A Spanish Society joint SECO and SEEDO approach to the Post-operative management of the patients undergoing surgery for obesity.

PURPOSE: Bariatric surgery is the method of choice for the management or treatment of obesity. Bariatric surgery brings about several physiological changes in the body and is associated with set of complications. The aim of this study is to provide guidelines on post bariatric surgery management based on consensus by the Spanish society for Obesity Surgery (Sociedad Española de Cirugía de la Obesidad) (SECO) and the Spanish Society for the Study of Obesity (Sociedad Española para el Estudio de la Obesidad) (SEEDO). METHOD: The boards proposed seven experts from each society. The experts provided the evidence and a grade of recommendation on the selected topics based on systematic reviews/meta-analysis. A list of clinical practical recommendations levels of evidence and grades of these recommendations was derived from the consensus statements from the members of these societies. RESULTS: Seventeen topics related to post-operative management were reviewed after bariatric surgery. The experts came with 47 recommendations and statements. The mean number of persons voting at each statement was 54 (range 36-76). CONCLUSION: In this consensus, we have designed a set of guidelines to be followed while managing patients after bariatric surgery. Expertise and knowledge of the clinicians are required to convey suitable considerations to the post-bariatric patients. There should also be extensive follow-up plans for the bariatric surgery patients.

Closed-loop gastric electrical stimulation versus laparoscopic adjustable gastric band for the treatment of obesity: a randomized 12-month multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the weight loss, change in quality of life (QOL) and safety of closed-loop gastric electrical stimulation (CLGES) versus adjustable gastric band (LAGB) in the treatment of obesity. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to laparoscopic CLGES versus LAGB and followed them for 1 year. We enrolled 210 patients, of whom 50 were withdrawn preoperatively. Among 160 remaining patients (mean age=39±11 years; 75% women; mean body mass index=43±6 kg m-2) 106 received CLGES and 54 received LAGB. The first primary end point was non-inferiority of CLGES versus LAGB, ascertained by the proportion of patients who, at 1 year, fulfilled: (a) a ⩾20% excess weight loss (EWL); (b) no major device- or procedure-related adverse event (AE); and (c) no major, adverse change in QOL. Furthermore, ⩾50% of patients had to reach ⩾25% EWL. The incidence and seriousness of all AE were analyzed and compared using Mann-Whitney's U-test. RESULTS: At 1 year, the proportions of patients who reached all components of the primary study end point were 66.7 and 73.0% for the LAGB and CLGES group, respectively, with a difference of -6.3% and an upper 95% CI of 7.2%, less than the predetermined 10% margin for confirming the non-inferiority of CLGES. The second primary end point was also met, as 61.3% of patients in the CLGES group reached ⩾25% EWL (lower 95% CI=52.0%; P<0.01). QOL improved significantly and similarly in both groups. AE were significantly fewer and less severe in the CLGES than in the LAGB group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized study confirmed the non-inferiority of CLGES compared with LAGB based on the predetermined composite end point. CLGES was associated with significantly fewer major AE.