food literacy scores (ß 0.508; 95% CI: 0.208-0.809, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study among people living with obesity awaiting MBS suggests that food literacy is comparable, and health literacy is higher than in the general population. These findings emphasize the complexity of the aetiology of obesity due to factors that extend beyond food and health literacy.

Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Measuring Quality of Life in Clinical Obesity Care.

PURPOSE: The focus of measuring success in obesity treatment is shifting from weight loss to patients' health and quality of life. The objective of this study was to select a core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures to be used in clinical obesity care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Standardizing Quality of Life in Obesity Treatment III, face-to-face hybrid consensus meeting, including people living with obesity as well as healthcare providers, was held in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 2022. It was preceded by two prior multinational consensus meetings and a systematic review. RESULTS: The meeting was attended by 27 participants, representing twelve countries from five continents. The participants included healthcare providers, such as surgeons, endocrinologists, dietitians, psychologists, researchers, and people living with obesity, most of whom were involved in patient representative networks. Three patient-reported outcome measures (patient-reported outcomes) were selected: the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (self-esteem) measure, the BODY-Q (physical function, physical symptoms, psychological function, social function, eating behavior, and body image), and the Quality of Life for Obesity Surgery questionnaire (excess skin). No patient-reported outcome measure was selected for stigma. CONCLUSION: A core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures for measuring quality of life in clinical obesity care is established incorporating patients' and experts' opinions. This set should be used as a minimum for measuring quality of life in routine clinical practice. It is essential that individual patient-reported outcome measure scores are shared with people living with obesity in order to enhance patient engagement and shared decision-making.

A Core set of patient-reported outcome measures to measure quality of life in obesity treatment research.

The lack of standardization in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has made measurement and comparison of quality of life (QoL) outcomes in research focused on obesity treatment challenging. This study reports on the results of the second and third global multidisciplinary Standardizing Quality of life measures in Obesity Treatment (S.Q.O.T.) consensus meetings, where a core set of PROMs to measure nine previously selected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in obesity treatment research was established. The S.Q.O.T. II online and S.Q.O.T. III face-to-face hybrid consensus meetings were held in October 2021 and May 2022. The meetings were led by an independent moderator specializing in PRO measurement. Nominal group techniques, Delphi exercises, and anonymous voting were used to select the most suitable PROMs by consensus. The meetings were attended by 28 and 27 participants, respectively, including a geographically diverse selection of people living with obesity (PLWO) and experts from various disciplines. Out of 24 PROs and 16 PROMs identified in the first S.Q.O.T. consensus meeting, the following nine PROs and three PROMs were selected via consensus: BODY-Q (physical function, physical symptoms, psychological function, social function, eating behavior, and body image), IWQOL-Lite (self-esteem), and QOLOS (excess skin). No PROM was selected to measure stigma as existing PROMs deemed to be inadequate. A core set of PROMs to measure QoL in research focused on obesity treatment has been selected incorporating patients' and experts' opinions. This core set should serve as a minimum to use in obesity research studies and can be combined with clinical parameters.

Genetic variants associated with weight loss and metabolic outcomes after bariatric surgery: A systematic review.

The extent to which genetic variations contribute to interindividual differences in weight loss and metabolic outcomes after bariatric surgery is unknown. Identifying genetic variants that impact surgery outcomes may contribute to clinical decision making. This review evaluates current evidence addressing the association of genetic variants with weight loss and changes in metabolic parameters after bariatric surgery. A search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Fifty-two eligible studies were identified. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at ADIPOQ (rs226729, rs1501299, rs3774261, and rs17300539) showed a positive association with postoperative change in measures of glucose homeostasis and lipid profiles (n = 4), but not with weight loss after surgery (n = 6). SNPs at FTO (rs11075986, rs16952482, rs8050136, rs9939609, rs9930506, and rs16945088) (n = 10) and MC4R (rs11152213, rs476828, rs2229616, rs9947255, rs17773430, rs5282087, and rs17782313) (n = 9) were inconsistently associated with weight loss and metabolic improvement. Four studies examining the UCP2 SNP rs660339 reported associations with postsurgical weight loss. In summary, there is limited evidence supporting a role for specific genetic variants in surgical outcomes after bariatric surgery. Most studies have adopted a candidate gene approach, limiting the scope for discovery, suggesting that the absence of compelling evidence is not evidence of absence.

Predicting serious complication risks after bariatric surgery: external validation of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative risk prediction model using the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Risk-prediction tools can support doctor-patient (shared) decision making in clinical practice by providing information on complication risks for different types of bariatric surgery. However, external validation is imperative to ensure the generalizability of predictions in a new patient population. OBJECTIVE: To perform an external validation of the risk-prediction model for serious complications from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative (MBSC) for Dutch bariatric patients using the nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity (DATO). SETTING: Population-based study, including all 18 hospitals performing bariatric surgery in the Netherlands. METHODS: All patients registered in the DATO undergoing bariatric surgery between 2015 and 2020 were included as the validation cohort. Serious complications included, among others, abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, leak, and bleeding. Three risk-prediction models were validated: (1) the original MBSC model from 2011, (2) the original MBSC model including the same variables but updated to more recent patients (2015-2020), and (3) the current MBSC model. The following predictors from the MBSC model were available in the DATO: age, sex, procedure type, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary disease. Model performance was determined using the area under the curve (AUC) to assess discrimination (i.e., the ability to distinguish patients with events from those without events) and a graphical plot to assess calibration (i.e., whether the predicted absolute risk for patients was similar to the observed prevalence of the outcome). RESULTS: The DATO validation cohort included 51,291 patients. Overall, 986 patients (1.92%) experienced serious complications. The original MBSC model, which was extended with the predictors "GERD (yes/no)," "OSAS (yes/no)," "hypertension (yes/no)," and "renal disease (yes/no)," showed the best validation results. This model had a good calibration and an AUC of .602 compared with an AUC of .65 and moderate to good calibration in the Michigan model. CONCLUSION: The DATO prediction model has good calibration but moderate discrimination. To be used in clinical practice, good calibration is essential to accurately predict individual risks in a real-world setting. Therefore, this model could provide valuable information for bariatric surgeons as part of shared decision making in daily practice.

