Metabolic bariatric surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To compare different types of metabolic surgery with non-surgical therapy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: The present network meta-analysis (NMA) includes randomized clinical trials (duration ≥ 52 weeks) comparing different surgery techniques with non-surgical therapy in diabetes patients. The primary endpoints were endpoint HbA1c, body mass index (BMI) and diabetes remission. The secondary endpoints included fasting plasma glucose, lipid profile, blood pressure, arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemia remission, quality of life and surgical adverse events. Indirect comparisons of different types of surgery were performed by NMA. Mean and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables, and the Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio for categorial variables, were calculated. RESULTS: The types of surgical procedure included laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), bilio-pancreatic diversion (BPD), greater curvature plication (GCP), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and Duodeno-Jejunal bypass. Thirty-six trials were included. Metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) was associated with a significantly higher reduction of HbA1c, diabetes remission and BMI compared with medical therapy. In the NMA, a significant reduction of HbA1c was observed with OAGB and SG. Complete diabetes remission significantly increased with all surgical procedures in comparison with non-surgical therapy, except for GCP. In addition, only BPD, RYGB and OAGB were associated with a significant reduction of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: MBS is an effective option for the treatment of T2D in patients with obesity. Further long-term trials of appropriate quality are needed for assessing the risk-benefit ratio in some patient cohorts, such as those with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 and aged older than 65 years.

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.

SICOB-endorsed national Delphi consensus on obesity treatment optimization: focus on diagnosis, pre-operative management, and weight regain/insufficient weight loss approach.

PURPOSE: Overweight and obesity affects 60% of adults causing more than 1.2 million deaths across world every year. Fight against involved different specialist figures and multiple are the approved weapons. Aim of the present survey endorsed by the Italian Society of Bariatric Surgery (SICOB) is to reach a national consensus on obesity treatment optimization through a Delphi process. METHODS: Eleven key opinion leaders (KOLs) identified 22 statements with a major need of clarification and debate. The explored pathways were: (1) Management of patient candidate to bariatric/metabolic surgery (BMS); (2) Management of patient not eligible for BMS; (3) Management of patient with short-term (2 years) weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL); (4) Management of the patient with medium-term (5 years) WR; and (5) Association between drugs and BMS as WR prevention. The questionnaire was distributed to 65 national experts via an online platform with anonymized results. RESULTS: 54 out of 65 invited panelists (83%) respond. Positive consensus was reached for 18/22 statements (82%); while, negative consensus (s20.4; s21.5) and no consensus (s11.5, s17) were reached for 2 statements, respectively (9%). CONCLUSION: The Delphi results underline the importance of first-line interdisciplinary management, with large pre-treatment examination, and establish a common opinion on how to properly manage post-operative IWL/WR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: Report of expert committees.

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and European consensus on bariatric surgery-extension 2022.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Bariatric Guidelines Group identified a gap in bariatric surgery recommendations with a structured, contextualized consideration of multiple bariatric interventions. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-informed, transparent and trustworthy recommendations on the use of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, gastric plication, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, one anastomosis gastric bypass, and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity and metabolic diseases. Only laparoscopic procedures in adults were considered. METHODS: A European interdisciplinary panel including general surgeons, obesity physicians, anesthetists, a psychologist and a patient representative informed outcome importance and minimal important differences. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist fixed and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) using the graph theory approach for each outcome. We calculated the odds ratio or the (standardized) mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA and GRADE methodologies. We considered the risk/benefit outcomes within a GRADE evidence to decision framework to arrive at recommendations, which were validated through an anonymous Delphi process of the panel. RESULTS: We identified 43 records reporting on 24 RCTs. Most network information surrounded sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Under consideration of the certainty of the evidence and evidence to decision parameters, we suggest sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass over adjustable gastric banding, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and gastric plication for the management of severe obesity and associated metabolic diseases. One anastomosis gastric bypass and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are suggested as alternatives, although evidence on benefits and harms, and specific selection criteria is limited compared to sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp:  https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/Lpv2kE CONCLUSIONS: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, pertinent recommendations on the use of bariatric and metabolic surgery for the management of severe obesity and metabolic diseases. The guideline replaces relevant recommendations published in the EAES Bariatric Guidelines 2020.

Updating obesity management strategies: an audit of Italian specialists.

Obesity negatively affects physical and psychological health and increases health care costs. Although there is increasing interest in early diagnosis and timely intervention, there are several principles of care included in the current guidelines for clinical management of obesity that can potentially be updated and improved to address the "clinical inertia" and, consequently, to optimize the management of adult obesity. Using an online Delphi-based process, an Italian board of experts involved in the management of obesity discussed the usefulness of a pro-active approach to the care of patients with obesity, providing a consensus document with practical indications to identify risk factors for morbidity and death and raise awareness throughout the treatment continuum, including the early stages of the disease. In clinical practice, it seems inappropriate to delay an intervention that could avoid progression to a more severe level of obesity and/or prevent the onset of obesity-related comorbidities.Level of evidence Level V, report of expert committee.

The first modified Delphi consensus statement on sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet there is significant variation in practice concerning its various aspects. This paper report results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on SG. METHODS: We established a committee of 54 globally recognized opinion makers in this field. The committee agreed to vote on several statements concerning SG. An agreement or disagreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was construed as a consensus. RESULTS: The committee achieved a consensus of agreement (n = 71) or disagreement (n = 7) for 78 out of 97 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. The committee agreed with 96.3% consensus that the characterization of SG as a purely restrictive procedure was inaccurate and there was 88.7% consensus that SG was not a suitable standalone, primary, surgical weight loss option for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) without dysplasia. There was an overwhelming consensus of 92.5% that the sleeve should be fashioned over an orogastric tube of 36-40 Fr and a 90.7% consensus that surgeons should stay at least 1 cm away from the angle of His. Remarkably, the committee agreed with 81.1% consensus that SG patients should undergo a screening endoscopy every 5 years after surgery to screen for BE. CONCLUSION: A multinational team of experts achieved consensus on several aspects of SG. The findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of SG, the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide, and guide future research on this topic.

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.

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. RESULTS: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. CONCLUSION: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions.

Enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery: a comprehensive survey-based analysis of ERABS actual clinical implementation in Italian bariatric centers.

The escalating global prevalence of bariatric procedures necessitates an enhanced focus on optimizing perioperative care for improved patient outcomes. This study focuses on the implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) protocols in Italian bariatric centers to optimize perioperative care. An online survey comprising 19 items was conducted in October 2023, targeting managing surgeons in 139 registered bariatric centers. This survey explored geographic and center-type variations, knowledge, and application of ERABS protocols, along with perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative practices. Statistical analysis employed included one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. Responses from 72 centers (51.8%) revealed a strong awareness of ERABS protocols among managing surgeons. Adherence rates varied geographically (46.3-63%) and among center types (60.8-56.3%). Perioperative practices, including the abandonment of antibiotics for perioperative prophylaxis by 77.5% of surgeons and the adoption of the TAP block technique in 69% of centers, aligned well with ERABS recommendations. However, inconsistencies were noted in abdominal drain usage (61.5% after SG; 70.5% after RYGB/OAGB), with a substantial percentage not adhering to ERABS guidelines. Intraoperative habits generally adhered to ERABS protocols, yet preferences for certain tests, particularly the methylene blue test (70.4%), deviated. Postoperative practices displayed positive trends, with early reintroduction of oral feeding (71.8%) and opioid-free pain management (71.8%). Variations existed in discharge timing and patient monitoring, indicating areas for further improvement. This study offers a comprehensive snapshot of ERABS protocol adherence in Italy, emphasizing the positive trend toward optimizing recovery and reducing patient stress. Despite variations, a majority of centers demonstrated commitment to ERABS principles. Ongoing education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and nationwide dialogue are essential for standardizing ERABS protocols and advancing bariatric-metabolic surgery outcomes in Italy.

Scientific evidence for the updated guidelines on indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery (IFSO/ASMBS).

The 2022 American Society for 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 National Institutes of Health (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 (MDTs), as well as patients. This study aims to assess the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations compared to the previously published criteria.

Upcoming Italian clinical practice guidelines on endoscopic bariatric treatment of overweight and obesity: design and methodological aspects.

Obesity/overweight and its complications are a growing problem in many countries. Italian Society of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery for Obesity (Società Italiana di Chirurgia dell'Obesità e delle Malattie Metaboliche-SICOB) decided to develop the first Italian guidelines for the endoscopic bariatric treatment of obesity. The creation of SICOB Guidelines is based on an extended work made by a panel of 44 members and a coordinator. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology has been used to decide the aims, reference population, and target health professionals. Clinical questions have been created using the PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) conceptual framework. We will perform systematic reviews, formal meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses for each PICO and critical outcomes aimed at assessing and rating the efficacy and safety of endoscopic bariatric procedures in comparison with either no interventions, lifestyle interventions, or approved anti-obesity treatments in trials with a follow-up of at least 52 weeks. For PICO on temporary endoscopic bariatric treatments, we will also consider RCT with a minimum duration of 6 months. The panel proposed 8 questions, organized into four domains: A. Indication for endoscopic bariatric surgery; B. Revisional surgery; C. Temporary gastric and duodenal-jejunal procedures; D. Endoscopic diagnosis/treatment of bariatric and metabolic surgery complications. These guidelines will apply to patients aged ≥ 14 years) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2 and requiring endoscopic bariatric surgery or endoscopic diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures. The areas covered by the clinical questions included indications of endoscopic bariatric surgery, types of surgery, revisional surgery, and management of bariatric and metabolic surgery complications.

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.

Development of the International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders-European Chapter (IFSO-EC) Grade-Based Guidelines on the Surgical Treatment of Obesity Using Multimodal Strategies: Design and Methodological Aspects.

Background: The prevalence of obesity is already a worldwide health concern. The development of straightforward guidelines regarding the whole available armamentarium (i.e., medical, endoscopic, and surgical interventions in conjunction with a guidance program) is paramount to offering the best multimodal approach to patients with obesity. Methods: The International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders-European Chapter (IFSO-EC) identified a panel of experts to develop the present guidelines. The panel formulated a series of clinical questions (based on the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome conceptual framework), which have been voted on and approved. A GRADE methodology will be applied to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations employed to minimize selection and information biases. This approach aims to enhance the reliability and validity of recommendations, promoting greater adherence to the best available evidence. Results: These guidelines are intended for adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 who are candidates for metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). The expert panel responsible for developing these guidelines comprised 25 panelists (92% were bariatric surgeons) and 3 evidence reviewers, with an average age of 50.1 ± 10.2 years. The panel focused on 3 key questions regarding the combined use of structured lifestyle interventions, approved obesity management medications, and endoscopic weight loss procedures with MBS. Conclusions: The complexity of obesity as a chronic disease requires a comprehensive knowledge of all the available and feasible therapeutic options. The IFSO-EC society felt the urgent need to develop methodologically valid guidelines to give a full picture and awareness of the possible surgical and non-surgical therapeutic strategies employed with a multimodal approach.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2): a Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the preferred method to achieve significant weight loss in patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2). However, there is no consensus regarding the best procedure(s) for this population. Additionally, these patients will likely have a higher risk of complications and mortality. The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus among a global panel of expert bariatric surgeons using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A total of 36 recognized opinion-makers and highly experienced metabolic and bariatric surgeons participated in the present Delphi consensus. 81 statements on preoperative management, selection of the procedure, perioperative management, weight loss parameters, follow-up, and metabolic outcomes were voted on in two rounds. A consensus was considered reached when an agreement of ≥ 70% of experts' votes was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 54 out of 81 statements reached consensus. Remarkably, more than 90% of the experts agreed that patients should be notified of the greater risk of complications, the possibility of modifications to the surgical procedure, and the early start of chemical thromboprophylaxis. Regarding the choice of the procedure, SADI-S, RYGB, and OAGB were the top 3 preferred operations. However, no consensus was reached on the limb length in these operations. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first attempt to reach consensus on the choice of procedures as well as perioperative management in patients with obesity class V. Although overall consensus was reached in different areas, more research is needed to better serve this high-risk population.

SICOB Italian clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of obesity and associated diseases using GRADE methodology on bariatric and metabolic surgery.

Obesity is a chronic disease associated with increased morbidity and mortality and reduced quality of life. Pharmacotherapy can be associated with life style changes in increasing and maintaining weight loss and ameliorating obesity-related complications and comorbidities. In patients affected by obesity and uncontrolled obesity-associated complications or high degrees of BMI (> 40 Kg/m2), metabolic bariatric surgery can be a valid therapeutic option. Many different types of surgical procedures have been developed in last decades, mainly performed via laparoscopic approaches. However, clinical indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) and the choice of the most appropriate type of procedure have not been clarified so far.The Italian Society of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery for Obesity (Società Italiana di Chirurgia dell'Obesità e delle Malattie Metaboliche-SICOB) decided to design and develop the updated version of the Italian guidelines aimed at assisting healthcare professionals in the choice of the surgical option for the treatment of obesity and related conditions. Between June and October 2022, a panel of 24 experts and an evidence review team (ERT, 10 members), participated in the definition of clinical questions, outcomes, and recommendations and collected and analyzed all the available evidence on the basis of pre-specified search strategies. GRADE methodology and PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) conceptual framework have been adopted for the development of the present guidelines. Aim of the present guideline is to verify indications to surgery with respect to the presence of comorbid conditions, evaluate the different types of surgical approaches and endoscopic bariatric procedure and revise indication to revision surgery and postoperative procedures.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgeon Criteria-An International Experts' Consensus.

PURPOSE: With the global epidemic of obesity, the importance of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is greater than ever before. Performing these surgeries requires academic training and the completion of a dedicated fellowship training program. This study aimed to develop guidelines based on expert consensus using a modified Delphi method to create the criteria for metabolic and bariatric surgeons that must be mastered before obtaining privileges to perform MBS. METHODS: Eighty-nine recognized MBS surgeons from 42 countries participated in the Modified Delphi consensus to vote on 30 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 29 out of 30 statements. Most experts agreed that before getting privileges to perform MBS, surgeons must hold a general surgery degree and complete or have completed a dedicated fellowship training program. The experts agreed that the learning curves for the various operative procedures are approximately 25-50 operations for the LSG, 50-75 for the OAGB, and 75-100 for the RYGB. 93.1% of experts agreed that MBS surgeons should diligently record patients' data in their National or Global database. CONCLUSION: MBS surgeons should have a degree in general surgery and have been enrolled in a dedicated fellowship training program with a structured curriculum. The learning curve of MBS procedures is procedure dependent. MBS surgeons must demonstrate proficiency in managing postoperative complications, collaborate within a multidisciplinary team, commit to a minimum 2-year patient follow-up, and actively engage in national and international MBS societies.

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.

Intragastric gastric band migration: erosion: an analysis of multicenter experience on 177 patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has proven to be a safe and effective surgical treatment for morbid obesity. It can be a simple, fast, reversible, anatomy-preserving procedure. Despite these advantages, its long-term efficacy came into question by the occurrence of complications such as intragastric band migration. Consistent information regarding this complication is still lacking. Treatment for migration is still being debated as well. Most of the inconsistencies of these data stem from the very low number of patients reported in single-center experiences or case reports. Lack of multicenter experience is evident. The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of data on intragastric migration in a large multicenter cohort of patients who underwent LAGB. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study on LAGB patients was performed. Data had been entered into a prospective database of the Italian Group for LapBand(®) (GILB) since January 1997. Pars flaccida and perigastric positioning were considered along with different kinds of gastric bands by the same manufacturer. Time of diagnosis, mean body mass index (BMI), presentation symptoms, and conservative and surgical therapy of intragastric migration were considered. RESULTS: From January 1997 to December 2009, a total of 6,839 patients underwent LAGB and their data were recorded [5,660 females, 1,179 males; mean age 38.5 ± 18.2 years (range 21-62 years); mean BMI = 46.7 ± 7.7 kg/m(2) (range 37.3-68.3); excess weight (EW) 61.8 ± 25.4 kg (range 36-130); %EW 91.1 ± 32.4 % (range 21-112 %)]. A total of 177 of 6,839 (2.5 %) intragastric erosions were observed. According to the postoperative time of follow-up, the diagnosis of intragastric migration was made in 74 (41.8 %), 14 (7.9 %), 38 (21.4 %), 40 (22.6 %), 6 (3.4 %), and 4 (2.2 %) banded patients at 6-12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 months after banding, respectively. Most of intragastric band migration during the first 2 years occurred in bands with no or a few milliliters of filling. In patients with late erosion, the bands were adjusted several times; no band was overfilled but one was filled to the maximum or submaximum with a maximum of two adjustments. Erosions diagnosed during the first 24 months were related to the experience of the surgical staff, while late erosions were not. CONCLUSIONS: Intragastric band migration or band erosion is a rare, disturbing, and usually not life-threatening complication of gastric banding. Its pathogenesis is probably linked to different mechanisms in early (technical failure in retrogastric passage) or late (band management) presentation. It is usually asymptomatic and there is no pathognomonic presentation. A wide range of therapeutic options are available, from simple endoscopic or laparoscopic removal to early or late band replacement or other bariatric procedure. More experience and more studies are needed to lower its presentation rate and definitively clarify its pathogenesis to address the right therapeutic option.

Evolution of Bariatric Surgery in Italy in the Last 11 Years: Data from the SICOB Yearly National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery (BS) is a relatively novel surgical field and is in continuous expansion and evolution. PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to report changes in Italian surgical practice in the last decade. METHODS: The Società Italiana di Chirurgia dell'Obesità (SICOB) conducted annual surveys to cense activity of SICOB centers between 2011 and 2021. Primary outcome was to detect differences in frequency of performance of adjustable gastric banding (AGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), bilio-pancreatic diversion (BPD), and gastric plication (GP). Secondary outcome was to detect differences in performance of main non-malabsorptive procedures (AGB + SG) and overall bypass procedures (RYGB + OAGB). Geographical differences were also investigated. RESULTS: Median response rate was 92%. AGB declined from 36% of procedures in 2011 to 5% in 2021 (p < 0.0001). SG increased from 30% in 2011 to 55% in 2021 (p < 0.0001). RYGB declined from 25 to 12% of procedures (p < 0.0001). OAGB rose from 0% of procedures in 2011 to 15% in 2021 (p < 0.0001). BPD underwent decrease from 6.2 to 0.2% in 2011 and 2021, respectively (p < 0.0001). Main non-malabsorptive procedures significantly decreased while overall bypass procedures remained stable. There were significant differences among regions in performance of SG, RYGB, and OAGB. CONCLUSIONS: BS in Italy evolved significantly during the past 10 years. AGB underwent a decline, as did BPD and GP which are disappearing and RYGB which is giving way to OAGB. The latter is rising and is the second most-performed procedure after SG which has been confirmed as the preferred procedure by Italian bariatric surgeons.

Bariatric Surgery for Patients with Overweight/Obesity. A Comprehensive Grading Methodology and Network Metanalysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Weight Loss Outcomes and Adverse Events.

This study aims to compare different types of metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) with lifestyle intervention/medical therapy (LSI/MT) for the treatment of overweight/obesity. The present and network meta-analysis (NMA) includes randomized trials. MBS was associated with a reduction of BMI, body weight, and percent weight loss, when compared to LSI/MT, and also with a significant reduction of HbA1c and a higher remission of diabetes. Meta-regression analyses revealed that BMI, a higher proportion of women, and a longer duration of trial were associated with greater effects of MBS. The NMA showed that all surgical procedures included (except greater curvature plication) were associated with a reduction of BMI. MBS is an effective option for the treatment of obesity. The choice of BMI thresholds for eligibility for surgery of patients with different complications should be performed making an evaluation of risks and benefits in each BMI category.