Just What the Doctor Ordered: Missed Ordering of Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Is Associated With Increased VTE Events in High-risk General Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To define the impact of missed ordering of venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis in high-risk general surgery populations. BACKGROUND: The primary cause of preventable death in surgical patients is VTE. Although guidelines and validated risk calculators assist in dosing recommendations, there remains considerable variability in ordering and adherence to recommended dosing. METHODS: All adult inpatients who underwent a general surgery procedure between 2016 and 2019 and were entered into Atrium Health National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry were identified. Patients at high risk for VTE (2010 Caprini score ≥5) and without bleeding history and/or acute renal failure were included. Primary outcome was 30-day postoperative VTE. Electronic medical record identified compliance with "perfect" VTE chemoprophylaxis orders (pVTE): no missed orders and no inadequate dose ordering. Multivariable analysis examined association between pVTE and 30-day VTE events. RESULTS: A total of 19,578 patients were identified of which 4252 were high-risk inpatients. Hospital compliance of pVTE was present in 32.4%. pVTE was associated with shorter postoperative length of stay and lower perioperative red blood cell transfusions. There was 50% reduced odds of 30-day VTE event with pVTE (odds ratio: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80) and 55% reduction in VTE event/mortality (odds ratio: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63). After controlling for relevant covariates, pVTE remained significantly associated with decreased odds of VTE event and VTE event/mortality. CONCLUSIONS: pVTE ordering in high-risk general surgery patients was associated with 42% reduction in odds of postoperative 30-day VTE. Comprehending factors contributing to missed or suboptimal ordering and development of quality improvement strategies to reduce them are critical to improving outcomes.

Safety of biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch in patients with body mass index less than 50 kg/m2.

INTRODUCTION: Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) has often been reserved for patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2. We aim to assess the safety of BPD-DS in patients with morbid obesity (BMI 335 kg/m2 and < 50 kg/m2) using a 150-cm common channel (CC), 150-cm Roux limb, and 60-fr bougie. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients with a BMI < 50 mg/k2 who underwent a BPD-DS in 2016-2019 at a single institution. Limb lengths were measured with a laparoscopic instrument with minimal tension. Sleeve gastrectomy was created with 60-fr bougie. Variables were compared using paired t test, Chi-square analysis or repeated measures ANOVA where appropriate. RESULTS: Forty-five patients underwent BPD-DS. CC lengths and Roux limb lengths were 158 ± 20 cm and 154 ± 18 cm, respectively. Preoperative BMI was 44.9 ± 2.3 kg/m2 and follow-up was 2.7 ± 1.4 years. One patient required reoperation for bleeding and died from multiorgan failure and delayed sleeve leak. There was 1 (2.2%) readmission for contained anastomotic leak and 2 ED visits (4.5%) within 30 days. There were no marginal ulcers, limb length revisions, or need for parental nutrition. Percent excess weight loss was 67.2 ± 19.7%. 88.9% (N = 8), 86.6% (N = 13), and 55.5% (N = 5) of patients had resolution or improvement of their diabetes mellitus type II, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively. 40% (N = 4) of patients had resolution of their gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and 11.4% (N = 5) developed de novo GERD. 32% (N = 14) of patients had vitamin D deficiency and 25% (N = 11) experienced zinc deficiency. CONCLUSION: BPD-DS may be considered in patients with BMI < 50 kg/m2 with 150-cm CC, 150-cm Roux limb, and a 60-fr bougie sleeve gastrectomy. There was sustained weight loss and no protein calorie malnutrition, but Vitamin D and zinc deficiency remained a challenge. Careful patient selection and proper counseling of the risks and benefits are necessary.

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.

