The need for standardized perioperative care for patients undergoing bariatric and metabolic surgery in the United Kingdom.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce length of hospital stay. However, there is currently limited consensus on the perioperative management of patients undergoing bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in the United Kingdom. This study aims to survey the level of consistency in patient care undergoing BMS. Bariatric nurse specialists from 30 bariatric units completed an anonymised, online survey from 21 December 2022 to 21 February 2023. Most units (77%) have implemented a premade postoperative care bundle protocol including predetermined timing of oral intake (77%) and postoperative day 1 bloods (60%). 63% of units have also established pre-set analgesia and anti-emetic bundles. Date of discharge is variable, ranging from 1 day after surgery (50%) to a 'two night stay' protocol (33%) to within 4 days after surgery (17%). Most follow-up clinics are either led by dietitians (33%) or both bariatric nurse specialists and dietitians collaboratively (57%). Patients are usually established on solid food 6 weeks after surgery in 53% (16/30) units. Chemical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis was either given on day of surgery postoperatively (60%), day before (20%) or after (17%) surgery. Our study shows significant variability of care throughout the surgical pathway, in the study population. The results suggest a need for consensus guidelines outlining the best-practice approach to managing patients undergoing BMS; due to the heterogeneity of the patient group, these guidelines should contain overarching generalisable recommendations that can then be tailored to individual patients.

Marginal Ulcers Following One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Marginal ulcer (MU) is an uncommon but significant complication following one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Our study aims to understand the incidence rates, risk factors, and management of MU following OAGB. METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were examined to identify all studies on OAGB where authors had reported on MU. Data were collected on basic demographics, incidence rates, risk factors, and management of this condition. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies involving 8868 patients were analysed. The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of patients in these studies were 40.9 ± 4.5 years and 47.6 ± 5.6 kg/m2, respectively. Among the patient cohort, approximately 72% were female, and 20.6% had preoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The authors described prescribing proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) prophylaxis to 14.1% of patients after surgery. Two hundred twenty-eight patients were reported to have MU. The incidence of MU was 2.59% (95% CI 1.89-3.52), of which 53 patients presented within 12 months, 24 patients presented after 31 months, and five patients after 6 years. One hundred forty-six patients did not have presentation time documented. Sixty-five patients were described to have MU diagnosed on endoscopy, of which 54 were symptomatic and 11 were asymptomatic. The authors were, however, not specific on the choice of investigation for the remaining 163 patients. Of patients, 89.7% were treated conservatively with PPIs, whilst 10.3% had surgery to treat MU. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal ulcer is an uncommon complication following OAGB. The majority of patients are treated conservatively with PPIs. Larger, well-designed studies reporting on risk factors, investigation, and management of MU following OAGB are warranted.

Analgesia in the Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.

Systematic review of the incidence and risk factors for chyle leak after pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of and risk factors for chyle leak, as defined by the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, remain unknown. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched for studies of patients undergoing pancreatectomy that reported chyle leak according to the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery definition. The primary outcomes were the incidence of overall and clinically relevant chyle leak. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis was used to calculate the incidence of chyle leak. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 7,083 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted incidence of overall chyle leak was 6.8% (95% confidence interval 5.6-8.2), and clinically relevant chyle leak was 5.5% (95% confidence interval 3.8-7.7). Pancreaticoduodenectomy, total pancreatectomy, and distal pancreatectomy were associated with a CL incidence of 7.3%, 4.3%, and 5.8%, respectively. Fourteen individual risk factors for chyle leak were identified from included studies. Younger age, low prognostic nutritional index, para-aortic node manipulation, lymphatic involvement, and post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis were significantly associated with chyle leak, all from individual studies. CONCLUSION: The incidence of overall chyle leak and clinically relevant chyle leak after pancreatic surgery, as defined by the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery, is 6.8% and 5.5%, respectively. Several risk factors for chyle leak were identified in the present review; however, larger high-quality studies are needed to more accurately define these risks.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy in the era of 2016 International Study Group pancreatic fistula definition.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for the development of clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) following distal pancreatectomy (DP) need clarification particularly following the 2016 International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. METHODS: A systemic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, and EMBASE were conducted using the PRISMA framework. Studies were evaluated for risk factors for the development CR-POPF after DP using the 2016 ISGPF definition. Further subgroup analysis was undertaken on studies ≥10 patients in exposed and non-exposed subgroups. RESULTS: Forty-three studies with 8864 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted rate of CR-POPF was 20.4% (95%-CI: 17.7-23.4%). Smoking (OR 1.29, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.53, p = 0.02) and open DP (OR 1.43, 95%-CI: 1.02-2.01, p = 0.04) were found to be significant risk factors of CR-POPF. Diabetes (OR 0.81, 95%-CI: 0.68-0.95, p = 0.02) was a significant protective factor against CR-POPF. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the comparisons of pancreatic texture and body mass index. Seventeen risk factors achieved significance in a univariate or multivariate comparison as reported by individual studies in the narrative synthesis, however, they remain difficult to interpret as statistically significant comparisons were not uniform. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found smoking and open DP to be risk factors and diabetes to be protective factor of CR-POPF in the era of 2016 ISGPF definition.

Registration and Outcome-Reporting Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Distal Radial Fracture Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to systematically evaluate the completeness of trial registration and the extent of outcome-reporting bias in modern randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture. METHODS: With use of 4 databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro), this systematic review identified all RCTs of distal radial fracture treatment published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015. We independently determined the registration status of these trials in a public trial registry and compared the characteristics of registered and non-registered trials. We assessed the quality and consistency of primary outcome measure (POM) reporting between the registration data and the final published studies. RESULTS: Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, only 28 (31%) were registered, and only 3 (3%) were "appropriately registered" (i.e., prospectively registered and identifying and fully describing the POM). Registered trials had larger sample sizes and were more likely to be multicenter, to report funding sources, and to be published in higher-impact-factor journals. Sixteen (18%) of the 90 registered RCTs named a POM in the registry; 7 (44%) of those 16 registered RCTs stated a different POM, an additional POM, or no POM at all in the final publication than was stated in the registry data. Additionally, 13 (81%) of those 16 registered RCTs had discrepancies in the time point reported for the POM. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to address publication and outcome-reporting bias, prospective trial registration in a public registry has been deemed a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2005. This study shows poor registration rates as well as inconsistencies in the reporting of POMs of recent trials relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture, one of the most common and most investigated injuries in orthopaedic practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The problems of registration and outcome-reporting bias in RCTs are important to highlight and address, and to find a solution will require the cooperation of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. Increasing the transparency and consistency of reporting will help to increase the quality of research, which can impact patient care through evidence-based guidelines.