Reconsideration of the Gastroparetic Syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gastroparesis is a chronic disorder characterized by a constellation of foregut symptoms, including postprandial nausea, vomiting, distension, epigastric pain, and regurgitation in the absence of gastric outlet obstruction. Despite considerable research over the past decades, there remains to be only nominal understanding of disease classification, diagnostic criteria, pathogenesis, and preferred therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: We critically reassess current approaches for disease identification and stratification, theories of causation, and treatment for gastroparesis. Gastric scintigraphy, long considered a diagnostic standard, has been re-evaluated in light of evidence showing low sensitivity, whereas newer testing modalities are incompletely validated. Present concepts of pathogenesis do not provide a unified model linking biological impairments with clinical manifestations, whereas available pharmacological and anatomical treatments lack explicit selection criteria or evidence for sustained effectiveness. We propose a disease model that embodies the re-programming of distributed neuro-immune interactions in the gastric wall by inflammatory perturbants. These interactions, combined with effects on the foregut hormonal milieu and brain-gut axis, are postulated to generate the syndromic attributes characteristically linked with gastroparesis. Research linking models of immunopathogenesis with diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms will lead to reclassifications of gastroparesis that guide future trials and technological developments. KEY POINTS: • The term gastroparesis embodies a heterogenous array of symptoms and clinical findings based on a complex assimilation of afferent and efferent mechanisms, gastrointestinal locations, and pathologies. • There currently exists no single test or group of tests with sufficient capacity to be termed a definitional standard for gastroparesis. • Present research regarding pathogenesis suggests the importance of immune regulation of intrinsic oscillatory activity involving myenteric nerves, interstitial cells of Cajal, and smooth muscle cells. • Prokinetic pharmaceuticals remain the mainstay of management, although novel treatments are being studied that are directed to alternative muscle/nerve receptors, electromodulation of the brain-gut axis, and anatomical (endoscopic, surgical) interventions.

The impact of procedure type on 30-day readmissions following metabolic and bariatric surgery: postoperative complications of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission (HR) rates following metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) are used as a surrogate for quality outcomes and are increasingly tied to reimbursement rates. There are limited data concerning predictors of HR rates with regard to type of bariatric procedure. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent MBS from January 2014 to December 2019 at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The causes of all HRs and reoperations within 30 days of the original discharge were analyzed. Statistical significance was determined using Chi Squared test and T test. RESULTS: 2815 patients underwent MBS. 2373 patients (84.3%) had primary procedures, while 442 patients (15.7%) had secondary or revisional procedures. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 5.7%, with no significant difference for patients who underwent primary vs. secondary MBS. Among primary procedures, the readmission rate was higher for Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) than laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (10.32% vs. 4.77%). Readmissions were most often due to nontechnical causes. The overall reoperation rate was 1.14% and was higher for patients undergoing secondary vs. primary procedures (2.94% vs 0.80%). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission rate was similar to that in existing literature. Revisional/secondary surgery did not lead to increased readmissions, although was associated with a higher reoperation rate. Most HRs were due to nontechnical causes. Optimization of postoperative care, such as fluid status, may reduce the incidence of postoperative complications.