S146-Jejunojejunal intussusception after roux-En-Y gastric bypass: a case series of 34 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Jejunojejunal intussusception (JI) is a serious but rare complication that may occur following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. Causes of JI and best management strategy are not clearly defined. METHODS: Electronic health records were queried for ICD 9/10 codes for intussusception after RYGB surgery (2009-2019), and charts retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, operative technique, presentation, radiology, and JI management were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 2,327 RYGB patients identified at our institute, 34 (1.5%) were treated for JI. The mean age was 45.0 ± 8.6 years, mean BMI (RYGB surgery) was 43.1 ± 8.2 kg/m2, mean BMI at JI was 28.3 ± 5.8 kg/m2, and 30/34 were female, The mean time between RYGB and JI was 5.5 ± 4.3 years (range 1-17 years). Of the JI patients identified, 9 had operative notes that did not include jejunojejunostomy linear stapler length (JJ-LSL). Of the remaining 25 JI patients, 9 had a 60-mm JJ-LSL and 16 had a 120-mm JJ-LSL. Rate of intussusception was higher in the 120-mm versus 60-mm JJ-LSL group (p < 0.05). Acute abdominal pain was present in all JI patients and 32/34 had radiologic findings (CT scan) that corroborated for JI. The majority of JI patients were managed operatively (26/34) with 22/26 using laparoscopy (2/22 were converted to open). Intraoperative findings included intussusception (15/26), and 9/26 had other pathologies (internal hernia (2/26), cholecystitis (4/26), marginal ulcer (3/26)). Operative management of JI was either reduction and enteropexy (7/15), reduction only (5/15), or JJ revision (3/15). Recurrence of JI occurred in 7/23 patients, of who 4/7 were managed operatively. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, JI appears to be a relatively rare complication after RYGB surgery. However, for patients developing JI, the majority had a JJ length ≥ 120 mm, and most patients required operative management which was associated with a higher rate of conversion to open and risk of JI recurrence. Reduction only technique had the highest risk of JI recurrence and therefore is not recommended.

Factors that make Bariatric Surgery Technically Challenging: A Survey of 370 Bariatric Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is no published data on the factors bariatric surgeons think make bariatric surgery challenging. This study aimed to identify factors that bariatric surgeons feel and increase the technical complexity of bariatric surgery. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on Survey Monkey®. An Average Weighted Score was calculated for each factor. A score of < 1.0 meant that the factor was perceived to make surgery technically easier. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 59 countries completed the survey. The top 10 factors that our respondents felt were most important for determining the technical difficulty of a procedure were inappropriate trocar placement (AWS 3.44), BMI above 60 (AWS 3.41), open bariatric surgery (AWS 3.26), less experienced bariatric anesthetist (AWS 3.18), liver cirrhosis (AWS 3), large liver (AWS 2.99), less experienced bariatric assistant (AWS 2.97), lower surgeon total bariatric surgery volume (AWS 2.95), lower surgeon specific procedure volume (AWS 2.85) and previous laparotomy (AWS 2.83), respectively. Respondents also felt that the younger patients (AWS 0.78), dedicated operating team (AWS 0.67), BMI less than 35 (AWS 0.54), and French position (AWS 0.45) actually make the surgery easier. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first attempt to understand the factors which make bariatric surgery more difficult. Knowing the factors made the operation more challenging, led to better scheduling the potentially difficult patients to reduce the complications.

Male gender is an independent risk factor for patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an MBSAQIP® database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Male patients undergoing bariatric surgery have (historically) been considered higher risk than females. The aim of this study was to examine the disparity between genders undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedures and assess gender as an independent risk factor. METHODS: The MBSAQIP® Data Registry Participant User Files for 2015-2017 was reviewed for patients having primary SG and RYGB. Patients were divided into groups based on gender and procedure. Variables for major complications were grouped together, including but not limited to PE, stroke, and MI. Univariate and propensity matching analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 429,664 cases, 20.58% were male. Univariate analysis demonstrated males were older (46.48 ± 11.96 vs. 43.71 ± 11.89 years, p < 0.0001), had higher BMI (46.58 ± 8.46 vs. 45.05 ± 7.75 kg/m2, p < 0.0001), and had higher incidence of comorbidities. Males had higher rates of major complications (1.72 vs. 1.05%; p < 0.0001) and 30-day mortality (0.18 vs. 0.07%, p < 0.0001). Significance was maintained after subgroup analysis of SG and RYGB. Propensity matched analysis demonstrated male gender was an independent risk factor for RYGB and SG, major complications [2.21 vs. 1.7%, p < 0.0001 (RYGB), 1.12 vs. 0.89%, p < 0.0001 (SG)], and mortality [0.23 vs. 0.12%, p < 0.0001 (RYGB), 0.10 vs. 0.05%; p < 0.0001 (SG)]. CONCLUSION: Males continue to represent a disproportionately small percentage of bariatric surgery patients despite having no difference in obesity rates compared to females. Male gender is an independent risk factor for major post-operative complications and 30-day mortality, even after controlling for comorbidities.

