One anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a 30-day follow-up review.

BACKGROUND: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) type procedures have been widely adopted outside the United States. International experience of OAGB commonly suggests improved early postoperative safety with OAGB over Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study aims to report on the early experience with OAGB in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) accredited centers, and compare with RYGB in terms of complication rates. METHODS: The MBSAQIP public use files from 2015 to 2018 were used to identify adult patients who underwent primary OAGB and RYGB. Propensity score analysis was used to estimate the marginal population-average differences between OAGB and RYGB patients. Based on the matched samples, McNemar's tests and Wilcoxon signed rank test were carried out for binary and continuous outcomes. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Propensity score matching analysis resulted in 279 matched pairs for OAGB and RYGB. Twelve OAGB patients (4.3%) experienced a complication; 3 of them (1.1%) were diagnosed with anastomotic leaks. Compared to 14 (5%) of RYGB patients experiencing a complication; 5 (1.8%) were diagnosed with anastomotic leaks. Reintervention, reoperation and readmission rates for OAGB were 2.5%, 3.2% and 5%, compared to 1.8%, 1.8%, and 3.2% for RYGB. DISCUSSION: Our study supports previous data that suggests OAGB has a similar early safety profile compared to RYGB and perioperative risks of OAGB should not be of a concern regarding its adoption. Conversely, OAGB does not seem to be associated with an improved safety profile over RYGB.

The effect of smoking on bariatric surgical 30-day outcomes: propensity-score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP.

BACKGROUND: The exact impact of smoking within the last 12 months on the safety outcome of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-Y gastric bypass is not well known. The study aimed to assess the effects of smoking on 30-day surgical outcomes. METHODS: Preoperative characteristics and outcomes from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program dataset 2015-2018 were selected for all patients who underwent primary sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-Y gastric bypass. 30-day postoperative outcomes were assessed. We used propensity score matching to control for potential confounding. RESULTS: In laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy group, 29 165 pairs were included in the analysis. Smoking increased risk for inpatients readmission rate (3.67% vs. 3.10%; RR, 1.18; 95%CI 1.08-1.29, p < 0.001), intervention rate (1.03% vs. 0.84%; RR, 1.22; 95%CI 1.00-1.24, p = 0.020), reoperation rate (0.99% vs. 0.79%; RR, 1.25; 95%CI 1.05-1.48, p = 0.010), and leak rate (0.59% vs. 0.32%; RR, 1.83; 95%CI 1.43-2.37, p < 0.001). In laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass cohort,11 895 pairs were included in the ultimate analysis. Smoking increased risk for inpatients readmission rate (7.54% vs. 5.88%; RR, 1.28; 95%CI 1.16-1.41, p < 0.001), intervention rate (3.53% vs. 2.30%; RR, 1.54; 95%CI 1.32-1.80, p < 001), reoperation rate (3.17% vs. 1.86%; RR, 1.70; 95%CI 1.45-2.00, p < 0.001), leak rate (1.05% vs. 0.59%; RR, 1.78; 95%CI 1.33-2.39, p < 0.001), bleed rate (2.03% vs. 1.45%; RR, 1.39; 95%CI 1.15-1.69, p < 0.001), and morbidity (4.20% vs. 3.38%; RR, 1.24; 95%CI 1.09-1.41, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Smoking cigarettes at any point within the 12 months before admission for surgery increased the risk for surgical short-term complications in bariatric patients. The effect was the most significant regarding leaks.

