Analysis of the effect of staple line reinforcement on leaking and bleeding after sleeve gastrectomy from the UK National Bariatric Surgery Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is currently the most frequently performed procedure for obesity worldwide. Staple line reinforcement (SLR) has been suggested as a strategy to reduce the risk of staple line leak or bleeding; however, its use for SG in the United Kingdom (UK) is unknown. This study examined the effect of SLR on the development of postoperative complications from SG using a large national dataset from the UK. METHODS: Patients undergoing either primary or revision SG over 10 years from Jan 2012 to Dec 2021 were identified by the National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Comparative and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to determine the effect of SLR on staple line leak and bleeding. RESULTS: During this time, 14,231 patients underwent SG for whom there were complete data. Of these, 76.5% were female and the median age was 46 years (IQR: 36-53). The rate of surgical complications was 2.3% (n = 219/14,231). The incidence of bleeding was 1.3% (n = 179/14,231) and leak was 1.0% (n = 140/14,231). Over time, the use of SLR of any variety declined significantly from 99.7% in 2012 to 57.3% in 2021 (p < 0.001). Multivariable (adjusted) regression analysis demonstrated that neither the use of nor the type of reinforcement had any effect on the rate of bleeding or leaking. CONCLUSION: SLR for SG has declined in the UK since 2012. There were no differences in staple line leak or bleed with or without reinforcement.

Access to publicly funded weight management services in England using routine data from primary and secondary care (2007-2020): An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adults living with overweight/obesity are eligible for publicly funded weight management (WM) programmes according to national guidance. People with the most severe and complex obesity are eligible for bariatric surgery. Primary care plays a key role in identifying overweight/obesity and referring to WM interventions. This study aimed to (1) describe the primary care population in England who (a) are referred for WM interventions and (b) undergo bariatric surgery and (2) determine the patient and GP practice characteristics associated with both. METHODS AND FINDINGS: An observational cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. During the study period (January 2007 to June 2020), 1,811,587 adults met the inclusion criteria of a recording of overweight/obesity in primary care, of which 54.62% were female and 20.10% aged 45 to 54. Only 56,783 (3.13%) were referred to WM, and 3,701 (1.09% of those with severe and complex obesity) underwent bariatric surgery. Multivariable Poisson regression examined the associations of demographic, clinical, and regional characteristics on the likelihood of WM referral and bariatric surgery. Higher body mass index (BMI) and practice region had the strongest associations with both outcomes. People with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 were more than 6 times as likely to be referred for WM (10.05% of individuals) than BMI 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2 (1.34%) (rate ratio (RR) 6.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.99,6.40], p < 0.001). They were more than 5 times as likely to undergo bariatric surgery (3.98%) than BMI 35.0 to 40.0 kg/m2 with a comorbidity (0.53%) (RR 5.52, 95% CI [5.07,6.02], p < 0.001). Patients from practices in the West Midlands were the most likely to have a WM referral (5.40%) (RR 2.17, 95% CI [2.10,2.24], p < 0.001, compared with the North West, 2.89%), and practices from the East of England least likely (1.04%) (RR 0.43, 95% CI [0.41,0.46], p < 0.001, compared with North West). Patients from practices in London were the most likely to undergo bariatric surgery (2.15%), and practices in the North West the least likely (0.68%) (RR 3.29, 95% CI [2.88,3.76], p < 0.001, London compared with North West). Longer duration since diagnosis with severe and complex obesity (e.g., 1.67% of individuals diagnosed in 2007 versus 0.34% in 2015, RR 0.20, 95% CI [0.12,0.32], p < 0.001), and increasing comorbidities (e.g., 2.26% of individuals with 6+ comorbidities versus 1.39% with none (RR 8.79, 95% CI [7.16,10.79], p < 0.001) were also strongly associated with bariatric surgery. The main limitation is the reliance on overweight/obesity being recorded within primary care records to identify the study population. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2007 and 2020, a very small percentage of the primary care population eligible for WM referral or bariatric surgery according to national guidance received either. Higher BMI and GP practice region had the strongest associations with both. Regional inequalities may reflect differences in commissioning and provision of WM services across the country. Multi-stakeholder qualitative research is ongoing to understand the barriers to accessing WM services and potential solutions. Together with population-wide prevention strategies, improved access to WM interventions is needed to reduce obesity levels.

Bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents, and insulin for type 2 diabetes and obesity: Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents (SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i), and insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bariatric surgery, SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, insulin, and/or placebo/usual care among patients with T2DM and obesity in the achievement of HbA1c < 7.0 per cent within one year, and 12-month changes in HbA1c and body weight. RESULTS: A total of 376 eligible RCTs (149 824 patients) were analysed. Bariatric surgery had significantly higher rates of achieving HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than SGLT2i (RR = 2.46, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.28, 4.92), DPP4i (RR = 2.59, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.36, 5.13), insulin (RR = 2.27, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.18, 4.58) and placebo/usual care (RR = 4.02, 95 per cent c.i. = 2.13, 7.93), but had no statistically significant difference from GLP1RA (RR = 1.73, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.91, 3.44), regardless of oral (RR = 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.66, 2.79) or injectable (RR = 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.92, 3.45) administration. Significantly more GLP1RA patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than other non-surgical treatments. Bariatric surgery had the greatest reductions in HbA1c (∼1 per cent more) and body weight (∼15 kg more) at 12 months. Among novel glucose-lowering medications, GLP1RA was associated with greater reductions in HbA1c than SGLT2i (-0.39 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.55, -0.22) and DPP4i (-0.51 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.64, -0.39) at 12 months, while GLP1RA (-1.74 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -2.48, -1.01) and SGLT2i (-2.23 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -3.07, -1.39) showed greater reductions in body weight than DPP4i at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery showed superiority in glycaemic control and weight management compared to non-surgical approaches. GLP1RA administered by oral or injectable form demonstrated reduced HbA1c and body weight at 12 months, and was preferable over other non-surgical treatments among patients with T2DM and obesity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42020201507.

Bariatric surgery provision in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study of a national registry.

BACKGROUND: When surgery resumed following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines recommended the prioritization of patients with greater obesity-related co-morbidities and/or higher body mass index. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to record the effect of the pandemic on total number, patient demographics, and perioperative outcomes of elective bariatric surgery patients in the United Kingdom. SETTING AND METHODS: The United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgical Registry was used to identify patients who underwent elective bariatric surgery during the pandemic (1 yr from April 1, 2020). Characteristics of this group were compared with those of a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcomes were case volume, case mix, and providers. National Health Service cases were analyzed for baseline health status and perioperative outcomes. Fisher exact, χ2, and Student t tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: The total number of cases decreased to one third of pre-pandemic volume (8615 to 2930). The decrease in operating volume varied, with 36 hospitals (45%) experiencing a 75%-100% reduction. Cases performed in the National Health Service fell from 74% to 53% (P < .0001). There was no change in baseline body mass index (45.2 ± 8.3 kg/m2 from 45.5 ± 8.3 kg/m2; P = .23) or prevalence of type 2 diabetes (26% from 26%; P = .99). Length of stay (median 2 d) and surgical complication rate (1.4% from 2.0%; relative risk = .71; 95% CI .45-1.12; P = .13) were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a dramatic reduction in elective bariatric surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with more severe co-morbidities were not prioritized for surgery. These findings should inform preparation for future crises.

Development of a Bariatric Surgery Core Data Set for an International Registry.

PURPOSE: Bariatric and metabolic surgery is an effective treatment for severe and complex obesity; however, robust long-term data comparing operations is lacking. Clinical registries complement clinical trials in contributing to this evidence base. Agreement on standard data for bariatric registries is needed to facilitate comparisons. This study developed a Core Registry Set (CRS) - core data to include in bariatric surgery registries globally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant items were identified from a bariatric surgery research core outcome set, a registry data dictionary project, systematic literature searches, and a patient advisory group. This comprehensive list informed a questionnaire for a two-round Delphi survey with international health professionals. Participants rated each item's importance and received anonymized feedback in round 2. Using pre-defined criteria, items were then categorized for voting at a consensus meeting to agree the CRS. RESULTS: Items identified from all sources were grouped into 97 questionnaire items. Professionals (n = 272) from 56 countries participated in the round 1 survey of which 45% responded to round 2. Twenty-four professionals from 13 countries participated in the consensus meeting. Twelve items were voted into the CRS including demographic and bariatric procedure information, effectiveness, and safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: This CRS is the first step towards unifying bariatric surgery registries internationally. We recommend the CRS is included as a minimum dataset in all bariatric registries worldwide. Adoption of the CRS will enable meaningful international comparisons of bariatric operations. Future work will agree definitions and measures for the CRS including incorporating quality-of-life measures defined in a parallel project.

