Intragastric Balloon as a First Step Before Metabolic Bariatric Surgery in Patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2: are the Results After Balloon Related to Global Outcomes After Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 50 kg/m2, classified with obesity class IV/V, require complex treatments. Intragastric balloon (IGB) is a possible treatment before metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) that may reduce peri-operative complications. This study evaluates IGB outcomes and complications before MBS in patients with Obesity IV/V, and subsequent MBS results, regarding weight loss and comorbidity resolution. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all patients with BMI above 50 kg/m2 submitted to IGB before MBS between 2009 and 2023 in a high-volume center. Variables analyzed included weight loss after IGB and MBS, IGB complications, and comorbidity resolution. Suboptimal clinical responses were defined as %TWL < 5% for IGB, %TWL < 20% for MBS, and %TWL < 25% or BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 for IGB + MBS. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (mean BMI 58.8 ± 8 kg/m2) were included. After IGB, the mean %TWL was 14.2 ± 8.5%, with a 21.6% complication rate, predominantly nausea and vomiting, and one death. Suboptimal clinical response of IGB affected 13.5% of patients, and 5.4% required early removal. Two years after MBS, the mean %TWL was 38.2 ± 11.6%, mainly due to MBS, yet approximately one-third of %TWL was attributed to IGB. No correlation was found between IGB and MBS outcomes. At 2-year follow-up, 45.1% patients had %TWL ≥ 25 and BMI < 35 kg/m2. CONCLUSION: The IGB is a treatment option before MBS in patients with Obesity Class IV/V, with acceptable weight loss outcomes but not infrequent complications. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory, and all treatments must be considered in this difficult subset of patients.

Health-related quality of life 6 years after bariatric surgery: factors influencing outcome.

Bariatric surgery is the only proven treatment to significantly improve obesity and its associated comorbidities. The success of bariatric surgery goes beyond weight lost: quality of life (QoL) is acquiring relevance when evaluating outcomes after bariatric surgery but few studies evaluated factors influencing QoL at long term. The main objective of this study is to identify factors that could affect QoL more than 5 years after bariatric surgery. Methods: We performed an observational study in which we apply "Moorehead-Ardelt Quality of Life Questionnaire" to 94 patients that were submitted to bariatric surgery with more than 5years of follow-up. Patients questionnaire score was compared to several variables: age, sex, main surgical procedures, primary or revisional surgery, complications, weight loss, and improvement of comorbidities (diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, musculoskeletal disorders, and psychiatry pathology). Results: QoL was significantly influenced by weight loss outcomes (%excess weight loss, %total weight loss, and final body mass index). QoL was neither significantly influenced by sex or age, type of surgery nor previously failed bariatric surgeries or complications. Improvement of hypertension was related to increased QoL, but improvement of other associated comorbidities did not had significant impact on patient's QoL at long term. Conclusion: It appears that the main factors influencing long-term QoL after bariatric surgery are related to weight loss outcomes.

Helicobacter species binding to the human gastric mucosa.

Helicobacter pylori infects half of the world population, being associated with several gastric disorders, such as chronic gastritis and gastric carcinoma. The Helicobacter genus also includes other gastric helicobacters, such as H. heilmannii¸ H. ailurogastricus, H. suis, H. felis, H. bizzozeronii, and H. salomonis. These gastric helicobacters colonize both the human and animal stomach. The prevalence of gastric non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) species in humans has been described as low, and the in vitro binding to the human gastric mucosa was never assessed. Herein, human gastric tissue sections were used for the evaluation of the tissue glycophenotype and for the binding of gastric NHPH strains belonging to different species. Histopathological evaluation showed that 37.5% of the patients enrolled in our cohort presented chronic gastritis, while the presence of neutrophil or eosinophilic activity (chronic active gastritis) was observed in 62.5% of the patients. The secretor phenotype was observed in 68.8% of the individuals, based on the expression of Lewis B antigen and binding of the UleX lectin. The in vitro binding assay showed that all the NHPH strains evaluated were able to bind, albeit in low frequency, to the human gastric mucosa. The H. heilmannii, H. bizzozeronii, and H. salomonis strains displayed the highest binding ability both to the gastric superficial epithelium and to the deep glands. Interestingly, we observed binding of NHPH to the gastric mucosa of individuals with severe chronic inflammation and intestinal metaplasia, suggesting that NHPH binding may not be restricted to the healthy gastric mucosa or slight chronic gastritis. Furthermore, the in vitro binding of NHPH strains was observed both in secretor and non-secretor individuals in a similar frequency. In conclusion, this study is the first report of the in vitro binding ability of gastric NHPH species to the human gastric mucosa. The results suggest that other glycans, besides the Lewis antigens, could be involved in the bacterial adhesion mechanism; however, the molecular intervenients remain unknown.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE: Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared. RESULTS: Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes. CONCLUSION: Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Spotlight on esophageal perforation: A multinational study using the Pittsburgh esophageal perforation severity scoring system.

OBJECTIVE: The Pittsburgh group has suggested a perforation severity score (PSS) for better decision making in the management of esophageal perforation. Our study aim was to determine whether the PSS can be used to stratify patients with esophageal perforation into distinct subgroups with differential outcomes in an independent study population. METHODS: In a retrospective study cases of esophageal perforation were collected (study-period, 1990-2014). The PSS was analyzed using logistic regression as a continuous variable and stratified into low, intermediate, and high score groups. RESULTS: Data for 288 patients (mean age, 59.9 years) presenting with esophageal perforation (during the period 1990-2014) were abstracted. Etiology was spontaneous (Boerhaave; n = 119), iatrogenic (instrumentation; n = 85), and traumatic perforation (n = 84). Forty-three patients had coexisting esophageal cancer. The mean PSS was 5.82, and was significantly higher in patients with fatal outcome (n = 57; 19.8%; mean PSS, 9.79 vs 4.84; P < .001). Mean PSS was also significantly higher in patients receiving operative management (n = 200; 69%; mean PSS, 6.44 vs 4.40; P < .001). Using the Pittsburgh strata, patients were assigned to low PSS (≤2; n = 63), intermediate PSS (3-5; n = 86), and high PSS (>5; n = 120) groups. Perforation-related morbidity, length of stay, frequency of operative treatment, and mortality increased with increasing PSS strata. Patients with high PSS were 3.37 times more likely to have operative management compared with low PSS. CONCLUSIONS: The Pittsburgh PSS reliably reflects the seriousness of esophageal perforation and stratifies patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with differential morbidity and mortality outcomes.