Best practice approach for redo-surgeries after sleeve gastrectomy, an expert's modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common metabolic and bariatric surgical (MBS) procedure worldwide. Despite the desired effect of SG on weight loss and remission of obesity-associated medical problems, there are some concerns regarding the need to do revisional/conversional surgeries after SG. This study aims to make an algorithmic clinical approach based on an expert-modified Delphi consensus regarding redo-surgeries after SG, to give bariatric and metabolic surgeons a guideline that might help for the best clinical decision. METHODS: Forty-six recognized bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 25 different countries participated in this Delphi consensus study in two rounds to develop a consensus on redo-surgeries after SG. An agreement/disagreement ≥ 70.0% on statements was considered to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 62 of 72 statements and experts did not achieve consensus on 10 statements after two rounds of online voting. Most of the experts believed that multi-disciplinary team evaluation should be done in all redo-procedures after SG and there should be at least 12 months of medical and supportive management before performing redo-surgeries after SG for insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, experts agreed that in case of symptomatic GERD in the presence of adequate weight loss, medical treatment for at least 1 to 2 years is an acceptable option and agreed that Roux-en Y gastric bypass is an appropriate option in this situation. There was disagreement consensus on efficacy of omentopexy in rotation and efficacy of fundoplication in the presence of a dilated fundus and GERD. CONCLUSION: Redo-surgeries after SG is still an important issue among bariatric and metabolic surgeons. The proper time and procedure selection for redo-surgery need careful considerations. Although multi-disciplinary team evaluation plays a key role to evaluate best options in these situations, an algorithmic clinical approach based on the expert's consensus as a guideline can help for the best clinical decision-making.

Innovative Bariatric Procedures and Ethics in Bariatric Surgery: the IFSO Position Statement.

With the rise in obesity and bariatric procedures worldwide, there has been a surge in new and innovative procedures that has been increasingly offered to patients. In this position statement, IFSO highlights the importance of surgical ethics in innovation and when offering new procedures. Furthermore, the task force reviewed the current literature to describe which procedures can be offered as mainstream outside research protocols versus those that are still investigational and need further data.

Fellowship training influences learning curves for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric surgical procedure. Little is known about how surgeon training background influences the learning curve of this procedure. We examined operating times (OT), weight loss outcomes, and 30-day complications between surgeons with and without fellowship training in LSG. We hypothesize that post-residency training specific to LSG influences learning curves. METHODS: Surgeons from a single institution were split into two groups: those who had not completed fellowship training in LSG (NF, n = 3), and those who had completed LSG specific training in fellowship (SGF, n = 3). OTs, BMI changes at 1 year, and 30-day readmissions, reoperations, and complications were extracted for the first 100 LSG cases of each surgeon. Data were analyzed in bins of 20 cases. Comparisons were made between cohorts within a bin and between adjacent bins of the same surgeon cohort. Logistic regression analyses were performed of OT and weight loss outcomes. RESULTS: SGF surgeons showed no difference in OTs over their first 100 cases. NF surgeons had statistically significant increased OTs compared to SGF surgeons during their first 60 cases and progressively shortened OTs during that interval (109 min to 78 min, p < 0.001 for NF surgeons vs. 73 min to 69 min, SGF surgeons). NF surgeons had a significantly steeper slope for improvement in OT over case number. There was no correlation between case number and weight loss outcomes in either group, and no differences in 30-day outcomes between groups. CONCLUSION: Surgeons who trained to perform LSG in fellowship demonstrate faster and consistent OR times on their initial independent LSG cases compared to surgeons who did not, with no correlation between case number and weight loss outcomes or safety profiles for either group. This suggests that learning curves for LSG are achieved during formal case-specific fellowship training.

The first survey addressing patients with BMI over 50: a survey of 789 bariatric surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 is a challenging task. The aim of this study was to address main issues regarding perioperative management of these patients by using a worldwide survey. METHODS: An online 48-item questionnaire-based survey on perioperative management of patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2 was ideated by 15 bariatric surgeons from 9 different countries. The questionnaire was emailed to all members of the International Federation of Surgery for Obesity (IFSO). Responses were collected and analyzed by the authors. RESULTS: 789 bariatric surgeons from 73 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (89.9%) believed that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) on patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 should only be performed by expert bariatric surgeons. Half of the participants (55.3%) believed that weight loss must be encouraged before surgery and 42.6% of surgeons recommended an excess weight loss of at least 10%. However, only 3.6% of surgeons recommended the insertion of an Intragastric Balloon as bridge therapy before surgery. Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) was considered the best choice for patients younger than 18 or older than 65 years old. SG and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass were the most common procedures for individuals between 18 and 65 years. Half of the surgeons believed that a 2-stage approach should be offered to patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, with SG being the first step. Postoperative thromboprophylaxis was recommended for 2 and 4 weeks by 37.8% and 37.7% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated worldwide variations in bariatric surgery practice regarding patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2. Careful analysis of these results is useful for identifying several areas for future research and consensus building.