Impact of age on morbidity and mortality following bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective modality to treat obesity and obesity-related comorbidities. This study sought to utilize the MBASQIP® Data Registry to analyze the impact of age at time of surgery on outcomes following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) procedures. METHODS: The MBSAQIP® Data Registry for patients undergoing SG or RYGB procedures between 2015 and 2016 was reviewed. Patients were divided into 4 age groups [18-44; 45-54; 55-64; > 65 years]. Minimal exclusions for revisional and/or emergency surgery were selected and combination variables created to classify complications as major or minor. A comorbidity index was constructed to include diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and prior cardiac surgery. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to compare age stratifications to the young adult (18-45 years) cohort. RESULTS: Of 301,605 cases, 279,419 cases (71.2% SG) remained after applying exclusion criteria (79.2% female, mean BMI 45.5 ± 8.1 kg/m2, 8.9% insulin-dependent diabetics). Mean age was 44.7 ± 12.0 years (51.3% 18-44 years; 26.9% 45-54 years; 16.3% 55-64 years; 5.5% > 65 years). A univariate analysis demonstrated preoperative differences of lower BMI with increasing age concomitant with increasing frequency of RYGB and a higher comorbidity index (p < 0.0001 vs. 18-45 years). At age > 45 years, major complications and 30-day mortality increased independent of procedure type (p < 0.0001). A multivariate analysis controlling for comorbidity indices demonstrated increasing age (> 45 years) increased risk for major complications and mortality. CONCLUSION: Overall, bariatric surgery (SG or RYGB) remains a low mortality risk procedure for all age groups. However, all age group classifications > 45 years had higher incidence of major complications and mortality compared to patients 18-45 years (despite older individuals having lower preoperative BMI) indicating delaying surgery is detrimental.

Correction to: Impact of age on morbidity and mortality following bariatric surgery.

This article was updated to correct the spelling of Nicholas Dugan's first name: it is correct as displayed here.

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.

Reducing Healthcare Costs Using ACS NSQIP-Driven Quality Improvement Projects: A Success Story from Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC).

INTRODUCTION: Surgical complications increase hospital length of stay and costs and lead to poor patient experience. We aim to evaluate our complication rates over time and the financial impact of joining the adult multi-specialty American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) at Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC). METHODS: Sheikh Khalifa Medical City is a Joint Commission International-accredited ACS NSQIP member since 2009. For the purpose of quality improvement, we have established several task forces (2010-2014) to decrease high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), urinary tract infection (UTI), surgical site infection (SSI), unplanned intubation (UI), and ventilator more than 48 h (Vent > 48 h). Our aim is to evaluate our complication rates over time and calculate the cost savings from prevented occurrences in VTE, UTI, SSI, UI, and Vent > 48 h. Cost savings are calculated using the return on investment calculator from ACS NSQIP. In addition, the cost of joining and maintaining ACS NSQIP at SKMC is calculated to determine the total cost savings after subtracting these costs. RESULTS: During the study period, we performed 8842 cases (2009-2015) and our overall morbidity improved significantly from observed/expected (O/E) 1.61% to (O/E) 0.85%. We prevented 12 VTE cases (2011-2015), 56 UTI cases (2013-2015), 12 SSI cases (2013-2015), 4 UI cases (2014-2015), and 7 Vent > 48 h cases (2014-2015). The cost saving from all these four task forces was $1,680,000. The cost of joining and maintaining ACS NSQIP at SKMC since 2009 was $336,000. Hence, the total saving for SKMC was $1,344,000. CONCLUSION: ACS NSQIP-driven quality improvement projects have resulted in reduction in complications and healthcare costs at SKMC over a 6-year period.

Screening colonoscopy in the initial workup of bariatric surgery patients: guidelines are needed.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is one of the most common causes of death among morbidly obese individuals. Obese individuals have a well-documented increased risk of colon cancer. No guidelines are available for the workup of bariatric surgery patients in relation to colon cancer. METHODS: The indications for screening colonoscopy at the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute Abu Dhabi (BMI Abu Dhabi) include all patients older than 50 years [40 years if patients are United Arab Emirates (UAE) nationals] with unexplained abdominal symptoms, anemia of unknown cause, or a family or personal history of colonic pathology. This study retrospectively reviewed the charts of all the patients who had colonoscopy during the period January 2009 to January 2013. The patients were divided into two groups: group A [patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2)] and group B (patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m(2)). The demographics and the prevalence of polyps and cancer in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 341 colonoscopies were performed: 137 for patients with a BMI higher than 30 kg/m(2) (mean age, 44 years) and 204 for patients with a BMI lower than 30 kg/m(2) (mean age, 46 years) (P > 0.05). The overall prevalence of adenomatous polyps was 6.74 % and that of cancer was 1.75 %. Further analysis showed that the prevalences of adenomatous polyps and cancer were respectively 12.4 and 2.1 % for the patients with a BMI higher than 30 kg/m(2), whereas the prevalences were respectively 2.9 and 0.9 % for the patients with BMI lower than 30 kg/m(2) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk for the development of colonic adenomatous polyps and cancer is high among young obese individuals in the Middle East. Guidelines are needed to establish criteria for screening in this group of individuals.

American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery position statement on one-anastomosis gastric bypass.

The following position statement is issued by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in response to inquiries made to the society by patients, physicians, society members, hospitals, health insurance payors, and others regarding one-anastomosis gastric bypass as a treatment for obesity and metabolic disease. This statement is based on current clinical knowledge, expert opinion, and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence available at this time. The statement may be revised in the future as more information becomes available.

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.

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.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Outcomes in African American Patients: a Single Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of obesity in African Americans (AAs) is higher than in non-AA in the USA. Previous studies using large national databases report that AA patients have worse outcomes than non-AA patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess perioperative outcomes among AA patients after MBS at a center of excellence (COE) that serves a large, diverse patient population. SETTING: University Hospital METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing MBS between 2010 and 2020 at our two accredited MBSAQIP (Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program) COEs where the AA population makes up over 35% of the population. Preoperative variables were compared using unpaired t-test or chi-squared test where appropriate. Thirty-day outcomes were compared following propensity score matching (exact algorithm) of demographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, 5742 patients (AA = 2058, 36%) had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (AA = 1028, 26%) or sleeve gastrectomy (AA = 1030, 27%). AA patients were more often female (90.2% vs. 80.2%, p < 0.001) and had higher rates of hypertension (56.3% vs. 47.8%, p < 0.001), while non-AA patients had higher rates of hyperlipidemia (27.3% vs. 20.7%, p < 0.001) and obstructive sleep apnea (41.2% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.0024). Matched data showed that AA patients had higher rates of pulmonary embolism (PE) (0.3% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.020) and more emergency department visits (7.0% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.012) but no differences in mortality, readmission, reintervention, or reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse area, AA patients who underwent MBS had similar perioperative outcomes compared to non-AA patients except that they experienced higher rates of PE. They also experienced higher rates of emergency department visits but had similar readmission rates.

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.

American society for metabolic and bariatric surgery: intra-operative care pathway for minimally invasive Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Clinical care pathways help guide and provide structure to clinicians and providers to improve healthcare delivery and quality. The Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Committee (QIPS) of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has previously published care pathways for the performance of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and pre-operative care of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). OBJECTIVE: This current RYGB care pathway was created to address intraoperative care, defined as care occurring on the day of surgery from the preoperative holding area, through the operating room, and into the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: PubMed queries were performed from January 2001 to December 2019 and reviewed according to Level of Evidence regarding specific key questions developed by the committee. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations are made for care of patients undergoing RYGB including the pre-operative holding area, intra-operative management and performance of RYGB, and concurrent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This document may provide guidance based on recent evidence to bariatric surgeons and providers for the intra-operative care for minimally invasive RYGB.

Scientific Evidence for the Updated Guidelines on Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (IFSO/ASMBS).

The 2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) updated the indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS), replacing the previous guidelines established by the NIH over 30 years ago. The evidence supporting these updated guidelines has been strengthened to assist metabolic and bariatric surgeons, nutritionists, and other members of multidisciplinary teams, as well as patients. This study aims to assess the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations compared to the previously published criteria.

Revision/Conversion Surgeries After One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-An Experts' Modified Delphi Consensus.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of evidence for treatment of some conditions including complication management, suboptimal initial weight loss, recurrent weight gain, or worsening of a significant obesity complication after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study was designed to respond to the existing lack of agreement and to provide a valuable resource for clinicians by employing an expert-modified Delphi consensus method. METHODS: Forty-eight recognized bariatric surgeons from 28 countries participated in the modified Delphi consensus to vote on 64 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved for 46 statements. For recurrent weight gain or worsening of a significant obesity complication after OAGB, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus that elongation of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) is an acceptable option and the total bowel length measurement is mandatory during BPL elongation to preserve at least 300-400 cm of common channel limb length to avoid nutritional deficiencies. Also, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus on conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with or without pouch downsizing as an acceptable option for the treatment of persistent bile reflux after OAGB and recommend detecting and repairing any size of hiatal hernia during conversion to RYGB. CONCLUSION: While the experts reached a consensus on several aspects regarding revision/conversion surgeries after OAGB, there are still lingering areas of disagreement. This highlights the importance of conducting further studies in the future to address these unresolved issues.

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.