From database to practice: the MBSAQIP in the surgical literature.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) has been a game changer for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), with continuous improvements in safety and outcomes throughout the years of its usage. It allows in-depth evaluations of MBS procedures, presenting practitioners and researchers with unparalleled opportunities for quality assessment, research and clinical advancement. OBJECTIVES: To offer an updated overview of MBSAQIP-related publications. SETTING: United States. METHODS: PubMed was queried using keywords "MBSAQIP" and "Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program." Letters to editors, duplicates, commentaries, and retracted articles were excluded. Studies that mentioned MBSAQIP but did not use the data within were also excluded. RESULTS: A total of 400 search items were returned as of August 2023. After exclusions, 289 studies were reviewed. Articles were published in a total of 28 unique journals, the majority of which were featured in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (SOARD), with 114 articles (39.4%). Sixty-one articles were focused on creating predictive models or risk calculators, 58 on investigating the safety of procedures, and 52 on exploring complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were the 2 most commonly discussed procedures, at 80.3% and 80% respectively. Forty-three studies included patients who underwent robotic-assisted MBS. CONCLUSIONS: The MBSAQIP is a valuable resource that has generated a wealth of studies in the literature. It has allowed for intense analysis of clinical issues and fostered a culture of safety and quality improvement. Participating surgeons must pledge commitment to extended follow-up periods to maximize its effectiveness.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program: Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator: 1-year comorbidity remission.

BACKGROUND: Clinical calculators can provide patient-personalized estimates of treatment risks and health outcomes. The American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) set out to create a publicly available tool to assess both short-term postoperative risk and long-term benefits for prospective adult patients eligible for 1 of 4 primary bariatric procedures. The calculator is comprised of multiple prediction elements: (1) 30-day postoperative risk, (2) 1-year body mass index projections, and (3) 1-year comorbidity remission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the 1-year comorbidity remission prediction feature of the calculator. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization clinical data registry. METHODS: MBSAQIP data across 4.5 years from 240,227 total patients indicating at least 1 comorbidity of interest present preoperatively and who had a 1-year follow-up record documenting their comorbidity status were included. Six models were constructed, stratified by the presence of the respective preoperative comorbidity: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, sleep apnea, non-insulin-dependent diabetes, and insulin-dependent diabetes. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to predict 1-year remission (total, partial, or no remission) of insulin-dependent diabetes. All other outcomes were binary (yes or no at 1 yr), and ordinary logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: All models showed adequate discrimination (C statistics ranging from .58 to .68). Plots of observed versus predicted remission (%) showed excellent calibration across all models. CONCLUSION: All remission models were well calibrated with sufficient discrimination. The MBSAQIP Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator is a publicly available tool intended for integration into clinical practice to enhance patient-clinician discussions and informed consent.

Hypoalbuminemia as a risk factor for complications in revisional/conversional bariatric surgery: an MBSAQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypoalbuminemia (HA) is a risk factor for serious complications after elective bariatric surgery. Patients undergoing revisional/conversional bariatric surgery may represent a higher-risk group who often have underlying co-morbid medical illnesses and more complex surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the postoperative complications in patients with HA undergoing revisional/conversional bariatric surgery. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), years 2015-2019. METHODS: The MBSAQIP database was used to evaluate patients undergoing non-banding revisional/conversional bariatric surgery between 2015 and 2019. Patients were categorized by serum albumin (≤3.5 g/dL). Variables were assessed via bivariate analysis and multivariable regression. Propensity score matching was conducted to compare gastric bypass (RYGB) to sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven thousand four hundred thirty patients underwent revisional/conversional procedures. After applied exclusions, 58,777 patients were available for analysis. The HA group had a significantly (P < .05) higher prevalence of being black (22.95% versus 17.76%), renal insufficiency (1.08% versus .36%), smoking history (9.47% versus 6.91%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (2.54% versus 1.33%), and history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (4.03% versus 2.3%). Postoperative complications associated with HA included perioperative blood transfusion (3.1% versus 1.27%; P < .001), 30day readmission (10.87 versus 6.77%; P < .001), 30day reoperation (4.9% versus 3.18%; P < .001), and 30day mortality (.40% versus .14%; P < .0001). HA was a significant predictor of 30day readmission in the RYGB versus VSG matched cohort (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], [1.14, 1.48]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HA is a risk factor requiring attention for patients undergoing revisional/conversional bariatric surgery and optimization of nutritional status or medical comorbidities associated with HA prior to bariatric surgery may help avoid postoperative complications.