The first modified Delphi consensus statement on sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet there is significant variation in practice concerning its various aspects. This paper report results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on SG. METHODS: We established a committee of 54 globally recognized opinion makers in this field. The committee agreed to vote on several statements concerning SG. An agreement or disagreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was construed as a consensus. RESULTS: The committee achieved a consensus of agreement (n = 71) or disagreement (n = 7) for 78 out of 97 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. The committee agreed with 96.3% consensus that the characterization of SG as a purely restrictive procedure was inaccurate and there was 88.7% consensus that SG was not a suitable standalone, primary, surgical weight loss option for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) without dysplasia. There was an overwhelming consensus of 92.5% that the sleeve should be fashioned over an orogastric tube of 36-40 Fr and a 90.7% consensus that surgeons should stay at least 1 cm away from the angle of His. Remarkably, the committee agreed with 81.1% consensus that SG patients should undergo a screening endoscopy every 5 years after surgery to screen for BE. CONCLUSION: A multinational team of experts achieved consensus on several aspects of SG. The findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of SG, the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide, and guide future research on this topic.

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS. METHODS: We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus. RESULTS: Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%). CONCLUSION: Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice.

Low Incidence of Postoperative Leaks When Using Small-Diameter Calibrated Bougies During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a well-established bariatric procedure. A staple line leak is a recognized complication of LSG. Bougie size has been suggested to impact leak rates. In this study, we evaluate the impact of using 32-34F bougie sizes with LSG on early postoperative outcomes including staple line leaks within our practice. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all LSG procedures performed between January 2012 and December 2018 at a single medical center. Data collected and analyzed included bougie size, postoperative leak rate, need for re-operation, 12-month excess weight loss, and 30-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 3153 patients underwent LSG, of whom 1977 (62.7%) were female. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 42.9 ± 12.2 years (range 15-76 years) and 42.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2 (range 27-73), respectively. No intraoperative complications or mortality occurred. There was one case of perioperative mortality due to bleeding (0.03%). Early postoperative adverse events occurred in 131 patients (4.1%): 17 leaks (0.5%), 75 bleeds (2.4%), and 39 (1.2%) other. CONCLUSION: The use of smaller-sized (32-34F) bougies had no impact on staple line leaks in the hands of experienced bariatric surgeons at a high-volume center.

Safety and efficacy of single-stage conversion of failed adjustable gastric band to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: We conducted the following study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-stage conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) as compared to a cohort of primary LRYGB patients. METHODS: A single-institution, prospectively maintained bariatric database was used to retrospectively identify consecutive patients who underwent single-stage removal of LAGB with concomitant conversion to LRYGB between the years of 2007 and 2013. The study cohort was matched 1:1 for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and approximate date of operation to patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Primary endpoints were operative time, complication rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: Ninety-four conversion patients met inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean LOS (3.1 vs. 3.0 days, p = 0.97) or the major complication rate (3.2 vs. 1.1 %, p = 0.62) at 30 days postoperatively. Likewise, 30-day minor complication rates, including readmission, were similar between groups (7.5 vs. 6.4 %, p = 0.77). The average operative time was significantly longer for conversion compared to primary LRYGB (193.5 vs. 132 min; p < 0.01). At most recent follow-up after conversion or primary LRYGB, median %EBMIL was 61.3 and 77.3 % (p < 0.01), percent total weight loss was 23.6 and 30.5 % (p < 0.01), and percent change in BMI was 23.4 and 30.5 % (p < 0.01), respectively. Median follow-up time was 17 and 18.6 months after conversion and primary LRYGB, respectively. CONCLUSION: Single-stage conversion of LAGB to LRYGB is safe with an acceptable complication rate and similar LOS compared to primary LRYGB.

Effect of reversible intermittent intra-abdominal vagal nerve blockade on morbid obesity: the ReCharge randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although conventional bariatric surgery results in weight loss, it does so with potential short-term and long-term morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intermittent, reversible vagal nerve blockade therapy for obesity treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial involving 239 participants who had a body mass index of 40 to 45 or 35 to 40 and 1 or more obesity-related condition was conducted at 10 sites in the United States and Australia between May and December 2011. The 12-month blinded portion of the 5-year study was completed in January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred sixty-two patients received an active vagal nerve block device and 77 received a sham device. All participants received weight management education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The coprimary efficacy objectives were to determine whether the vagal nerve block was superior in mean percentage excess weight loss to sham by a 10-point margin with at least 55% of patients in the vagal block group achieving a 20% loss and 45% achieving a 25% loss. The primary safety objective was to determine whether the rate of serious adverse events related to device, procedure, or therapy in the vagal block group was less than 15%. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analysis, the vagal nerve block group had a mean 24.4% excess weight loss (9.2% of their initial body weight loss) vs 15.9% excess weight loss (6.0% initial body weight loss) in the sham group. The mean difference in the percentage of the excess weight loss between groups was 8.5 percentage points (95% CI, 3.1-13.9), which did not meet the 10-point target (P = .71), although weight loss was statistically greater in the vagal nerve block group (P = .002 for treatment difference in a post hoc analysis). At 12 months, 52% of patients in the vagal nerve block group achieved 20% or more excess weight loss and 38% achieved 25% or more excess weight loss vs 32% in the sham group who achieved 20% or more loss and 23% who achieved 25% or more loss. The device, procedure, or therapy-related serious adverse event rate in the vagal nerve block group was 3.7% (95% CI, 1.4%-7.9%), significantly lower than the 15% goal. The adverse events more frequent in the vagal nerve block group were heartburn or dyspepsia and abdominal pain attributed to therapy; all were reported as mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with morbid obesity, the use of vagal nerve block therapy compared with a sham control device did not meet either of the prespecified coprimary efficacy objectives, although weight loss in the vagal block group was statistically greater than in the sham device group. The treatment was well tolerated, having met the primary safety objective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01327976.

IFSO Worldwide Survey 2020-2021: Current Trends for Bariatric and Metabolic Procedures.

PURPOSE: This IFSO survey aims to describe the current trends of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) reporting on the number and types of surgical and endoluminal procedures performed in 2020 and 2021, in the world and within each IFSO chapter. METHODS: All national societies belonging to IFSO were asked to complete the survey form. The number and types of procedures performed (surgical and endoluminal interventions) from 2020 to 2021 were documented. A special section focused on the impact of COVID-19, the existence of national protocols for MBS, the use of telemedicine, and any mortality related to MBS. A trend analysis of the data, both worldwide and within each IFSO chapter, was also performed for the period between 2018 and 2021. RESULTS: Fifty-seven of the 74 (77%) IFSO national societies submitted the survey. Twenty-four of the 57 (42.1%) reported data from their national registries. The total number of surgical and endoluminal procedures performed in 2020 was 507,806 and in 2021 was 598,834. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remained the most performed bariatric procedure. Thirty national societies (52%) had regional protocols for MBS during COVID-19, 61.4% supported the use of telemedicine, and only 47.3% collected data on mortality after MBS in 2020. These percentages did not significantly change in 2021 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The number of MBS markedly decreased worldwide during 2020. Although there was a positive trend in 2021, it did not reach the values obtained before the COVID-19 pandemic. SG continued to be the most performed operation. Adjustable gastric banding (AGB) continues to decrease worldwide.

The Management of Biliary Disease in Patients with Severe Obesity Undergoing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery-An International Expert Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to survey international experts in metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) to improve and consolidate the management of biliary disease in patients with severe obesity undergoing MBS. BACKGROUND: Obesity and rapid weight loss after MBS are risk factors for the development of gallstones. Complications, such as cholecystitis, acute cholangitis, and biliary pancreatitis, are potentially life-threatening, and no guidelines for the proper management of gallstone disease exist. METHODS: An international scientific team designed an online confidential questionnaire with 26 multiple-choice questions. The survey was answered by 86 invited experts (from 38 different countries), who participated from August 1, 2023, to September 9, 2023. RESULTS: Two-thirds of experts (67.4%) perform concomitant cholecystectomy in symptomatic gallstones during MBS. Half of experts (50%) would wait 6-12 weeks between both surgeries with an interval approach. Approximately 57% of the experts prescribe ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) prophylactically after MBS, and most recommend a 6-month course. More than the half of the experts (59.3%/53.5%) preferred laparoscopic assisted transgastric ERCP as the approach for treating CBD stones in patients who previously had RYGB/OAGB. CONCLUSION: Concomitant cholecystectomy is preferred by the experts, although evidence in the literature reports an increased complication rate. Prophylactic UDCA should be recommended to every MBS patient, even though the current survey demonstrated that not all experts are recommending it. The preferred approach for treating common bile duct stones is a laparoscopic assisted transgastric ERCP after gastric bypass. The conflicting responses will need more scientific work and clarity in the future.

IFSO Consensus on Definitions and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity Management-an International Delphi Study.

INTRODUCTION: This survey of international experts in obesity management was conducted to achieve consensus on standardized definitions and to identify areas of consensus and non-consensus in metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) to assist in an algorithm of clinical practice guidelines for the management of obesity. METHODS: A three-round Delphi survey with 136 statements was conducted by 43 experts in obesity management comprising 26 bariatric surgeons, 4 endoscopists, 8 endocrinologists, 2 nutritionists, 2 counsellors, an internist, and a pediatrician spanning six continents over a 2-day meeting in Hamburg, Germany. To reduce bias, voting was unanimous, and the statements were neither favorable nor unfavorable to the issue voted or evenly balanced between favorable and unfavorable. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% inter-voter agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all 15 essential definitional and reporting statements, including initial suboptimal clinical response, baseline weight, recurrent weight gain, conversion, and revision surgery. Consensus was reached on 95/121 statements on the type of surgical procedures favoring Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty. Moderate consensus was reached for sleeve gastrectomy single-anastomosis duodenoileostomy and none on the role of intra-gastric balloons. Consensus was reached for MBS in patients > 65 and < 18 years old, with a BMI > 50 kg/m2, and with various obesity-related complications such as type 2 diabetes, liver, and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of 43 multi-disciplinary experts, consensus was reached on standardized definitions and reporting standards applicable to the whole medical community. An algorithm for treating patients with obesity was explored utilizing a thoughtful multimodal approach.

Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Across the IFSO Chapters: Key Insights on the Baseline Patient Demographics, Procedure Types, and Mortality from the Eighth IFSO Global Registry Report.

INTRODUCTION: The International Federation for Surgery for Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Global Registry aims to provide descriptive data about the caseload and penetrance of surgery for metabolic disease and obesity in member countries. The data presented in this report represent the key findings of the eighth report of the IFSO Global Registry. METHODS: All existing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS) registries known to IFSO were invited to contribute to the eighth report. Aggregated data was provided by each MBS registry to the team at the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (ANZBSR) and was securely stored on a Redcap™ database housed at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Data was checked for completeness and analyzed by the IFSO Global Registry Committee. Prior to the finalization of the report, all graphs were circulated to contributors and to the global registry committee of IFSO to ensure data accuracy. RESULTS: Data was received from 24 national and 2 regional registries, providing information on 502,150 procedures. The most performed primary MBS procedure was sleeve gastrectomy, whereas the most performed revisional MBS procedure was Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Asian countries reported people with lower BMI undergoing MBS along with higher rates of diabetes. Mortality was a rare event. CONCLUSION: Registries enable meaningful comparisons between countries on the demographics, characteristics, operation types and approaches, and trends in MBS procedures. Reported outcomes can be seen as flags of potential issues or relationships that could be studied in more detail in specific research studies.

