Impact of Preoperative Weight Loss on 30-Day Complication Rate after Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of preoperative weight loss on surgical outcomes and operating room (OR) times after primary bariatric procedures, including laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study uses the 2021 MBSAQIP dataset. Preoperative total weight loss (TWL)% was calculated. Patients were then divided in to 4 groups: those with no weight loss, lost <0 to <5%, lost ≥5% to <10%, or lost ≥10% TWL preoperatively. These groups were then stratified into those with BMI less than 50 kg/m 2 and those with BMI 50 kg/m 2 or more and 30-day outcomes and OR times were compared. RESULTS: Analysis included 171,010 patients. For BMI less than 50 kg/m 2 , preoperative weight loss led to no consistent improvement in surgical outcomes. Although >0% to <5% TWL led to a decrease in intra- and postoperative occurrences after RYGB and a decrease in reoperation rates after LSG, these observations were not seen in those with higher degree of weight loss. In patients with BMI 50 kg/m 2 or more, preoperative weight loss showed a consistent improvement in reintervention rates after LSG, and readmission rates after RYGB. There was no improvement in other outcomes, however, irrespective of degree of preoperative weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery, preoperative weight loss does not lead to a consistent improvement in outcomes or OR times. In those with BMI 50 kg/m 2 or more, there may be improvement in select outcomes that is procedure-specific. Overall, these data do not support a uniform policy of preoperative weight loss, although selective use in some high-risk patients may be appropriate.

Outcomes and Management of Re-Establishing Bariatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Lifelong follow-up after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is necessary to monitor for patient outcomes and nutritional status. However, many patients do not routinely follow-up with their MBS team. We studied what prompted MBS patients to seek bariatric care after being lost to follow-up and the subsequent treatments they received. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of patients after MBS who had discontinued regular MBS follow-up but represented to the MBS clinic between July 2018 and December 2022 to re-establish care. Patients with a history of a sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-En-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) were included. RESULTS: We identified 400 patients (83.5% women, mean age 50.3 ± 12.2 years at the time of re-establishment of bariatric care), of whom 177 (44.3%) had RYGB, 154 (38.5%) had SG, and 69 (17.2%) had AGB. Overall, recurrent weight gain was the most common reason for presentation for all three procedures (81.2% in SG, 62.7% in RYGB, and 65.2% in AGB; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent SG were more likely to undergo a revision MBS compared with patients who underwent RYGB (16.9% vs 5.8%, p < 0.001), whereas patients who underwent RYGB were more likely to undergo an endoscopic intervention than patients who underwent SG (17.5% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001). The response to antiobesity medication agents, specifically glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists drugs, was better in patients who underwent RYGB, than that in patients who underwent SG. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights recurrent weight gain as the most common reason for patients after MBS seeking to re-establish care with the MBS team. SG had a higher rate of revision MBS than RYGB, whereas endoscopic interventions were performed more frequently in the RYGB group. Antiobesity medication agents, especially glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists drugs, were more effective in patients who underwent RYGB.

Comparing Safety and Efficacy Outcomes of Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) could be done by the removal of a big portion of the stomach, leading to reduced amounts of food taken as a result of the smaller stomach size. In contrast, Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) can be done by creating a small stomach pouch and rerouting a part of the small intestine, employing combined mechanisms of restriction and malabsorption to limit food intake and modify nutrient absorption. Our aim is to identify the most effective and safest surgical intervention for individuals with both Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and obesity, considering both short and long-term outcomes. We will assess participants undergoing either SG or RYGB to determine the optimal surgical approach. We made a thorough search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to November 2023. Our focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of RYGB and SG in T2DM regarding any extractable data. We excluded studies of other designs, such as cohorts, case reports, case series, reviews, in vitro studies, postmortem analyses, and conference abstracts. Utilizing Review Manager 5.4, we performed a meta-analysis, combining risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) conducted for binary outcomes, while mean with SD and 95% CI are pooled for the continuous ones. The total number of participants in our study is 4,148 patients. Our analysis indicates superior outcomes in the group undergoing RYGB surgery compared to the SG group (RR = 0.76, 95% (CI) (0.66 to 0.88), P = 0.0002). The pooled data exhibited homogeneity (P = 0.51, I2 = 0%) after employing the leave-one-out method. For the 1-3 year period, six studies involving 332 patients with T2DM yielded non-significant results (RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.66 to 1.06), P = 0.14) with homogeneity (P = 0.24, I2 = 28%). Conversely, the 5-10 year period, with six studies comprising 728 DM patients, demonstrated significant results (RR = 0.69, 95% CI (0.56 to 0.85), P = 0.14) and homogeneity (P = 0.84, I2 = 0%). In terms of total body weight loss, our findings indicate significantly higher weight loss with RYGB (mean difference (MD) = -6.13, 95% CI (-8.65 to -3.6), P > 0.00001). However, pooled data exhibited considerable heterogeneity (P > 0.00001, I2 = 93%). Subgroup analyses for the 1-3 year period (five studies, 364 DM patients) and 5-10 year period (six studies, 985 DM patients) also revealed significant differences favoring RYGB, with heterogeneity observed in both periods (1-3 years: P > 0.00001, I2 = 95%; 5-10 years: P = 0.001, I2 = 75%). RYGB demonstrated significant long-term improvement in diabetes remission and superior total body weight loss compared to SG. While no notable differences were observed in other efficacy outcomes, safety parameters require further investigation. no significant distinctions were found in any of the safety outcomes: hypertension (HTN), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), hyperlipidemia, fasting blood glucose, vomiting, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and total cholesterol. Further research is essential to comprehensively assess safety outcomes for both surgical approaches.