Clinical characteristics of patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom based on the National Bariatric Surgery Registry.

Baseline demographic characteristics and operations undertaken for patients having bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom are largely unknown. This study aimed to describe the profile of patients having primary bariatric surgery in the National Health Service (NHS) or by self-pay, and associated operations performed for both pathways. The National Bariatric Surgery Registry dataset for 5 years between January 2015 and December 2019 was used. 34 580 patients underwent primary bariatric surgery, of which 75.9% were NHS patients. Mean patient age and initial body mass index were significantly higher for NHS compared to self-pay patients (mean age 45.8 ± 11.3 [SD] vs. 43.0 ± 12.0 years and initial body mass index 48.0 ± 7.9 vs. 42.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2 , p < .001). NHS patients were more likely to have obesity-related complications compared to self-pay patients: prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus 27.7% versus 8.3%, hypertension 37.1% versus 20.1%, obstructive sleep apnoea 27.4% versus 8.9%, severely impaired functional status 19.3% versus 13.9%, musculoskeletal pain 32.5% versus 20.1% and being on medication for depression 31.0% versus 25.9%, respectively (all p < .001). Gastric bypass was the most commonly performed primary NHS bariatric operation 57.2%, but sleeve gastrectomy predominated in self-pay patients 48.7% (both p < .001). In contrast to self-pay patients, NHS patients are receiving bariatric surgery only once they are older and at a much more advanced stage of obesity-related disease complications.

Bariatric-metabolic surgery for NHS patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgery Registry.

AIM: Bariatric-metabolic surgery is approved by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for people with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (including class 1 obesity after 2014). This study analysed baseline characteristics, disease severity and operations undertaken in people with obesity and T2DM undergoing bariatric-metabolic surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS) compared to those without T2DM. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, trends over time and operations undertaken were analysed for people undergoing primary bariatric-metabolic surgery in the NHS using the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR) for 11 years from 2009 to 2019. Clinical practice before and after the publication of the NICE guidance (2014) was examined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations with T2DM status and the procedure undertaken. RESULTS: 14,948/51,715 (28.9%) participants had T2DM, with 10,626 (71.1%) on oral hypoglycaemics, 4322 (28.9%) on insulin/other injectables, and with T2DM diagnosed 10+ years before surgery in 3876 (25.9%). Participants with T2DM, compared to those without T2DM, were associated with older age (p < 0.001), male sex (p < 0.001), poorer functional status (p < 0.001), dyslipidaemia (OR: 3.58 (CI: 3.39-3.79); p < 0.001), hypertension (OR: 2.32 (2.19-2.45); p < 0.001) and liver disease (OR: 1.73 (1.58-1.90); p < 0.001), but no difference in body mass index was noted. Fewer people receiving bariatric-metabolic surgery after 2015 had T2DM (p < 0.001), although a very small percentage increase of those with class I obesity and T2DM was noted. Gastric bypass was the commonest operation overall. T2DM status was associated with selection for gastric bypass compared to sleeve gastrectomy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NHS bariatric-metabolic surgery is used for people with T2DM much later in the disease process when it is less effective. National guidance on bariatric-metabolic surgery and data from multiple RCTs have had little impact on clinical practice.

Say what you mean, mean what you say: The importance of language in the treatment of obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity is a highly stigmatized disease, and despite the understanding of the processes involved, negative language reinforcing outdated views of obesity persists within the scientific literature. This is the first study, to the authors' knowledge, to determine how widespread stigmatizing language is within publications on obesity and examine its impact on patients. METHODS: Two standard terms within obesity publications were identified, and a literature search was carried out to determine their prevalence. A parallel qualitative analysis was conducted with patients with obesity to determine perceptions of these terms. RESULTS: Of the 3,020 papers screened, 2.4% included the term fail, and 16.8% contained morbid used in conjunction with obesity. Sixteen patients participated in the qualitative analysis. They felt that negative language, particularly failure, implied a personal responsibility for lack of weight loss. Clinically meaningful terminology fostered a more constructive relationship with health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: Although most journals object to overtly stigmatizing language, using phrases or words that carry negative connotations is less clearly discouraged. It is important to recognize that language that implies a moral responsibility for weight loss or the development of obesity contradicts the well-established evidence base that obesity results from complex biological processes.

How safe bariatric surgery is-An update on perioperative mortality for clinicians and patients.

Bariatric, metabolic or weight loss surgery produces sustained weight loss and imporovement in obesity related diseases. Bariatric surgery has existed for decades but there is limited reliable data on the risk of perioperative mortality following the procedures. This commentary focuses on a recent meta-analysis which has produced contemporaneous mortality data, and the findings are significant. Utilising data from 3.6 million patients the study has shown an overall pooled perioperative mortality of 0.08%, a significantly reduced risk compared to previous, smaller studies. This finding increases our knowledge of surgical risk for these procedures and should now equip health care groups to challenge barriers to uptake of bariatric surgery. Barriers currently include a worldwide lack of focus on treating obesity, lack of funding and resource from commissioners, and a general public and professional view that bariatric surgery may be high risk. In reality, this figure equates to mortality risk for procedures generally considered 'safe' such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy and knee arthroplasty. Bariatric surgery is a safe option for achieving sustained weight-loss and the treatment of obesity related diseases, and refusing access to surgery on the grounds of perioperative safety should now be an outdated premise.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS). BACKGROUND: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. METHODS: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years. RESULTS: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ±â€Š10 years, 8.4 ±â€Š5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ±â€Š7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. CONCLUSION: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

Does bariatric surgery reduce future hospital costs? A propensity score-matched analysis using UK Biobank Study data.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the hospital costs among persons with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery compared with those without bariatric surgery. METHODS: We analysed the UK Biobank Cohort study linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, for all adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery at National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland, or Wales from 2006 to 2017. Surgery patients were matched with controls who did not have bariatric surgery using propensity scores approach with a ratio of up to 1-to-5 by year. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to correct for potential informative censoring. Annual and cumulative hospital costs were assessed for the surgery and control groups. RESULTS: We identified 348 surgical patients (198 gastric bypass, 73 sleeve gastrectomy, 77 gastric banding) during the study period. In total, 324 surgical patients and 1506 matched control participants were included after propensity score matching. Mean 5-year cumulative hospital costs were €11,659 for 348 surgical patients. Compared with controls, surgical patients (n = 324) had significantly higher inpatient expenditures in the surgery year (€7289 vs. €2635, P < 0.001), but lower costs in the subsequent 4 years. The 5-year cumulative costs were €11,176 for surgical patients and €8759 for controls (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery significantly increased the inpatient costs in the surgery year, but was associated with decreased costs in the subsequent 4 years. However, any cost savings made up to 4 years were not enough to compensate for the initial surgical expenditure.

Effect of Preoperative Weight Loss and Baseline Comorbidity on Short-Term Complications and Reoperations After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in 2,067 Patients.

PURPOSE: Decreasing popularity of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in bariatric-metabolic surgery may be due to higher perceived peri-operative complications. There are few studies on whether preoperative weight loss can reduce complications or reoperations following RYGB. We investigated this using a standardised operative technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective single-centre study of RYGB from 2004 to 2019 using a prospective database. Preoperative behavioural management included intentional weight loss. Maximum preoperative weight, weight on the day of operation, and Obesity-Surgery Mortality Risk Score (OS-MRS) class were recorded. Short-term outcomes (post-operative stay, 30-day complication and reoperation rates) were analysed. RESULTS: In 2,067 RYGB patients (1,901 primary and 166 revisional), median preoperative total body weight loss (TWL) was 6.2% (IQR: 2.5-10.7%). The median age was 46 (interquartile range (IQR) 38-54) and 80.4% were female (n=1,661). For primary surgery, the median body mass index (BMI) was 47.6 kg/m2 (IQR: 43.1-53.3). Excluding the 100-procedure learning curve, the complication rate for primary cases was 4.4% and reoperation rate of 2.8% and one peri-operative mortality (0.06%). OS-MRS ≥2 (class B or C) predicted higher risk of complications (6.1%) compared to those with a score <2 (class A) (3.8%, p=0.021), but not reoperations. Five percent preoperative TWL did not decrease complications compared to <5% TWL. Patients with ≥10% TWL had greater baseline risk and had an increased risk of complications (6.6% vs 3.7%, p=0.017) and reoperations (4.5% vs 2.7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RYGB performed using a standardised technique has low overall risk. The influence of preoperative weight loss on outcomes was inconsistent.

Bariatric-Metabolic Surgery Utilisation in Patients With and Without Diabetes: Data from the IFSO Global Registry 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Comparative international practice of patients undergoing bariatric-metabolic surgery for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is unknown. We aimed to ascertain baseline age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and types of operations performed for patients with T2DM submitted to the IFSO Global Registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of patients having primary surgery in 2015-2018 for countries with ≥90% T2DM data completion and ≥ 1000 submitted records. RESULTS: Fifteen countries including 11 national registries met the inclusion criteria. The rate of T2DM was 24.2% (99,537 of 411,581 patients, country range 12.0-55.1%) and 77.1% of all patients were women. In every country, patients with T2DM were older than those without T2DM (overall mean age 49.2 [SD 11.4] years vs 41.8 [11.9] years, all p < 0.001). Men were more likely to have T2DM than women, odds ratio (OR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.65-1.71), p < 0.001. Men showed higher rates of T2DM for BMI <35 kg/m2 compared to BMI ≥35.0 kg/m2, OR 2.76 (2.52-3.03), p < 0.001. This was not seen in women, OR 0.78 (0.73-0.83), p < 0.001. Sleeve gastrectomy was the commonest operation overall, but less frequent for patients with T2DM, patients with T2DM 54.9% vs without T2DM 65.8%, OR 0.63 (0.63-0.64), p < 0.001. Twelve out of 15 countries had higher proportions of gastric bypass compared to non-bypass operations for T2DM, OR 1.70 (1.67-1.72), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Patients with T2DM had different characteristics to those without T2DM. Older men were more likely to have T2DM, with higher rates of BMI <35 kg/m2 and increased likelihood of food rerouting operations.

Bariatric surgery for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring insulin: Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is well established as an effective treatment for patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there exists reluctance to increase its availability for patients with severe T2DM. The aims of this study were to examine the impact of bariatric surgery on T2DM resolution in patients with obesity and T2DM requiring insulin (T2DM-Ins) using data from a national database and to develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgery in this cohort when compared to best medical treatment (BMT). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Clinical data from the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR), a comprehensive database of bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom, were extracted to analyse outcomes of patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017. Outcomes for this group were combined with data sourced from a comprehensive literature review in order to develop a state-transition microsimulation model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery versus BMT for patients over a 5-year time horizon. The main outcome measure for the clinical study was insulin cessation at 1-year post-surgery: relative risks (RR) summarising predictive factors were determined, unadjusted, and after adjusting for variables including age, initial body mass index (BMI), duration of T2DM, and weight loss. Main outcome measures for the economic evaluation were total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP£20,000. A total of 2,484 patients were eligible for inclusion, of which 1,847 had 1-year follow-up data (mean age of 51 years, mean initial BMI 47.2 kg/m2, and 64% female). 67% of patients no longer required insulin at 1-year postoperatively: these rates persisted for 4 years. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was associated with a higher rate of insulin cessation (71.7%) than sleeve gastrectomy (SG; 64.5%; RR 0.92, confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.99) and adjustable gastric band (AGB; 33.6%; RR 0.45, CI 0.34-0.60; p < 0.001). When adjusted for percentage total weight loss and demographic variables, insulin cessation following surgery was comparable for RYGB and SG (RR 0.97, CI 0.90-1.04), with AGB having the lowest cessation rates (RR 0.55, CI 0.40-0.74; p < 0.001). Over 5 years, bariatric surgery was cost saving compared to BMT (total cost GBP£22,057 versus GBP£26,286 respectively, incremental difference GBP£4,229). This was due to lower treatment costs as well as reduced diabetes-related complications costs and increased health benefits. Limitations of this study include loss to follow-up of patients within the NBSR dataset and that the time horizon for the economic analysis is limited to 5 years. In addition, the study reflects current medical and surgical treatment regimens for this cohort of patients, which may change. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that in patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins, bariatric surgery was associated with high rates of postoperative cessation of insulin therapy, which is, in turn, a major driver of overall reductions in direct healthcare cost. Our findings suggest that a strategy utilising bariatric surgery for patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins is cost saving to the national healthcare provider (National Health Service (NHS)) over a 5-year time horizon.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for Bile Duct Stones After Roux-en-Y-Gastric Bypass: Single-Centre Experience.

PURPOSE: Gallstones are common in bariatric patients due to obesity and rapid weight loss. Bile duct stones after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) pose a technical challenge. We present our experience in management of bile duct stones following RYGB using laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LA-ERCP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of RYGB patients who had endoscopic intervention for bile duct stones between 2010 and 2019. We assessed demographic and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 12 patients: 9 females, median age 64 years (range 34-73), median ASA score 3 (range 2-3), and median body mass index (BMI) 30 kg/m2 (range 24.4-46). Median time of presentation since RYGB was 5 years (range 6-96 months). Clinical presentations were biliary pain with deranged liver function tests (n = 8, 67%) and cholangitis (n = 4, 33%). Ten patients (83%) had cholecystectomy prior to presentation. LA-ERCP was performed in all 12 patients. It was successful in 10 patients (83%) of which 7 were performed as a primary intervention for bile duct stones and 3 were for residual stones following previous bile duct exploration. Two out of 12 LA-ERCPs (17%) were converted to open duct clearance. Median overall hospital stay was 2.5 days (range 1-10). One patient developed post-ERCP pancreatitis; one had chronic pain. There was no major complication or mortality. CONCLUSION: LA-ERCP is feasible for bile duct stones after RYGB and can clear the duct primarily or following previous surgical exploration. It also provides an opportunity to perform cholecystectomy and diagnostic laparoscopy.

British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society Guidelines on perioperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring and micronutrient replacement for patients undergoing bariatric surgery-2020 update.

Bariatric surgery is recognized as the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with severe and complex obesity. Many people presenting for surgery have pre-existing low vitamin and mineral concentrations. The incidence of these may increase after bariatric surgery as all procedures potentially cause clinically significant micronutrient deficiencies. Therefore, preparation for surgery and long-term nutritional monitoring and follow-up are essential components of bariatric surgical care. These guidelines update the 2014 British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society nutritional guidelines. Since the 2014 guidelines, the working group has been expanded to include healthcare professionals working in specialist and non-specialist care as well as patient representatives. In addition, in these updated guidelines, the current evidence has been systematically reviewed for adults and adolescents undergoing the following procedures: adjustable gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch. Using methods based on Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology, the levels of evidence and recommendations have been graded. These guidelines are comprehensive, encompassing preoperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring, vitamin and mineral supplementation and correction of nutrition deficiencies before, and following bariatric surgery, and make recommendations for safe clinical practice in the U.K. setting.

Association of bariatric surgery with all-cause mortality and incidence of obesity-related disease at a population level: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials and institutional studies have demonstrated that surgery for the treatment of obesity (termed bariatric or metabolic surgery) reduces all-cause mortality and the development of obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. The current study analysed large-scale population studies to assess the association of bariatric surgery with long-term mortality and incidence of new-onset obesity-related disease at a national level. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic literature search of Medline (via PubMed), Embase, and Web of Science was performed. Articles were included if they were national or regional administrative database cohort studies reporting comparative risk of long-term mortality or incident obesity-related diseases for patients who have undergone any form of bariatric surgery compared with an appropriate control group with a minimum follow-up period of 18 months. Meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for mortality risk, and pooled odds ratios (PORs) were calculated for discrete variables relating to incident disease. Eighteen studies were identified as suitable for inclusion. There were 1,539,904 patients included in the analysis, with 269,818 receiving bariatric surgery and 1,270,086 control patients. Bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (POR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.69, p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (POR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71, p < 0.001). Bariatric surgery was strongly associated with reduced incidence of T2DM (POR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.83, p = 0.010), hypertension (POR 0.36, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.40, p < 0.001), dyslipidaemia (POR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80, p = 0.010), and ischemic heart disease (POR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, p = 0.001). Limitations of the study include that it was not possible to account for unmeasured variables, which may not have been equally distributed between patient groups given the non-randomised design of the studies included. There was also heterogeneity between studies in the nature of the control group utilised, and potential adverse outcomes related to bariatric surgery were not specifically examined due to a lack of available data. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with reduced long-term all-cause mortality and incidence of obesity-related disease in patients with obesity for the whole operated population. The results suggest that broader access to bariatric surgery for people with obesity may reduce the long-term sequelae of this disease and provide population-level benefits.