Hospital Variation in Preference for a Specific Bariatric Procedure and the Association with Weight Loss Performance: a Nationwide Analysis.

PURPOSE: Hospitals performing a certain bariatric procedure in high volumes may have better outcomes. However, they could also have worse outcomes for some patients who are better off receiving another procedure. This study evaluates the effect of hospital preference for a specific type of bariatric procedure on their overall weight loss results. METHODS: All hospitals performing bariatric surgery were included from the nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. For each hospital, the expected (E) numbers of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) were calculated given their patient-mix. These were compared with the observed (O) numbers as the O/E ratio in a funnel plot. The 95% control intervals were used to identify outlier hospitals performing a certain procedure significantly more often than expected given their patient-mix (defined as hospital preference for that procedure). Similarly, funnel plots were created for the outcome of patients achieving ≥ 25% total weight loss (TWL) after 2 years, which was linked to each hospital's preference. RESULTS: A total of 34,558 patients were included, with 23,154 patients completing a 2-year follow-up, of whom 79.6% achieved ≥ 25%TWL. Nine hospitals had a preference for RYGB (range O/E ratio [1.09-1.53]), with 1 having significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.06]). Of 6 hospitals with a preference for SG (range O/E ratio [1.10-2.71]), one hospital had significantly fewer patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [0.90]), and from two hospitals with a preference for OAGB (range O/E ratio [4.0-6.0]), one had significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.07]). One hospital had no preference for any procedure but did have significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.10]). CONCLUSION: Hospital preference is not consistently associated with better overall weight loss results. This suggests that even though experience with a procedure may be slightly less in hospitals not having a preference, it is still sufficient to achieve similar weight loss outcomes when surgery is provided in centralized high-volume bariatric institutions.

Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one-anastomosis gastric bypass after a failed primary gastric band: a matched nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Primary laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high rates of patients not achieving the desired weight loss, and it remains unclear which bariatric conversion procedure gives better results. OBJECTIVE: To compare weight loss among patients undergoing conversion one-anastomosis gastric bypass (cOAGB) and conversion Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (cRYGB) after a failed LAGB. SETTING: Nationwide population-based study including all 18 hospitals providing metabolic and bariatric surgery. METHODS: Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent a cRYGB or cOAGB between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were selected from the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. The primary outcome was not achieving ≥20% total weight loss (TWL) at 1-year and up to 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥III within 30 days, and co-morbidity remission. A propensity score matched logistic and Poisson regression model was used to estimate the difference in patients not achieving ≥20% TWL between cRYGB and cOAGB. RESULTS: A total of 615 (78.7%) patients underwent cRYGB, and 166 (21.3%) patients underwent cOAGB, with 163 patients successfully matched. Both groups had similar rates of patients not achieving ≥20% TWL at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] = .64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .38-1.05). However, a sensitivity analysis showed that patients undergoing cOAGB had lower rates of patients not achieving ≥20% TWL up to 5-year follow-up (rate ratio = .69, 95% CI: .51-.95, P < .05). Patients undergoing cOAGB were less likely to achieve hypertension remission (OR = .22, 95% CI: .07-.66). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative complications (OR = .39, 95% CI: .07-2.06, P > .05). CONCLUSION: This matched nationwide study suggests that the cOAGB has similar short-term weight loss outcomes but potentially better long-term weight loss results than cRYGB. Therefore, cOAGB could provide a reliable alternative but needs to be substantiated in future long-term studies.

The Benefits of Banded over Non-banded Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Patients with Morbid Obesity: a Multi-center Study.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has proven to be an effective treatment for obesity with excellent long-term results, even though weight regain can occur. A method to improve the results of RYGB and minimize chance of weight regain is banded RYGB. Better sustained weight loss is also related to higher remission of comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of banded and non-banded RYGB on long-term weight loss results and comorbidities. METHOD: A retrospective comparative data study was performed. Patients who underwent a primary RYGB between July 2013 and December 2014 and followed a 5-year follow-up program in the Dutch Obesity Clinic were included. Comorbidities were assessed during screening and follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 375 patients with mean weight and body mass index (BMI) of 128.9 (± 21.2) kg and 44.50 (± 5.72) kg/m2. Of this group, 184 patients underwent RYGB and 191 banded RYGB. During follow-up (3 months, 1-5 years) % Total Weight Loss (%TWL) was superior in the banded group (32.6% vs 27.6% at 5 years post-operative, p < 0.001). Complication rates in both groups were similar. Comorbidity improvement or remission did not significantly differ between the two groups (p = 0.14-1.00). After 5 years of follow-up, 79 patients (20.5%) were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Banded RYGB does show superior weight loss compared to non-banded RYGB. No difference in effect on comorbidity improvement or remission was observed. Since complication rates are similar, while weight loss is significantly greater, we recommend performing banded RYGB over non-banded RYGB.

Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research.

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs.