Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. RESULTS: We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.

Gastro-esophageal diagnostic workup before bariatric surgery or endoscopic treatment for obesity: position statement of the International Society of Diseases of the Esophagus.

Obesity is a chronic and multifactorial condition characterized by abnormal weight gain due to excessive adipose tissue accumulation that represents a growing worldwide challenge for public health. In addition, obese patients have an increased risk of hiatal hernia, esophageal, and gastric dysfunction, as well as gastroesophageal reflux disease, which has a prevalence over 40% in those seeking endoscopic or surgical intervention. Surgery has been demonstrated to be the most effective treatment for severe obesity in terms of long-term weight loss, comorbidities, and quality of life improvements and overall mortality decrease. The recent emergence of bariatric endoscopic techniques promises less invasive, more cost-effective, and reproducible approaches to the treatment of obesity. With the endorsement of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, we started a Delphi process to develop consensus statements on the most appropriate diagnostic workup to preoperatively assess gastroesophageal function before bariatric surgical or endoscopic interventions. The Consensus Working Group comprised 11 international experts from five countries. The group consisted of gastroenterologists and surgeons with a large expertise with regard to gastroesophageal reflux disease, bariatric surgery and endoscopy, and physiology. Ten statements were selected, on the basis of the agreement level and clinical relevance, which represent an evidence and experience-based consensus of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

Multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. CONCLUSION: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

Process for quality assessment review of societal guidelines-an editorial to accompany "multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)".

BACKGROUND: The SAGES Guidelines Committee has implemented processes for Quality Assessment of SAGES-endorsed guidelines, with the aim of improving the quality of published guidelines. METHODS: We provide details of the processes developed, using standardized tools for assessing the methodological quality of practice guidelines. As an example, we describe the application of our processes to the recent multi-societal GERD consensus guideline. RESULTS: Assessment of the multi-societal GERD consensus guideline by the iterative processes of SAGES Quality Assurance taskforce improved the quality of the final manuscript in all domains of appraisal. These processes are easily applicable to future guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Such systems will increase the confidence in SAGES recommendations and increase the implementation of SAGES guidelines. By demonstrating the rigor of Quality Assessment, this confidence also extends to a further increase in the assurance of the publications of the Surgical Endoscopy journal.

SAGES 2022 guidelines regarding the use of laparoscopy in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: In KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: With demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.

SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques. METHODS: Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) guidelines development: standard operating procedure.

INTRODUCTION: The mission of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) is to innovate, educate, and collaborate to improve patient care. A critical element in meeting this mission is the publishing of trustworthy and current guidelines for the practicing surgeon. METHODS: In this manuscript, we outline the steps of developing high quality practice guidelines using a completely volunteer-based professional organization. RESULTS: SAGES has developed a standardized approach to train volunteer surgeons and trainees alike to develop clinically pertinent guidelines in a timely manner, without sacrificing quality. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology can be used more widely by volunteer organizations to efficiently develop effective tools for practicing physicians.

Is peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) more effective than pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Achalasia is a rare, chronic, and morbid condition with evolving treatment. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has gained considerable popularity, but its comparative effectiveness is uncertain. We aim to evaluate the literature comparing POEM to Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilation (PD) for the treatment of achalasia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies between POEM and HM or PD. A priori outcomes pertained to efficacy, perioperative metrics, and safety. Internal validity of observational studies and randomized trials (RCTs) was judged using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, respectively. RESULTS: From 1379 unique literature citations, we included 28 studies comparing POEM and HM (n = 21) or PD (n = 8), with only 1 RCT addressing each. Aside from two 4-year observational studies, POEM follow-up averaged ≤ 2 years. While POEM had similar efficacy to HM, POEM treated dysphagia better than PD both in an RCT (treatment "success" RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.17; 126 patients) and in observational studies (Eckardt score MD - 0.43, 95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.16; 5 studies; I2 21%; 405 patients). POEM needed reintervention less than PD in an RCT (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.47; 126 patients) and HM in an observational study (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16, 0.68; 98 patients). Though 6-12 months patient-reported reflux was worse than PD in 3 observational studies (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.02-7.00; I2 0%; 164 patients), post-intervention reflux was inconsistently measured and not statistically different in measures ≥ 1 year. POEM had similar safety outcomes to both HM and PD, including treatment-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: POEM has similar outcomes to HM and greater efficacy than PD. Reflux remains a critical outcome with unknown long-term clinical significance due to insufficient data and inconsistent reporting.

Chicago Classification update (v4.0): Technical review of high-resolution manometry metrics for EGJ barrier function.

Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function is of fundamental importance in the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Impaired EGJ barrier function leads to excessive distal esophageal acid exposure or, in severe cases, esophagitis. Hence, proposed high-resolution manometry (HRM) metrics assessing EGJ integrity are clinically important and were a focus of the Chicago Classification (CC) working group for inclusion in CC v4.0. However, the EGJ is a complex sphincter comprised of both crural diaphragm (CD) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) component, each of which is subject to independent physiological control mechanisms and pathophysiology. No single metric can capture all attributes of EGJ barrier function. The working group considered several potential metrics of EGJ integrity including LES-CD separation, the EGJ contractile integral (EGJ-CI), the respiratory inversion point (RIP), and intragastric pressure. Strong recommendations were made regarding LES-CD separation as indicative of hiatus hernia, although the numerical threshold for defining hiatal hernia was not agreed upon. There was no agreement on the significance of the RIP, only that it could localize either above the LES or between the LES and CD in cases of hiatus hernia. There was agreement on how to measure the EGJ-CI and that it should be referenced to gastric pressure in units of mmHg cm, but the numerical threshold indicative of a hypotensive EGJ varied widely among reports and was not agreed upon. Intragastric pressure was endorsed as an important metric worthy of further study but there was no agreement on a numerical threshold indicative of abdominal obesity.

SAGES guidelines for the use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly used as primary treatment for esophageal achalasia, in place of the options such as Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD) OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) intend to support clinicians, patients and others in decisions about the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 4 recommendations for adults and children with achalasia. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendation for the use of POEM over PD was issued unless the concern of continued postoperative PPI use remains a key decision-making concern to the patient. Conditional recommendations included the option of using either POEM or HM with fundoplication to treat achalasia, and favored POEM over HM for achalasia subtype III.

SAGES guidelines: an appraisal of their quality and value by SAGES members.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee develops evidence-based guidelines for practicing surgeons using standard methodology. Our objective was to survey the SAGES membership regarding guidelines' quality, use, and value and identify topics of interest for new guideline development. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was emailed in October 2019 to SAGES members. Respondents were asked 18 questions on their use and evaluation of SAGES guidelines and SAGES reviews and to provide suggestions for new guideline topics and areas of improvement. The survey was open for 6 weeks with a 3-week reminder. RESULTS: Of 548 responders, most were minimally invasive (41%) or general surgeons (33%). There was an even distribution between academic (46%) and non-academic practice (24% private practice, 23% hospital employed). Most used SAGES guidelines frequently (22%) or occasionally (68%) and found them to be of value (83%), above average quality (86%), and easy to use (74%). While most stated it was important (35%) or very important (58%) that SAGES continues to follow "rigorous guidelines development processes," common suggestions were for more timely updates and improved web access. Of 442 overlapping topic suggestions, 60% fell into overarching categories of hernia, bariatric, robotic, HPB, and colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES guidelines are used frequently and valued by its users for their quality and content. Topics proposed by SAGES members and valuable insight from this survey can guide creation of new guidelines and refinement of established guidelines and processes.

Central Venous Line Placement prior to Gastric Bypass Improves Operating Room Efficiency.

Background. Bariatric surgery has increased across America. Venous access is difficult in these patients. Anesthesiologists often utilize valuable operating room (OR) time acquiring reliable intravenous lines. Our objective was to determine if outpatient central venous line (CVL) placement improves OR efficiency and professional reimbursement for CVL insertion. Methods. In our bariatric practice, selected surgery patients have outpatient CVLs placed during prophylactic vena cava filter placement. In a cohort of 268 gastric bypass patients operated between 1/01 and 11/06, we compared time-to-incision between 106 with pre-established CVLs and 162 without. In addition, we determined professional compensation rates for CVLs placed outpatient versus CVLs inserted in the OR. Results. Patients with preoperative (outpatient) CVLs required 35.6 ± 12.5 minutes to skin incision compared with 42.5 ± 13.9 minutes for controls (P < 0.0001), and 34.9% had skin incision in <30 minutes compared with 16.4% of controls. Radiologists collected 28.2% of outpatient billings for CPT code 36556, compared with anesthesiologists who collected <1% when placing CVLs in the OR. Conclusions. Outpatient CVLs prior to gastric bypass improve efficiency in the OR with earlier skin incision. Professional reimbursement is better for outpatient CVLs than intraoperative inpatient CVLs.

Treatment options and outcomes for celiac artery compression syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain attributed to compression of the celiac artery at the level of the median arcuate ligament (MAL) of the diaphragm is an uncommon disorder. Although ultrasound investigation and arteriography can be suggestive of the diagnosis, no definitive criteria exist with only cases reports in the literature. This study presents the only known reported case series in which a combination of open and laparoscopic access techniques of MAL decompression are reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected electronic databases of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was performed for the period February 1999 until February 2009. Patients having undergone operation for celiac artery compression syndrome were identified and participated in a telephone interview. Questions were asked about the success of the operation, the recovery period, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Six patients were identified, 3 were male; mean age was 37.7 years. Four underwent open MAL division and celiac ganglion neurolysis, and 2 underwent a laparoscopic approach. Mean follow-up was 48.6 months. All patients experienced symptomatic improvement and were satisfied with their outcome. No patient had symptoms recurrence. CONCLUSION: In this limited experience, MAL division with celiac ganglion neurolysis appears to be an effective treatment for celiac artery compression syndrome in appropriately selected patients. Both the open and laparoscopic approaches are safe with durable midterm follow-up results.

High case volumes and surgical fellowships are associated with improved outcomes for bariatric surgery patients: a justification of current credentialing initiatives for practice and training.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen the establishment of bariatric surgery credentialing processes, center-of-excellence programs, and fellowship training positions. The effects of center-of-excellence status and of the presence of training programs have not previously been examined. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of case volume, center-of-excellence status, and training programs on early outcomes of bariatric surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1998 to 2006. Quantification of patient comorbidities was made using the Charlson Index. Using logistic regression modeling, annual case volumes were analyzed for an association with each institution's center-of-excellence status and training program status. Risk-adjusted outcomes measures were calculated for these hospital-level parameters. RESULTS: Data from 102,069 bariatric operations were obtained. Adjusting for comorbidities, greater bariatric case volume was associated with improvements in the incidence of total complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.99937 for each single case increase, p = 0.01), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.99717, p < 0.01), and most other complications. Hospitals with a Fellowship Council-affiliated gastrointestinal surgery training program were associated with risk-adjusted improvements in rates of splenectomy (OR 0.2853, p < 0.001) and bacterial pneumonias (OR 0.65898, p = 0.02). Center-of-excellence status, irrespective of the accrediting entity, had minimal independent association with outcomes. A surgical residency program had a varying association with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesized positive volume-outcomes relationship of bariatric surgery is shown without arbitrarily categorizing hospitals to case volume groups, by analysis of volume as a continuous variable. Institutions with a dedicated fellowship training program have also been shown, in part, to be associated with improved outcomes. The concept of volume-dependent center-of-excellence programs is supported, although no independent association with the credentialing process is noted.

Low correlation between subjective and objective measures of knowledge on surgery clerkships.

BACKGROUND: Medical student knowledge is assessed during surgical clerkships subjectively and objectively. Subjective evaluation depends on faculty assessment during clinical and didactic interactions. Objective measurement derives from standardized tools, such as the National Board of Medical Examiners Surgery Subject test (shelf). Few efforts have been made to characterize the correlation between subjective and objective measures of medical knowledge. STUDY DESIGN: All 308 third-year medical students who completed the 8-week surgery clerkship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill between July 2005 and June 2007 received subjective assessment of knowledge on 3 clinical rotations (one 4-week core and two 2-week elective rotations) and a longitudinal small-group tutorial. Faculty evaluators assigned percentile scores to rate students' knowledge base relative to their peers. In addition, students took the shelf test the last day of clerkship, and percentile scores were assigned based on National Board of Medical Examiners-supplied normative data from first-time test-takers within the same academic quarter. Subjective versus objective knowledge scores were plotted overall, and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were generated for core, elective, and tutorial assessments. RESULTS: There were only weak linear relationships noted between subjective faculty-assigned knowledge scores and objective shelf scores. Pearson correlations were 0.24 for core rotations (4 weeks exposure), 0.14 for elective rotations (2 weeks exposure), and 0.22 for tutorials (1-hour exposure/week during 8 weeks), with p values <0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty assessment of knowledge is only weakly correlated with shelf performance. Faculty evaluations after 4-week rotations or longitudinal small-group interactions are better correlated with shelf scores than after 2-week electives.

Proximal esophageal pH monitoring: improved definition of normal values and determination of a composite pH score.

BACKGROUND: Patients with respiratory and laryngeal symptoms are commonly referred for evaluation of reflux disease as a potential cause. Dual-probe pH monitoring is often performed, although data on normal acid exposure in the proximal esophagus are limited because of the small number of normal subjects and inconsistent placement of the proximal pH sensor in relation to the upper esophageal sphincter. We measured proximal esophageal acid exposure using dual-probe pH and calculated a composite pH score in a large number of asymptomatic volunteers to better define normal values. STUDY DESIGN: Eighty-one normal subjects free of reflux, laryngeal, or respiratory symptoms were recruited. All had video esophagraphy to exclude hiatal hernia. Esophageal pH monitoring was performed using 1 of 3 different dual-probe catheters with sensors spaced 10, 15, or 18 cm apart. The standard components of esophageal acid exposure were measured, excluding meal periods. A composite pH score for the proximal esophagus was calculated using these components. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 59 (49% male) subjects, with a median age of 27 years. All had normal distal esophageal acid exposure and no hiatal hernia. The 95(th) percentile values for the percent time the pH was < 4 for the total, upright, and supine periods were 0.9%, 1.2%, and 0.4%, respectively. The 95(th) percentile for the number of reflux episodes was 24 and for the calculated proximal esophageal composite pH score was 16.4. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of normal subjects, we have defined the normal values and calculated a composite pH score for proximal esophageal acid exposure. The total percent time pH < 4 was similar to previously published normal values, but the number of reflux episodes was greater.

Prevalence of thrombophilias in patients presenting for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The rise in bariatric surgery has driven an increased number of complications from venous thromboembolism (VTE). Evidence supports obesity as an independent risk factor for VTE, but the specific derangements underlying the hypercoagulability of obesity are not well defined. To better characterize VTE risk for the purpose of tailoring prophylactic strategies, we developed a protocol for thrombophilia screening in patients presenting for bariatric surgery at our institution. METHODS: Between April 2004 and April 2006, 180 bariatric surgery candidates underwent serologic screening for inherited thrombophilias (Factor V-Leiden mutation, low Protein C activity, low Protein S activity, Free Protein S deficiency) and acquired thrombophilias (D-Dimer elevation, Fibrinogen elevation, elevation of coagulation factors VIII, IX, and XI, elevation of Lupus anticoagulants and homocysteine level, and Antithrombin III deficiency). Prevalence rate of each thrombophilia in the subject group was compared to the actual prevalence rate of the general population. RESULTS: Most plasma markers of both inherited and acquired thrombophilias were identified in higher than expected proportions, including D-Dimer elevation in 31%, Fibrinogen elevation in 40%, Factor VIII elevation in 50%, Factor IX elevation in 64%, Factor XI elevation in 50%, and Lupus anticoagulant in 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is a well-described demographic risk factor for VTE. In bariatric surgery candidates routinely screened for serologic markers, both inherited and acquired thrombophilias occurred more frequently than in the general population, and may therefore prove to be useful for individualized VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis.