Patients' perspectives on weight recurrence after bariatric surgery: a single-center survey.

BACKGROUND: Weight recurrence (WR) affects nearly 20% of patients after bariatric surgery and may decrease its benefits, affecting patients' quality of life negatively. Patient perspectives on WR are not well known. OBJECTIVES: Assess patient needs, goals, and preferences regarding WR treatment. SETTING: Single MBSAQIP-accredited academic center, and online recruitment. METHODS: An 18-item, web-based survey was distributed to adults seeking treatment for WR after a primary bariatric surgery (PBS), in addition to online recruitment, between 2021 and 2023. Survey items included somatometric data, questions about the importance of factors for successful weight loss, procedure decision-making, and treatment expectations. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients with > 10% increase from their nadir weight were included in the study. Patients had initially undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (62.5%), sleeve gastrectomy (28.6%), adjustable gastric banding (3.6%), or other procedures (5.3%). When assessing their satisfaction with PBS, 57.1% were somewhat/extremely satisfied, 33.9% somewhat/extremely dissatisfied, while 8.9% were ambivalent. Patients considered the expected benefits (for example, weight loss) as the most important factor when choosing a treatment option for WR. Patient goals included "feeling good about myself" (96.4% very/extremely important), "being able to resume activities I could not do before" (91% very/extremely important), and "improved quality of life" and "-life expectancy" (> 90% very/extremely important). Finally, RBS, lifestyle modification with peer support, and anti-obesity medication were ranked as first treatment options for WR by 40%, 38.8%, and 29.8% of the respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients considered weight loss as the most important factor when choosing treatment modality for WR, with RBS and lifestyle changes being preferred over weight-loss medications. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to counsel this patient population better.

Outcomes of Preoperative Medical Therapy for Thyroidectomy in Autoimmune Thyroid Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Thyroidectomy provides definitive treatment for autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) often resulting in improved quality of life. Historically, patients with AITD undergoing thyroidectomy have increased rates of postoperative hypoparathyroidism and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. We investigated the outcomes of preoperative medications in patients with AITD undergoing thyroidectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent thyroidectomy for AITD at a single institution from 2015 to 2021. Surgical outcomes and perioperative laboratory values were analyzed by type of AITD and type of preoperative medical treatment: none, saturated solution of potassium iodide (SSKI), corticosteroids, or both SSKI and corticosteroids. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients underwent thyroidectomy for AITD and were included in analysis: 50 received no preoperative medications, 40 received SSKI, 20 received corticosteroids, and 13 received both. Seventy-six patients had Graves' disease and 47 had Hashimoto's thyroiditis. There were no significant differences in blood loss, operative time, wound complications, hematoma, or recurrent laryngeal nerve injury for patients treated with preoperative corticosteroids compared to those who were not. Patients who received corticosteroids and patients with Graves' disease more commonly had at least one instance of hypocalcemia postoperatively (P < 0.01, P = 0.01), although only on postoperative day 1 was mean calcium < 8.5 mg/dL. There was no difference in rate of transient or permanent hypoparathyroidism. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received corticosteroids preoperatively had no increased risk of complications. They did have mildly lower calcium levels in the early postoperative period, although no difference in hypoparathyroidism. Further exploration is warranted to investigate the impact of preoperative corticosteroids on operative difficulty, quality of life, and autoantibody clearance.

What is the ideal timing of cholecystectomy after percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND: Acute cholecystitis (AC) is one of the most prevalent diseases in clinical practice. Poor surgical candidates may benefit from early percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) drainage followed by interval cholecystectomy (IC), which is the definitive treatment. The optimal timing between the PC drainage and the IC has not been identified. This study aimed to investigate how the duration between PC and IC affects perioperative outcomes and identify the optimal IC timing to minimize complications. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all adult patients diagnosed with AC who underwent PC followed by IC at a single institution center between 2014 and 2022. Patients with a history of hepatobiliary surgery, stones in the common bile duct, cirrhosis, active malignancy, or prolonged immunosuppression were excluded. The analysis did not include cases with major concurrent procedures during cholecystectomy, previously aborted cholecystectomies, or failure of the PC drain to control the inflammation. Linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the impact of the interval between PC and IC on intra- and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients (62.1% male) with a mean age of 64.4 ± 15 (mean ± SD) years were diagnosed with AC (25% mild, 47.7% moderate, 27.3% severe). All patients underwent PC followed by IC after a median of 64 [48-91] days. Longer ICU stay was associated with longer time intervals between PC and IC (Coef 105.98, p < 0.001). No significant variations were detected in the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes between patients undergoing IC within versus after 8 weeks from PC placement. However, a higher percentage of patients with delayed IC (after 8 weeks) were discharged home (96.4% vs. 83.7%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Patients may benefit from undergoing IC after the 8-week cutoff after PC. However, very long periods between PC and IC procedures may increase the risk of longer ICU stay.

Cholecystectomy After Percutaneous Cholecystostomy for Acute Cholecystitis: Experience and Outcomes in an Academic Practice.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) tube insertion has been shown to be an effective treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC) as a temporary step to subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, the optimal time gap between PC implantation and LC has not been identified. Adult patients who underwent PC followed by LC for the treatment of AC between 2016 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. One hundred twelve patients, consisting of 59.8% males, were included and received LC after a median of 65 [48 - 96.5] days following the PC placement. No deaths or reoperations occurred within 30 days, but 16 (14.3%) patients were readmitted, and 16 (14.3%) required subsequent reintervention. Although a longer interval between PC and LC had no effect on perioperative outcomes, it was associated with considerably longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay. According to these findings, patients may benefit from early LC following PC for the treatment of AC.

Patient perspectives on the usefulness of the MBSAQIP Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator uses procedure-specific prediction models to generate individualized surgical risk/outcome estimates. This tool helps guide informed consent and operative selection. We hypothesized that calculator use would influence patient procedure choice. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient perspectives on the bariatric surgical calculator. SETTING: A randomized controlled trial at an MBSAQIP-accredited center. METHODS: During the preoperative bariatric surgical office consultation, patients were randomized into 2 groups: the control group received conventional surgeon-led counseling, whereas surgeons used the risk/benefit calculator to guide decision making for the calculator group. Surveys were completed by patients following consultations to evaluate satisfaction and perceived impact of the risk/benefit calculator on operative selection. RESULTS: Between 2020 and 2022, 61 patients were randomized to the calculator group and 68 patients to the control group. The percentage of patients whose procedure of choice changed following consultation was similar in the calculator versus control group (44.3% versus 41.2%; P = .723). However, calculator group patients were less likely to perceive surgeon counseling as very important for their decision making (43.3% versus 76.5%; P < .001). Eighty-five percent of calculator group patients rated the calculator as useful or very useful, and only 1.7% found it not very important. The reasons patients changed procedure choice were similar between the groups (P = .091); the most common cause was to improve their anticipated outcome (48.7% versus 54.8%). CONCLUSIONS: While the risk/benefit calculator was perceived as a helpful tool by most patients, its use did not influence their procedure choice. However, the patient-reported usefulness and importance of the calculator during surgeon counseling suggest that the information provided has weight in patient decision making.