Efficacy of Bowel Regimen in Decreasing Postoperative Constipation in Bariatric Surgery Patients.

PURPOSE: Postoperative constipation after bariatric surgery is a common complaint, decreasing patient quality of life. No literature exists examining the efficacy of a preoperative bowel regimen in reducing postoperative constipation in this cohort. This study aims explore the efficacy of a well-established bowel regimen, polyethylene glycol (PEG), in reducing constipation frequency and severity after bariatric surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult patients undergoing primary and revisional bariatric procedures. The use of PEG bowel prep for bariatric patients was introduced as an institutional quality improvement measure. Patients during the first 3 months after PEG implementation were surveyed for postoperative constipation. For the year after implementation, patients were followed for 30-day emergency room visits or hospitalization secondary to constipation. This cohort was compared to historical controls from the previous year. Student t-tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: During the 3-month exploratory phase, 28/49 (57.14%) patients fully completed the bowel regimen. In total, 0/56 (0%) patients reported preoperative constipation, and 5/28 (17.9%) patients reported constipation at the 3-week follow-up. In the 1 year post-implementation cohort, 2/234 (0.85%) patients had constipation-related occurrences at 30-day follow-up, compared to 8/219 patients (3.65%) in the historical cohort (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a PEG-based bowel regimen did not eliminate self-reported constipation. However, there were significant differences in rates of constipation-related ED visits and hospital readmissions, suggesting that the bowel regimen decreases rates of severe constipation. Finally, patient compliance was limited. Future work should aim towards increasing compliance.

Preoperative medically supervised weight loss programs and weight loss outcomes following bariatric surgery - a prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior to undergoing bariatric surgery, many insurance companies require patients to attend medically supervised weight management visits for 3-6 months to be eligible for surgery. There have been few studies that have looked specifically at the relationship between medically supervised weight management visit attendance and postoperative outcomes, and the current literature reports discrepant findings. OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to better characterize the relationship between preoperative medically supervised weight management visit attendance and postoperative weight loss outcomes by examining weight loss up to 5 years postbariatric surgery, and by stratifying findings according to the type of surgery undergone. SETTING: University Hospital. METHODS: Participants were recruited during presurgical bariatric surgery clinic visits at a bariatric and metabolic weight loss center. As part of standard of care all participants were required to participate in monthly medically supervised weight management visits before surgery. Participants who completed bariatric surgical procedures participated in postsurgical follow-up at 3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then annually for 5 years. Weight outcomes measured were percentage of total weight lost. RESULTS: The results do not indicate a significant association between number of group visits attended and percent total weight loss at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, or 5 years postbariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not suggest a relationship between engagement in a medically supervised weight loss program prior to bariatric surgery and weight loss after surgery in either the short- or the long-term.

Postural Stability in Obese Preoperative Bariatric Patients Using Static and Dynamic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, 300 million adults have clinical obesity. Heightened adiposity and inadequate musculature secondary to obesity alter bipedal stance and gait, diminish musculoskeletal tissue quality, and compromise neuromuscular feedback; these physiological changes alter stability and increase injury risk from falls. Studies in the field focus on obese patients across a broad range of body mass indices (BMI >30 kg/m2) but without isolating the most morbidly obese subset (BMI ≥40 kg/m2). We investigated the impact of obesity in perturbing postural stability in morbidly obese subjects elected for bariatric intervention, harboring a higher-spectrum BMI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Traditional force plate measurements and stabilograms are gold standards employed when measuring center of pressure (COP) and postural sway. To quantify the extent of postural instability in subjects with obesity before bariatric surgery, we assessed 17 obese subjects with an average BMI of 40 kg/m2 in contrast to 13 nonobese subjects with an average BMI of 30 kg/m2. COP and postural sway were measured from static and dynamic tasks. Involuntary movements were measured when patients performed static stances, with eyes either opened or closed. Two additional voluntary movements were measured when subjects performed dynamic, upper torso tasks with eyes opened. RESULTS: Mean body weight was 85% (p < 0.001) greater in obese than nonobese subjects. Following static balance assessments, we observed greater sway displacement in the anteroposterior (AP) direction in obese subjects with eyes open (87%, p < 0.002) and eyes closed (76%, p = 0.04) versus nonobese subjects. Obese subjects also exhibited a higher COP velocity in static tests when subjects' eyes were open (47%, p = 0.04). Dynamic tests demonstrated no differences between groups in sway displacement in either direction; however, COP velocity in the mediolateral (ML) direction was reduced (31%, p < 0.02) in obese subjects while voluntarily swaying in the AP direction, but increased in the same cohort when swaying in the ML direction (40%, p < 0.04). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Importantly, these data highlight obesity's contribution towards increased postural instability. Obese subjects exhibited greater COP displacement at higher AP velocities versus nonobese subjects, suggesting that clinically obese individuals show greater instability than nonobese subjects. Identifying factors contributory to instability could encourage patient-specific physical therapies and presurgical measures to mitigate instability and monitor postsurgical balance improvements.

Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: More than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization's International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register from root to 24 May 2013. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into Review Manger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories.(1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction.(2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction for MLD (MD 7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants.(3) MLD + compression therapy versus nonMLD treatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoring MLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P=0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus self-administered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant for MLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants).MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials.Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group.Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results.Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care.Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate-to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data.In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify the most clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation.Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life.For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received.One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve.

Predictors of a successful medical weight loss program.

BACKGROUND: Many practices are creating weight loss programs, in preparation for bariatric surgery or for patients who wish to lose weight without surgery. Preoperative weight loss may be associated with improved postoperative weight loss and resolution of co-morbidities. The aim of this study is to investigate the success of a preoperative weight loss program at a single institution and the variables associated with success in weight loss. METHODS: We enrolled patients in a once monthly multidisciplinary preoperative weight loss program and evaluated % total weight lost over the 6-month program for primary and for revisional bariatric surgical patients. Demographic characteristics, weight, program related factors, and co-morbidities were recorded. One-way ANOVA and multiple linear regression models were carried out to assess variables. Parameter estimates of multiple linear regression models were reported. Statistical significance was set at .05 and analysis was done using SAS 9.3. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients enrolled and completed the program over a period of 14 months. Only 50.8% of the patients lost weight with average weight loss of .1±4.0 lbs. Patient׳s sex, insurance, psychiatric history, co-morbidities, referral status, or type of counseling had no significant effect on weight loss (P>.05). Patients between 30 and 50 years old on average were more successful in losing weight (P = .018). Patients considering revisional surgery were less successful preoperatively compared to first time candidates (P = .0007). CONCLUSION: Patients between 30 and 50 years of age, first time surgical candidates, and those with higher weights may be more successful in losing weight in a preoperative bariatric weight loss program.