The use of lidocaine infusion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Being one of the most common abdominal surgical procedures, numerous techniques have been adapted to decrease post-operative pain post cholecystectomy. However, the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine in managing post operative pain after LC is still controversial, according to many recent studies. This study aims to detect the effectiveness of IV lidocaine compared to other medications in managing post-operative pain. PubMed, Scopes, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to June 2023, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was done. According to eligibility criteria, 14 studies (898 patients) were included in our study. The pooled results of the included studies showed that the pain score after 6, 12 and 24 h after the surgery was significantly lower in those who received IV lidocaine as a painkiller (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] 6H, mean difference [MD] = -1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.20, -0.20, P = 0.02; I2 = 98%, VAS 12H, MD = -0.90, 95% CI = -1.52, -0.29, P = 0.004; I2 = 96% and VAS 24H, MD = -0.86, 95% CI = -1.48, -0.24, P = 0.007; I2 = 92%). In addition, IV lidocaine is associated with a significant decrease in the opioid requirement after the surgery (opioid requirements, MD = -29.53, 95% CI = -55.41, -3.66, P = 0.03; I2 = 98%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting after the surgery between the two groups (nausea and vomiting, relative risk = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.57, 1.45, P = 0.69; I2 = 50%). Lidocaine infusion in LC is associated with a significant decrease in post operative pain and in opioid requirements after the surgery.

A Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

We aim to investigate the potential of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) as a replacement for intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) in the context of laparoscopic cholecystectomy focusing on various aspects related to both techniques. We made our search through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, with the use of the following search strategy: ("laparoscopic ultrasonography" OR LUS OR "laparoscopic US" OR "laparoscopic ultrasound") AND ("laparoscopic cholecystectomy" OR LC). We incorporated diverse studies that addressed our topic, offering data on the identification of biliary anatomy and variations, the utilization of laparoscopic ultrasound in cholecystitis, the detection of common bile duct stones, and the criteria utilized to assess the accuracy of LUS. A total of 1526 articles were screened and only 20 were finally included. This systematic review assessed LUS and IOC techniques in cholecystectomy. IOC showed higher failure rates due to common duct catheterization challenges, while LUS had lower failure rates, often linked to factors like steatosis. Cost-effectiveness comparisons favored LUS over IOC, potentially saving patients money. LUS procedures were quicker due to real-time imaging, while IOC required more time and personnel. Bile duct injuries were discussed, highlighting LUS limitations in atypical anatomies. LUS aided in diagnosing crucial conditions, emphasizing its relevance post surgery. Surgeon experience significantly impacted outcomes, regardless of the technique. A previous study discussed that LUS's learning curve was steeper than IOC's, with proficient LUS users adjusting practices and using IOC selectively. Highlighting LUS's benefits and limitations in cholecystectomy, we stress its value in complex anatomical situations. LUS confirms no common bile duct stones, avoiding cannulation. LUS and IOC equally detect common bile duct stones and visualize the biliary tree. LUS offers safety, speed, cost-effectiveness, and unlimited use. Despite the associated expenses and learning curve, the enduring benefits of using advanced probes in LUS imaging suggest that it could surpass traditional IOC. The validation of this potential advancement relies heavily on incorporating modern probe studies. Our study could contribute to the medical literature by evaluating their clinical validity, safety, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, patient outcomes, technological advancements, and potential impact on guidelines and recommendations for clinical professionals.