Patient Satisfaction and Healthcare Utilization with the Transition to Virtual Care in a Multidisciplinary Bariatric Program.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic saw an acceleration in virtual-visits (VV) for healthcare delivery. However, the impact of virtual care in metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) programs is not well described. METHODS: Appointment data from three time-points: pre-pandemic (1/1/19-3/15/20, n = 19,290), pandemic (3/16/20-10/31/21, n = 29,459) and current-state (11/1/21-12/31/2022, n = 24,270) was retrieved in our multi-hospital ambulatory MBS program. Appointments were grouped by health care provider (HCP) (MD, dietician, and psychologist) and type (VV and in-person). Surveys assessing patient satisfaction were distributed electronically. All pre-op and post-op appointment data was analyzed for the time-points above. Appointment completion rates and patient reported preferences were described. RESULTS: Our data showed an increase in scheduled VV from 0.5% for all HCP visits to 81% during the pandemic and a current VV visit of 77%. The number of completed VV increased for all HCPs, most prominently for dieticians. Parallel to this, the percentage of no-show visits also improved for all HCP, with MDs having the lowest no-show rate currently. Survey data revealed 89% of patients experience added benefits with VV and > 90% reported their VV experience as very good. VV were preferred over in-person visits for psychologists and dietitians (> 61%), but the majority preferred to see MDs in-person (70%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal significant changes in healthcare utilization trends since the transition to virtual care. While overall satisfaction with virtual care is high, most patients prefer in-person visits with MDs. Thus, multi-disciplinary MBS care can be performed effectively using a hybrid model to ensure efficient distribution of resources.

Recompensation in MASLD-related cirrhosis via metabolic bariatric surgery.

The prognosis of patients with decompensated cirrhosis is poor, with significantly increased liver-related mortality rates. With the rising tide of decompensated cirrhosis associated with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the role of metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) in achieving hepatic recompensation is garnering increasing attention. However, the complexity of preoperative assessment, the risk of postoperative disease recurrence, and the potential for patients to experience surgical complications of the MBS present challenges. In this opinion article we analyze the potential of MBS to induce recompensation in MASLD-related cirrhosis, discuss the mechanisms by which MBS may affect recompensation, and compare the characteristics of different MBS procedures; we highlight the therapeutic potential of MBS in MASLD-related cirrhosis recompensation and advocate for research in this complex area.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2): a Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the preferred method to achieve significant weight loss in patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2). However, there is no consensus regarding the best procedure(s) for this population. Additionally, these patients will likely have a higher risk of complications and mortality. The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus among a global panel of expert bariatric surgeons using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A total of 36 recognized opinion-makers and highly experienced metabolic and bariatric surgeons participated in the present Delphi consensus. 81 statements on preoperative management, selection of the procedure, perioperative management, weight loss parameters, follow-up, and metabolic outcomes were voted on in two rounds. A consensus was considered reached when an agreement of ≥ 70% of experts' votes was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 54 out of 81 statements reached consensus. Remarkably, more than 90% of the experts agreed that patients should be notified of the greater risk of complications, the possibility of modifications to the surgical procedure, and the early start of chemical thromboprophylaxis. Regarding the choice of the procedure, SADI-S, RYGB, and OAGB were the top 3 preferred operations. However, no consensus was reached on the limb length in these operations. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first attempt to reach consensus on the choice of procedures as well as perioperative management in patients with obesity class V. Although overall consensus was reached in different areas, more research is needed to better serve this high-risk population.

Current recommendations for procedure selection in class I and II obesity developed by an expert modified Delphi consensus.

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.