Patient Selection in One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass-an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus.

PURPOSE: One anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is up to date the third most performed obesity and metabolic procedure worldwide, which recently has been endorsed by ASMBS. The main criticisms are the risk of bile reflux, esophageal cancer, and malnutrition. Although IFSO has recognized this procedure, guidance is needed regarding selection criteria. To give clinicians a daily support in performing the right patient selection in OAGB/MGB, the aim of this paper is to generate clinical guidelines based on an expert modified Delphi consensus. METHODS: A committee of 57 recognized bariatric surgeons from 24 countries created 69 statements. Modified Delphi consensus voting was performed in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was considered to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for 56 statements. Remarkably, ≥ 90.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB is an acceptable and suitable option "in patients with Body mass index (BMI) > 70, BMI > 60, BMI > 50 kg/m2 as a one-stage procedure," "as the second stage of a two-stage bariatric surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy for BMI > 50 kg/m2 (instead of BPD/DS)," and "in patients with weight regain after restrictive procedures. No consensus was reached on the statement that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in case of resistant Helicobacter pylori. This is likely as there is a concern that this procedure is associated with reflux and its related long-term complications including risk of cancer in the esophagus or stomach. Also no consensus reached on OAGB/MGB as conversional surgery in patients with GERD after restrictive procedures. Consensus for disagreement was predominantly achieved "in case of intestinal metaplasia of the stomach" (74.55%), "in patients with severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)(C,D)" (75.44%), "in patients with Barrett's metaplasia" (89.29%), and "in documented insulinoma" (89.47%). CONCLUSION: Patient selection in OAGB/MGB is still a point of discussion among experts. There was consensus that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in elderly patients, patients with low BMI (30-35 kg/m2) with associated metabolic problems, and patients with BMIs more than 50 kg/m2 as one-stage procedure. OAGB/MGB can also be a safe procedure in vegetarian and vegan patients. Although OAGB/MGB can be a suitable procedure in patients with large hiatal hernia with concurrent hiatal hernia, it should not be offered to patients with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett's metaplasia.

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.

Roux-en-Y to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Conversion: Description of a Novel Technique.

Introduction: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) remains among the most widely performed bariatric procedures. A significant decline in its indication has been observed due to weight regain and reappearance of comorbidities. Moreover, the lack of effective therapeutic alternatives after failure justifies why other techniques are more frequently chosen. We present a novel technique to convert a failed RYGB into a one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Case Presentation: A 43-year-old male patient with a body mass index (BMI) of 47 kg/m2 and several comorbidities was submitted to RYGB. Initially his surgery was successful, but after 7 years he visited the bariatric and metabolic surgery clinic with reappearance of all comorbidities, and the same BMI as before having bariatric surgery. After proper evaluation and preparation, conversion to OAGB was decided. After anatomy identification, the alimentary limb was transected 20 cm distal to the gastrojejunal anastomosis, and a new anastomosis with the common channel (CC) was created, to form a new long afferent biliopancreatic limb and a new short efferent CC. Results: The surgical procedure and postoperative course were uneventful. One year after the procedure the patient's BMI was 36 kg/m2. He has been able to stop all medications and therapies related to previous comorbidities. To date, the patient has good dietary and supplementation adherence resulting in no nutritional deficiencies, or gastrointestinal symptoms. Conclusion: This new surgical technique is safe and feasible. Short-term results have shown reasonable weight loss (WL), and especially remission of comorbidities with an improved quality of life.

Transgastric large-organ extraction: the initial human experience.

INTRODUCTION: In laparoscopy, it often is the case that port sites are enlarged for specimen extraction. This leads to higher risk of trocar site complications, such as infection or incisional hernia. Natural orifice surgery (NOTES) is beneficial for minimizing these complications, and this is emphasized when the extracted specimen is of large volume. We have been using transgastric technique for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Of these transgastric operations, we focus on the one with relatively large-organ extraction: LSG with transoral remnant extraction (TORE). We describe the details and feasibility of this procedure and compare the outcomes to conventional LSG. METHODS: All patients undergoing LSG were considered candidates for TORE and were consented for this procedure if interested after an informed discussion. Eighteen LSGs with TORE (TORE group) and ten conventional LSGs (non-TORE group) were performed from August 2010 to March 2011. We retrospectively compared these two groups for the age, sex, preoperative body mass index, operating room time, hospital stay, excess weight loss (EWL), and trocar site complications. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with TORE consists of conventional LSG and transgastric retrieval of the resected stomach. The procedure exceeds exactly the same manner as conventional LSG until the initial stapling of the stomach. For TORE, the gastrectomy is initiated 5 cm proximal to the pylorus than usual LSG to save the space for the gastrotomy used for specimen retrieval. After the gastrectomy is completed, the full thickness of the distal most part of the staple line is incised open as wide as 2 cm by using electric cautery or ultrasonic dissector. A flexible upper endoscope, which has been in the stomach already as a bougie for gastrectomy, is then guided into the peritoneal cavity through the gastrotomy. The specimen is grasped endoscopically with a snare and extracted transorally. Following this, the gastrotomy is closed laparoscopically. The final shape of the gastric sleeve is identical to the one of conventional LSG. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the TORE and the non-TORE group for patients' profile, operating room time, hospital stay, and EWL. Neither group has experienced perioperative complications. All specimens were extracted readily and safely in the TORE group. Of the ten cases in the non-TORE group, four required extension of the trocar site. No trocar site complications were found in the TORE group, whereas the extended trocar site developed panniculitis in two cases of the non-TORE group; one required panniculectomy for refractory induration. CONCLUSIONS: TORE can be safely and easily performed by surgeons with laparoscopic and endoscopic skill, and with commonly available instruments. While producing identical outcomes, our initial experience with the TORE technique demonstrates an advantage over traditional LSG, because it minimizes trocar site complications. Transgastric organ extraction is potentially applicable to other large-organ extractions in laparoscopic surgery without excessive risk or resources. Larger case volume and longer follow-up period is awaited.