Evaluating agreement between clinic- and patient-reported outcomes for weight and co-morbidities at 1 year after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Development of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to include traditionally clinic-reported data has the potential to decrease the data-collection burden for patients and clinicians and increase follow-up rates. However, replacing clinic report by patient report requires that the data reasonably agree. OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between PROs and clinical registry data at 1 year after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization, bariatric surgery data registry, PROs platform. METHODS: Patient- and clinic-reported 1-year postoperative weight and co-morbidities were compared for matched PROs and registry records. The co-morbidities evaluated were diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hyperlipidemia. Weight difference in pounds and nominal groupings (binary, 4-level) for co-morbidities were assessed for agreement between data sources using descriptive statistics, Bland-Altman plots, multiple regression, and kappa coefficients. Sensitivity analyses and follow-up by response method were examined. RESULTS: Among 1130 patients with both 1-year PROs and registry weights, 95% of patient-reported weights were within 13 lb of the registry-recorded weight, and patients underreported their weight by ∼2 lb, on average. Percent agreement and kappa coefficients were highest for diabetes (n = 999; binary: 94%, κ = .72; 4-level: 86%, κ = .71) and lowest for gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 1032; binary: 75%, κ = .40; 4-level: 57%, κ = .35). Of patients eligible for both PROs and registry 1-year follow-up, 21% had PROs only. CONCLUSIONS: One-year patient- and clinic-reported weights and disease status for patients with diabetes and hypertension showed high agreement. The degree of bias from patient report was low. Patient report is a viable alternative to clinic report for certain objective measurements and may increase follow-up.

Effect of Smoking History on 30-Day Morbidity Following Bariatric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking and postoperative complications are well documented across surgical specialties. Preoperative smoking cessation is frequently recommended by surgeons. In this study, we assessed to what degree documented smoking history increased a patient's risk of postoperative complications. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database for the years 2015-2018 was used. Patients were included if they underwent primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Patients with a documented smoking history were assigned to the "SH" cohort and patients without smoking history were assigned to the "NSH" cohort. Patients without documentation regarding smoking history, missing variables, younger than 18, with prior surgery, or lost to follow-up were excluded. 30-day morbidity and mortality data were assessed. Multiple logistic regression analysis was made based on all available patient characteristics and perioperative factors, continuous variables were analyzed using Student's t-test and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: After evaluation of 760,076 patients on the MBSAQIP database, 650,930 patients underwent non-revisional bariatric surgery, including 466,270 SG and 184,660 LRYGB. Of the total patients included in the study, 44,606 patients were assigned to the SH cohort and 479,601 were assigned to the NSH cohort. 4628 of patients did not have documented smoking status. Within 30 days SH patients had higher rates of readmission (4.2% vs 3.7%, P < .0001), reoperation (1.3% vs 1.1%, P < .0001), unplanned intubation (.2% vs .1%, P = .0212), and unplanned ICU admission (.7% vs .0.6%, P = .0022). CONCLUSION: SH patients undergoing bariatric surgery were at significantly increased risk of readmission and reoperation within 30 days of procedure. In addition, SH patients were more likely to have unplanned intubation and unplanned ICU admission. Given the higher rates of complications in smoking patients, this study would suggest that preoperative smoking cessation in patients prior to primary bariatric surgery might be beneficial. Further study is warranted to compare short-term cessation vs long-term cessation preoperatively, which was not assessed in our study.

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator: 1-year weight.

BACKGROUND: Data-driven tools can be designed to provide patient-personalized estimates of health outcomes. Clinical calculators are commonly built to assess risk, but potential benefits of treatment should be equally considered. The American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) sought to create a risk and benefit calculator for adult patients considering primary metabolic and bariatric surgery with multiple prediction features: (1) 30-day risk, (2) 1-year body mass index (BMI) projections, and (3) 1-year co-morbidity remission. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the 1-year BMI projections feature of this tool. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization, clinical data registry. METHODS: MBSAQIP data from 596,024 cases across 4.5 years from 882 centers with ∼2.5 million records through 18 months postoperatively were included. A generalized estimating equation model was used to estimate BMI over time for 4 primary procedures: laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. RESULTS: The mean absolute error (MAE) in BMI predictions through postoperative month 12 was 1.68 units; overall correlation of actual and predicted BMI was .94. MAE of postoperative BMI estimates (1-12 mo) was lowest for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (1.64) and highest for biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (1.99). BMI predictions at 12 months showed MAE = 2.99 units. CONCLUSIONS: Predicted BMI closely aligned with actual BMI values across the 12-month postoperative period. The MBSAQIP Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator is publicly available with the intent to facilitate patient-clinician communication and guide surgical decision making. This tool can aid in evaluating postoperative risk as well as benefits and long-term expectations.

Conversion of gastric sleeve to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch: safe and viable options.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remains the most performed bariatric surgery. As numbers of SG increase, so do the numbers of patients requiring conversion for insufficient weight loss or weight regain. However, the literature has cited complication rates as high as 30% for reoperative bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: With the recent inclusion of conversion surgery variables in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we compared the safety and efficacy of SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPD/DS). SETTING: MBSAQIP database. METHODS: Analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP Participant Use Files revealed 6020 patients who underwent SG conversion to RYGB (5348) and BPD/DS (672). We examined 30-day outcomes including death, anastomotic leak, readmission, any complication, dehydration, and weight loss. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (.12% versus 0%) or; complication rate (6.5% versus 5.1%) with SG conversion to RYGB or BPD/DS. There was a statistically significant difference in anastomotic leak (.5% versus 1.2%, P = .024). Interestingly, BPD/DS was less likely to require dehydration treatments (4.2% versus 2.2%, P = .009) and had fewer readmissions within 30 days (7.3% versus 5.4%, P = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates after conversion of SG to RYGB or BPD/DS may be significantly lower than previously reported and only slightly higher than after primary weight loss surgery. SG conversion to either RYGB or BPD/DS remain safe, viable options for patients who had insufficient weight loss or regain, and BPD/DS may be the better option in the appropriate patient.

Predictors of 30-day follow-up visit completion after primary bariatric surgery: an analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program data registry.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to follow-up visits is often unsatisfactory after bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors, including surgery type and preoperative demographics, body mass index (BMI), medical conditions, and smoking status, of 30-day follow-up visit completion. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program participating centers (2015-2018). METHODS: Patients who underwent primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy were included in this analysis. Data were analyzed using weighted logistic regression. Subanalyses included stratification of the sample by sex and age (<45, 45-60, and >60 years). RESULTS: Patients (n = 566,774) were predominantly female (79.6%), White (72.4%), non-Hispanic (77.9%), and middle-aged (44.5 ± 11.9 years), with a mean BMI of 45.3 ± 7.8 kg/m2. More than 95% of patients completed the 30-day visits. In the whole-sample analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02) and the presence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes (OR, 1.04), hypertension (OR, 1.03), hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.10), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 1.15), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (OR, 1.16) were positive predictors of the 30-day visit completion (Ps < .01). Conversely, sleeve gastrectomy procedure (OR, .86), Black race (OR, .87), Hispanic ethnicity (OR, .94), and the presence of insulin-dependent diabetes (OR, .96) and smoking (OR, .83) were negative predictors (Ps < .01). Several differences emerged in subanalyses. For example, in sex stratification, Hispanic ethnicity lost its significance in men. In age stratification, BMI and male sex emerged as positive predictors in the age groups of <45 and 45-60 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although challenged by small effect sizes, this analysis identified subgroups at a higher risk of being lost to follow-up after bariatric surgery.

RETRACTED: Robotic surgery results in better outcomes following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program analysis for the years 2015-2018.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines because of the author's (Maher el Chaar) failure to comply with SOARD guidelines for appropriate disclosure of conflict of interest with industry as well as flawed research design and analytical errors that resulted in biased conclusions considered to be misleading to patients and readers.

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program bariatric surgical risk/benefit calculator: 30-day risk.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for data-driven tools that provide accurate and clearly communicated patient-specific information. These can aid discussions between practitioners and patients, promote shared decision-making, and enhance informed consent. The American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) sought to create a risk calculator for adult patients considering primary metabolic and bariatric surgery, with multiple prediction features: (1) 30-day risk; (2) 1-year body mass index projections; and (3) 1-year co-morbidity remission. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 30-day risk estimation feature of this tool. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization, international bariatric surgery clinical data registry. METHODS: MBSAQIP data across 5.5 years, 925 hospitals, and 775,291 cases were used to develop the 30-day risk feature. Logistic regression models were employed to estimate postoperative risks for 9 outcomes across 4 procedures: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. RESULTS: The tool showed good discrimination for mortality and surgical site infection models (c-statistics, .80 and .70, respectively), and was slightly less accurate for the 7 other complications (.62-.69). Graphical representations showed excellent calibration for all 9 outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the 30-day risk models were accurate and well calibrated, with acceptable discrimination. The MBSAQIP bariatric surgical risk/benefit calculator is publicly available, with the intent to be integrated into healthcare practice to guide bariatric surgical decision-making and care planning, and to enhance communication between patients and their surgical care team.

Safety of Single Stage Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Laparoscopic Roux-Y Gastric Bypass after Failed Gastric Banding.

BACKGROUND: Reoperation, after failed gastric banding, is a controversial topic. A common approach is band removal with conversion to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in a single-step procedure. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety of revisional surgery to LSG compared to LRYGB after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) based on MBSAQIP Participant User File from 2015 to 2018. METHODS: Patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (Conv-LSG) or LRYGB (Conv-LRYGB) were identified in the MBSAQIP PUF from 2015 to 2017. Conv-LRYGB cases were matched (1:1) with Conv-LSG patients using propensity scoring to control for potential confounding. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 9974 patients (4987 matched pairs) were included in the study. Conv-LRYGB, as compared with conv-SG, was associated with a similar risk of mortality (0.02% vs. 0.06%; relative risk [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.20, p = 0.32). Conversion to LRYGB increased the risk for readmission (6.16% vs. 3.77%; RR, 1.63; 95%CI, 1.37 to 1.94, p < 0.01); reoperation (2.15% vs. 1.36%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.17 to 2.12, p = <0.01); leak (1.76% vs. 1.02%; RR, 1.57; 95%CI, 1.72 to 2.42, p < 0.01); and bleeding (1.66% vs. 1.00%; RR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.7 to 2.34, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that single-stage LRYGB and LSG as revisional surgery after gastric banding, are safe in the 30-day observation with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, conversion to LRYGB increased the risk of perioperative complications.

The MBSAQIP is going viral! 194 hits and still going strong.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) first released its Participant Use Data File in 2015. Since then, surgeons have eagerly evaluated data now available on >750,000 patients, and a yearly increase in the number of publications using the Participant Use File was anticipated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the MBSAQIP in surgical literature. SETTING: University surgical department, United States. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify articles published using the MBSAQIP database up to March 2019. PubMed, Clinical Key (both indexed for MEDLINE), and Cochrane databases were queried using the keywords "MBSAQIP" and "Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program." Abstracts presented at ObesityWeek, SAGES, and the Clinical Congress of the ACS in 2016 to 2019 were also examined. Duplicates, letters to the editor, commentaries, statements, and position pieces were excluded. Articles describing projects that used MBSAQIP data to study <5 accredited centers were also excluded. RESULTS: As of March 2019, there were 114 results in PubMed, 216 results in Clinical Key, and 0 in Cochrane using the search terms. Additionally, 184 abstracts were included from the journal supplements from ObesityWeek, SAGES, and the Clinical Congress of the ACS. After elimination of duplicates, there were 327 total results. After exclusions, 55 published manuscripts and 126 abstracts remained. CONCLUSION: The MBSAQIP is a resounding success. A substantial body of research has already been produced from it and is growing with time. Gaps in current knowledge are being targeted through analyses of this single, large-scale database. The MBSAQIP will remain a valuable leading resource in metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Trends in revisional bariatric surgery using the MBSAQIP database 2015-2017.

BACKGROUND: The third most common bariatric surgery is revisional bariatric surgery. The American College of Surgeons tracks outcomes using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database. We used this database to examine trends in revisional bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how trends in bariatric revisional surgery have changed in recent years. SETTING: University Hospital, United States. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program database for 2015 to 2017 was examined for revisions of bariatric surgery. Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery were identified by the primary Current Procedural Terminology code, the REVCONV and PREVIOUS_SURGERY field as well as secondary Current Procedural Terminology codes. There is no exact code for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), so we used 43644 (GB)+REVCONV+PREVIOUS_SURGERY for this. RESULTS: For the years 2015 to 2017 there were 57,683 revisions/conversions of 528,081 patients. The number of revisions increased over the study period by 5213 cases. The most common revision was laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to SG with 15,433 cases and the second was LAGB to LRYGB with 10,485 cases. There were 14,715 LAGB removals. It is more difficult to track SG to LRYGB but there were 8491 unlisted cases, which may have been sleeve to bypass. CONCLUSION: LAGBs are being taken out or converted, and this group makes up the largest portion of revisions and conversions. It is difficult to track SG to LRYGB, but the number of unlisted cases continues to climb. This will likely surpass LAGB conversions with time. The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program should be modified to capture revisions/conversions of SG.

Trends in Drain Utilization in Bariatric Surgery: an Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database 2015-2017.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are the two most common bariatric operations. With the implementation of enhanced recovery protocols, the use of drains should decrease. METHODS: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was queried for the years 2015-2017. Our inclusion criteria included all patients undergoing a primary LRYGB, SG, and revisions. We examined demographics, operative characteristics, the use of drains, and postoperative complications. Continuous variables were summarized using means and standard deviations (SD). Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions. Student's T test (Wilcoxon sum rank test in the case of skewed data) and chi-squared analysis were used to assess the baseline differences in drain utilization. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2017, there were 388,239 bariatric cases performed without drains and 100,221 performed with drains. Twenty-nine percent of LRYGB patients had a drain placed but only 16.7% of SG patients. The percentage of LRYGB that had a drain dropped from 33.1 to 24.6% during the study period and that of SG dropped from 20.3 to 13.6%. Patients that had drains placed were more likely to have a provocative test at the time of surgery (prevalence ratio (PR) 2.24) and to have a postoperative swallow study (PR 1.93). CONCLUSIONS: Drains are still commonly used in bariatric patients. Over the study period, there was a decrease in the use of drains in both bypass and sleeve patients. Patients with a drain were more likely to have had a provocative test and a swallow study and have a higher rate of complications and mortality.

Are Concomitant Operations During Bariatric Surgery Safe? An Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: The American College of Surgeons tracks 30-day outcomes using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Initiative Program (MBSAQIP) database. We examined the short-term outcomes of patients that undergo bariatric surgery concomitantly with other operations such as hernia repairs and cholecystectomy to determine the safety of this practice. METHODS: The MBSAQIP Participant Use Data File for 2015-2017 was examined for differences in primary bariatric operations vs concomitant procedures (CP). We looked for concurrent CPT codes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and hernia repairs (ventral, epigastric, incisional, and inguinal). p was significant at < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 464,674 cases, of which 15,614 had CP. For both LRYGB+LC and SG+LC, there were increased operative times and length of stay. There were statistically significant higher rates of readmission, reintervention, and reoperation for SG+LC vs SG alone, as well as for LRYGB+hernia and SG+hernia. There was a higher risk of death (p < 0.001) in LRYGB+hernia patients. Also, LRYGB+hernia patients had statistically significant increases in unplanned admission to the intensive care unit and pulmonary embolus. SG+hernia patients had a higher rate of ventilation > 48 h, unplanned admission to the ICU, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and readmission, reintervention, and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically higher rate of complications with concomitant procedures in the MBSAQIP database. Length of stay and operative times are increased in concomitant operations as are readmissions, reinterventions, and reoperations. These findings would indicate that additional procedures at the time of bariatric surgery should be deferred if possible.

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in super-obese and super-super-obese patients: a national database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence remains contradictory for perioperative outcomes of super-obese (SO) and super-super-obese (SSO) patients undergoing bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: To identify national 30-day morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in SO and SSO patients. SETTING: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. METHODS: All LSG and LRYGB patients from 2015 through 2017 in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database were grouped based on body mass index (BMI) as follows: morbidly obese (MO; BMI 35.0-49.9 kg/m2), SO (BMI 50.0-59.9 kg/m2), and SSO (BMI ≥60.0 kg/m2). Complications and mortality within 30 days were compared between BMI groups using Pearson X2 or Fischer's exact tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for demographic characteristics and co-morbidities, and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) was reported for each outcome. RESULTS: Of 356,621 patients, 71.6% had LSG and 28.4% LRYGB. A total of 272,195 patients were in the MO group, 65,565 in the SO group, and 18,861 in the SSO group. Higher BMI was associated with increased overall morbidity and mortality. The overall complication rate was significantly higher for SO (AOR = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.28 for LSG; AOR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15 for LRYGB) and SSO (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.31-1.58 for LSG; AOR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.45 for LRYGB) compared with the MO group. Mortality was also significantly higher for SO (AOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.10-2.48 for LSG; AOR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.23-2.80 for LRYGB) and SSO (AOR = 3.30, 95% CI 1.98-5.48 for LSG; AOR = 3.32, 95% CI 1.93-5.73 for LRYGB) compared with the MO group. CONCLUSIONS: SO and SSO patients are at increased risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality compared with MO patients. Despite this elevated perioperative risk, the overall risk of these procedures remains low and acceptable especially as bariatric surgery is the durable treatment option for obesity.

Comparison of robotic revisional weight loss surgery and laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery using the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: The most common bariatric operation in the United States is sleeve gastrectomy. The second and third most common bariatric operations are gastric bypass and revisional bariatric surgery, respectively. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the differences between laparoscopic revisional weight loss surgery (LRWLS) and robotic revisional weight loss surgery (RRWLS). SETTING: University hospital, United States. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database spanning 2015 to 2016 to look at demographic characteristics, operative time, co-morbidities, and length of stay. Using the specified Current Procedural Terminology codes, patients who underwent bariatric procedures and required a revisional procedure were identified. RESULTS: A total of 354,865 patients were included in this study; 37,917 (11.9%) patients required revision after undergoing a bariatric procedure. Of these revisions, 94.9% (n = 35,988) were LRWLS, and 5.1% (n = 1929) were RRWLS. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the LRWLS and RRWLS groups. There was a significant difference between the RRWLS and the LRWLS groups in operative time, with the RRWLS group taking 167 minutes and the LRWLS group taking 103 minutes (P < .001). There was a statistically significant increase in length of stay for RRWLS, 2.3 days versus 1.7 for LRWLS (P < .005). In terms of postoperative complications, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: RRWLS is as safe as LRWLS in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. There is an increase in operative times and length of stay for robotic cases.

Effects of intraoperative leak testing on postoperative leak-related outcomes after primary bariatric surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative leak test (IOLT) is commonly performed to evaluate the integrity of an anastomosis or staple line during bariatric surgery. However, the utility of IOLT is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of IOLT on postoperative leak-related outcomes after primary bariatric surgery. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program-accredited centers. METHODS: The 2015 and 2016 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement databases were analyzed for sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPDDS) to determine the postoperative anastomotic/staple line leak (A/SL) and leak-related outcomes. RESULTS: Data for a total of 265,309 patients who underwent SG (69.6%), RYGB (29.7%), or BPDDS (.8%) were analyzed. IOLT was performed in 81.9% of all patients. Overall A/SL, mortality rate in patients with leakage, and 30-day leak-related mortality were .28%, .1%, and .003%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the IOLT and non-IOLT groups in terms of A/SL, 30-day mortality in patients with leakage, 30-day leak-related mortality, readmission, reoperation, intervention, or organ/space surgical site infection. However, the rate of 30-day leak-related intervention in BPDDS was significantly lower in the IOLT group compared to the non-IOLT group (.18% versus 1.15%, P = .01). Whether IOLT was performed endoscopically or nonendoscopically had no effect on the rate of postoperative leaks. Overall mean operative time increased by 19.1 minutes (9.5, 11.9, and 21.2 min for SG, RYGB, and BPDDS, respectively) when IOLT was performed. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of postoperative A/SL and leak-related morbidity was low. This study provided no evidence of either benefit or harm from IOLT in patients who underwent SG, RYGB, or BPDDS.