Clinical outcomes of single-stage versus two-stage laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass in the management of obesity (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2): a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in patients with obesity, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, can be a challenging operation. Weight loss with intra-gastric balloon (IGB) insertion prior to LRYGB may improve operative outcomes. METHODS: Between June 2000 and June 2020, patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 underwent either IGB insertion followed by LRYGB (two-stage group), or LRYGB as the definitive bariatric procedure (single-stage group) in our institution. The two-stage procedure was adopted for high risk individuals. Primary outcome measures were percentage total weight loss (%TWL) at 24 months, length of stay and postoperative morbidity. Propensity score analysis was used to account for differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 155 (mean age 42.9 years ± 10.60; mean BMI 54.6 kg/m2 ± 4.53) underwent either the two-stage (n = 30) or single-stage procedure (n = 125) depending on preoperative fitness. At 6 months following LRYGB, there was a significant difference in %TWL between the groups in a matched analysis (11.9% vs 23.7%, p < 0.001). At 24 months, there was no difference in %TWL (32.0% vs 34.7%, p = 0.13). Median hospital stay following LRYGB was 2.0 (1-4) days with the two-stage vs 2.0 (0-14) days for the single-stage approach (p = 0.75). There was also no significant difference in complication rates (p = 0.058) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in weight loss after one or two-stage procedures in the treatment of patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 super obesity in a propensity score weighted analysis at 24 months. Length of stay and perioperative complications were similar for high risk patients; however, the two-stage approach was associated with delayed weight loss. Single-stage management is recommended for moderate risk patients, particularly with significant metabolic disorders, whilst two-stage approach is a safe and feasible pathway for high risk individuals.

Prevalence, predictors and outcomes of bleeding events in patients with COVID-19 infection on anticoagulation: Retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to examine risk factors and complications associated with bleeding events in patients with COVID-19 who are on anticoagulation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted retrospective review of all patients who were admitted with COVID-19 and developed bleeding events between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed in accordance with three major outcomes. Mortality within 30 days of bleeding episode, resolution of the bleeding event, and the type of bleeding event. RESULTS: Of 122 bleeds, there was 55 (28 %) gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds. Overall mortality was 59 % (n = 72). The prevalence of therapeutic invasive interventions was 11.5 % (n = 14) all were successful in resolving the bleeding event. We found that having a GI bleeds was associated with higher risk of mortality compared to non-GI bleeds (p = 0.04) and having occult bleeds to be associated with 15 times increased risk of mortality (OR 15, 95%CI 1.97-29.1, p = 0.01). Furthermore, patients who were on no anticoagulation (none) (OR 0.1, 95%CI 0.01-0.86, p < 0.00), on prophylactic dose anticoagulation (OR 0.07, 95%CI 0.02-0.28, p = 0.03) or intermediate dose anticoagulation (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.09-1.34, p = 0.13) were less likely to die than patients on therapeutic dose. CONCLUSIONS: The best approach to manage COVID-19 bleeding patients is to prioritize therapies that manage sepsis induce coagulopathy and shock over other approaches. In COVID-19 patients' routine prescription of supra-prophylactic dose anticoagulation should be revisited and more individualized approach to prescription should be the norm. Regardless of the cause of bleeding event it appears that the majority of bleeding events resolve with noninvasive interventions and when invasive interventions were necessary, they were associated with high success rate despite the delay.

Applying augmented reality to treat Fournier's gangrene in COVID-19 positive patients whilst safeguarding the multi-disciplinary surgical team: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has presented the surgical community with a multitude of challenges. Patients requiring surgical intervention who are positive for COVID-19 are not only more likely to develop complications post-operatively, but also pose an increased infection risk to the surgical team involved in their care. The infection control concerns raised at the peak of the pandemic persist in the post-pandemic era as patients continue to test positive for COVID-19 and the risk of a 'second wave' looms. METHODS: We present a case series (compliant with SCARE [4] and PROCESS [5] criteria) to demonstrate the effective use of an AR technology platform during the intraoperative treatment of two complex COVID positive patients diagnosed with Fournier's gangrene.Retrospective review of prospectively collected data of all patients that required surgery involving multiple specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic at Jaber AlAhmad hospital in Kuwait between March 2020 to October 2020. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present two cases to highlight the use of an augmented reality (AR) platform during the treatment of COVID-19 positive patients with Fournier's gangrene in order to safeguard surgical teams whilst simultaneously enabling these complex cases to benefit from multi-specialty input intraoperatively. OUTCOME: Augmented reality is a feasible option to minimize surgeons' exposure during surgery without compromising the patients safety. DISCUSSION: This case series demonstrates how AR solutions can be employed to bolster infection control measures and may be useful in the treatment of surgical patients who test positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: AR solutions could be considered as an infection control strategy to safeguard surgical teams operating on COVID-19 positive patients.

Gastrojejunal Anastomotic Technique. Does It Matter? Weight Loss and Weight Regain 5 Years After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

PURPOSE: The gastrojejunostomy during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) can be constructed by hand sewn (HSA), linear (LSA) and circular (CSA) stapler technique. They are all considered safe; however, it is not known which the best technique is. Short-term follow-up suggest no difference in weight loss or weight regain between them. However, there is no information on these parameters in the long term. Theatre time and cost are other important factors defining the best way to form gastrojejunostomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective longitudinal cohort study consecutive patients following primary LRYGB were recruited to a bariatric database in a tertiary care centre. Anastomotic technique, diameter, the length of operations and associated costs, weight loss and weight regain were recorded. Patients were followed up for 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 385 patients with an initial body mass index of 47.1 kg/m2 (35-68) were enrolled to this study. This decreased to 33.3 kg/m2 (21-54 kg/m2) after 5 years. There was no difference in %TWL after 3 years, P = 0.296, or 5 years, P = 0.187, between the techniques. The number of patients with weight regain was not different after 3 years, P = 0.224, or 5 years, P = 0.795. All techniques had similar operative time. CSA has a higher material cost. Early anastomotic stricture was more common following HSA; however, the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: Mid-term weight loss and weight regain are not related to anastomotic technique, and there is no difference in operative time associated to them. Circular stapler technique has a higher material cost due to the additional stapler.