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.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias". Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Implanted Closed-Loop Gastric Electrical Stimulation (CLGES) System with Sensor-Based Feedback Safely Limits Weight Regain at 24 Months.

BACKGROUND: Weight regain following bariatric surgery is not uncommon. Safe, effective weight loss treatment up to 1 year has been reported with the closed-loop gastric electrical stimulation (CLGES) system. Continuous recording of eating and activity behavior by onboard sensors is one of the novel features of this closed-loop electrical stimulation therapy, and may provide improved long-term weight maintenance by enhancing aftercare. METHODS: Four centers participating in a 12-month prospective multicenter randomized study monitored all implanted participants (n = 47) up to 24 months after laparoscopic implantation of a CLGES system. Weight loss, safety, quality of life (QOL), and cardiac risk factors were analyzed. RESULTS: Weight regain was limited in the 35 (74%) participants remaining enrolled at 24 months. Mean percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) changed by only 1.5% between 12 and 24 months, reported at 14.8% (95% CI 12.3 to 17.3) and 13.3% (95% CI 10.7 to 15.8), respectively. The only serious device-/procedure-related adverse events were two elective system replacements due to lead failure in the first 12 months, while improvements in QOL and cardiovascular risk factors were stable thru 24 months. CONCLUSION: During the 24 month follow-up, CLGES was shown to limit weight regain with strong safety outcomes, including no serious adverse events in the second year. We hypothesize that CLGES and objective sensor-based behavior data combined to produce behavior change. The study supports CLGES as a safe obesity treatment with potential for long-term health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01448785.

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.