Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Across the IFSO Chapters: Key Insights on the Baseline Patient Demographics, Procedure Types, and Mortality from the Eighth IFSO Global Registry Report.

INTRODUCTION: The International Federation for Surgery for Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Global Registry aims to provide descriptive data about the caseload and penetrance of surgery for metabolic disease and obesity in member countries. The data presented in this report represent the key findings of the eighth report of the IFSO Global Registry. METHODS: All existing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS) registries known to IFSO were invited to contribute to the eighth report. Aggregated data was provided by each MBS registry to the team at the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (ANZBSR) and was securely stored on a Redcap™ database housed at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Data was checked for completeness and analyzed by the IFSO Global Registry Committee. Prior to the finalization of the report, all graphs were circulated to contributors and to the global registry committee of IFSO to ensure data accuracy. RESULTS: Data was received from 24 national and 2 regional registries, providing information on 502,150 procedures. The most performed primary MBS procedure was sleeve gastrectomy, whereas the most performed revisional MBS procedure was Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Asian countries reported people with lower BMI undergoing MBS along with higher rates of diabetes. Mortality was a rare event. CONCLUSION: Registries enable meaningful comparisons between countries on the demographics, characteristics, operation types and approaches, and trends in MBS procedures. Reported outcomes can be seen as flags of potential issues or relationships that could be studied in more detail in specific research studies.

Surgical Aspects of Sleeve Gastrectomy Are Related to Weight Loss and Gastro-esophageal Reflux Symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: A large variation in outcome has been reported after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) across countries and institutions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of surgical technique on total weight loss (TWL) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Observational cohort study based on data from the national registries for bariatric surgery in the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. A retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained data from surgeries during 2015-2017 was performed based on 2-year follow-up. GERD was defined as continuous use of acid-reducing medication. The relationship between TWL, de novo GERD and operation technical variables were analyzed with regression methods. RESULTS: A total of 5927 patients were included. The average TWL was 25.6% in Sweden, 28.6% in the Netherlands, and 30.6% in Norway (p < 0.001 pairwise). Bougie size, distance from the resection line to the pylorus and the angle of His differed between hospitals. A minimized sleeve increased the expected total weight loss by 5-10 percentage points. Reducing the distance to the angle of His from 3 to just above 0 cm increased the risk of de novo GERD five-fold (from 3.5 to 17.8%). CONCLUSION: Smaller bougie size, a shorter distance to pylorus and to the angle of His were all associated with greater weight loss, whereas a shorter distance to angle of His was associated with more de novo reflux.

Genetic variants associated with weight loss and metabolic outcomes after bariatric surgery: A systematic review.

The extent to which genetic variations contribute to interindividual differences in weight loss and metabolic outcomes after bariatric surgery is unknown. Identifying genetic variants that impact surgery outcomes may contribute to clinical decision making. This review evaluates current evidence addressing the association of genetic variants with weight loss and changes in metabolic parameters after bariatric surgery. A search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Fifty-two eligible studies were identified. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at ADIPOQ (rs226729, rs1501299, rs3774261, and rs17300539) showed a positive association with postoperative change in measures of glucose homeostasis and lipid profiles (n = 4), but not with weight loss after surgery (n = 6). SNPs at FTO (rs11075986, rs16952482, rs8050136, rs9939609, rs9930506, and rs16945088) (n = 10) and MC4R (rs11152213, rs476828, rs2229616, rs9947255, rs17773430, rs5282087, and rs17782313) (n = 9) were inconsistently associated with weight loss and metabolic improvement. Four studies examining the UCP2 SNP rs660339 reported associations with postsurgical weight loss. In summary, there is limited evidence supporting a role for specific genetic variants in surgical outcomes after bariatric surgery. Most studies have adopted a candidate gene approach, limiting the scope for discovery, suggesting that the absence of compelling evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

Weight recurrence after Sleeve Gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score matched nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Literature remains scarce on patients experiencing weight recurrence after initial adequate weight loss following primary bariatric surgery. Therefore, this study compared the extent of weight recurrence between patients who received a Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adequate weight loss at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: All patients undergoing primary RYGB or SG between 2015 and 2018 were selected from the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. Inclusion criteria were achieving ≥ 20% total weight loss (TWL) at 1-year and having at least one subsequent follow-up visit. The primary outcome was ≥ 10% weight recurrence (WR) at the last recorded follow-up between 2 and 5 years, after ≥ 20% TWL at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included remission of comorbidities at last recorded follow-up. A propensity score matched logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the difference between RYGB and SG. RESULTS: A total of 19.762 patients were included, 14.982 RYGB and 4.780 SG patients. After matching 4.693 patients from each group, patients undergoing SG had a higher likelihood on WR up to 5-year follow-up compared with RYGB [OR 2.07, 95% CI (1.89-2.27), p < 0.01] and less often remission of type 2 diabetes [OR 0.69, 95% CI (0.56-0.86), p < 0.01], hypertension (HTN) [OR 0.75, 95% CI (0.65-0.87), p < 0.01], dyslipidemia [OR 0.44, 95% CI (0.36-0.54), p < 0.01], gastroesophageal reflux [OR 0.25 95% CI (0.18-0.34), p < 0.01], and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) [OR 0.66, 95% CI (0.54-0.8), p < 0.01]. In subgroup analyses, patients who experienced WR after SG but maintained ≥ 20%TWL from starting weight, more often achieved HTN (44.7% vs 29.4%), dyslipidemia (38.3% vs 19.3%), and OSAS (54% vs 20.3%) remission compared with patients not maintaining ≥ 20%TWL. No such differences in comorbidity remission were found within RYGB patients. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing SG are more likely to experience weight recurrence, and less likely to achieve comorbidity remission than patients undergoing RYGB.

Predicting serious complication risks after bariatric surgery: external validation of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative risk prediction model using the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Risk-prediction tools can support doctor-patient (shared) decision making in clinical practice by providing information on complication risks for different types of bariatric surgery. However, external validation is imperative to ensure the generalizability of predictions in a new patient population. OBJECTIVE: To perform an external validation of the risk-prediction model for serious complications from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative (MBSC) for Dutch bariatric patients using the nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity (DATO). SETTING: Population-based study, including all 18 hospitals performing bariatric surgery in the Netherlands. METHODS: All patients registered in the DATO undergoing bariatric surgery between 2015 and 2020 were included as the validation cohort. Serious complications included, among others, abdominal abscess, bowel obstruction, leak, and bleeding. Three risk-prediction models were validated: (1) the original MBSC model from 2011, (2) the original MBSC model including the same variables but updated to more recent patients (2015-2020), and (3) the current MBSC model. The following predictors from the MBSC model were available in the DATO: age, sex, procedure type, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary disease. Model performance was determined using the area under the curve (AUC) to assess discrimination (i.e., the ability to distinguish patients with events from those without events) and a graphical plot to assess calibration (i.e., whether the predicted absolute risk for patients was similar to the observed prevalence of the outcome). RESULTS: The DATO validation cohort included 51,291 patients. Overall, 986 patients (1.92%) experienced serious complications. The original MBSC model, which was extended with the predictors "GERD (yes/no)," "OSAS (yes/no)," "hypertension (yes/no)," and "renal disease (yes/no)," showed the best validation results. This model had a good calibration and an AUC of .602 compared with an AUC of .65 and moderate to good calibration in the Michigan model. CONCLUSION: The DATO prediction model has good calibration but moderate discrimination. To be used in clinical practice, good calibration is essential to accurately predict individual risks in a real-world setting. Therefore, this model could provide valuable information for bariatric surgeons as part of shared decision making in daily practice.

Hospital Variation in Preference for a Specific Bariatric Procedure and the Association with Weight Loss Performance: a Nationwide Analysis.

PURPOSE: Hospitals performing a certain bariatric procedure in high volumes may have better outcomes. However, they could also have worse outcomes for some patients who are better off receiving another procedure. This study evaluates the effect of hospital preference for a specific type of bariatric procedure on their overall weight loss results. METHODS: All hospitals performing bariatric surgery were included from the nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. For each hospital, the expected (E) numbers of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) were calculated given their patient-mix. These were compared with the observed (O) numbers as the O/E ratio in a funnel plot. The 95% control intervals were used to identify outlier hospitals performing a certain procedure significantly more often than expected given their patient-mix (defined as hospital preference for that procedure). Similarly, funnel plots were created for the outcome of patients achieving ≥ 25% total weight loss (TWL) after 2 years, which was linked to each hospital's preference. RESULTS: A total of 34,558 patients were included, with 23,154 patients completing a 2-year follow-up, of whom 79.6% achieved ≥ 25%TWL. Nine hospitals had a preference for RYGB (range O/E ratio [1.09-1.53]), with 1 having significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.06]). Of 6 hospitals with a preference for SG (range O/E ratio [1.10-2.71]), one hospital had significantly fewer patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [0.90]), and from two hospitals with a preference for OAGB (range O/E ratio [4.0-6.0]), one had significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.07]). One hospital had no preference for any procedure but did have significantly more patients achieving ≥ 25%TWL (O/E ratio [1.10]). CONCLUSION: Hospital preference is not consistently associated with better overall weight loss results. This suggests that even though experience with a procedure may be slightly less in hospitals not having a preference, it is still sufficient to achieve similar weight loss outcomes when surgery is provided in centralized high-volume bariatric institutions.

Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research.

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs.

Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one-anastomosis gastric bypass after a failed primary gastric band: a matched nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Primary laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high rates of patients not achieving the desired weight loss, and it remains unclear which bariatric conversion procedure gives better results. OBJECTIVE: To compare weight loss among patients undergoing conversion one-anastomosis gastric bypass (cOAGB) and conversion Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (cRYGB) after a failed LAGB. SETTING: Nationwide population-based study including all 18 hospitals providing metabolic and bariatric surgery. METHODS: Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent a cRYGB or cOAGB between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, were selected from the Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity. The primary outcome was not achieving ≥20% total weight loss (TWL) at 1-year and up to 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥III within 30 days, and co-morbidity remission. A propensity score matched logistic and Poisson regression model was used to estimate the difference in patients not achieving ≥20% TWL between cRYGB and cOAGB. RESULTS: A total of 615 (78.7%) patients underwent cRYGB, and 166 (21.3%) patients underwent cOAGB, with 163 patients successfully matched. Both groups had similar rates of patients not achieving ≥20% TWL at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] = .64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .38-1.05). However, a sensitivity analysis showed that patients undergoing cOAGB had lower rates of patients not achieving ≥20% TWL up to 5-year follow-up (rate ratio = .69, 95% CI: .51-.95, P < .05). Patients undergoing cOAGB were less likely to achieve hypertension remission (OR = .22, 95% CI: .07-.66). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative complications (OR = .39, 95% CI: .07-2.06, P > .05). CONCLUSION: This matched nationwide study suggests that the cOAGB has similar short-term weight loss outcomes but potentially better long-term weight loss results than cRYGB. Therefore, cOAGB could provide a reliable alternative but needs to be substantiated in future long-term studies.

The Benefits of Banded over Non-banded Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Patients with Morbid Obesity: a Multi-center Study.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has proven to be an effective treatment for obesity with excellent long-term results, even though weight regain can occur. A method to improve the results of RYGB and minimize chance of weight regain is banded RYGB. Better sustained weight loss is also related to higher remission of comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of banded and non-banded RYGB on long-term weight loss results and comorbidities. METHOD: A retrospective comparative data study was performed. Patients who underwent a primary RYGB between July 2013 and December 2014 and followed a 5-year follow-up program in the Dutch Obesity Clinic were included. Comorbidities were assessed during screening and follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 375 patients with mean weight and body mass index (BMI) of 128.9 (± 21.2) kg and 44.50 (± 5.72) kg/m2. Of this group, 184 patients underwent RYGB and 191 banded RYGB. During follow-up (3 months, 1-5 years) % Total Weight Loss (%TWL) was superior in the banded group (32.6% vs 27.6% at 5 years post-operative, p < 0.001). Complication rates in both groups were similar. Comorbidity improvement or remission did not significantly differ between the two groups (p = 0.14-1.00). After 5 years of follow-up, 79 patients (20.5%) were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Banded RYGB does show superior weight loss compared to non-banded RYGB. No difference in effect on comorbidity improvement or remission was observed. Since complication rates are similar, while weight loss is significantly greater, we recommend performing banded RYGB over non-banded RYGB.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Bariatric Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: A 2021 Update.

BACKGROUND: This is the second updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline, presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in bariatric surgery and providing recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol. METHODS: A principal literature search was performed utilizing the Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov through December 2020, with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies. Selected studies were examined, reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. After critical appraisal of these studies, the group of authors reached consensus regarding recommendations. RESULTS: The quality of evidence for many ERAS interventions remains relatively low in a bariatric setting and evidence-based practices may need to be extrapolated from other surgeries. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive, updated evidence-based consensus was reached and is presented in this review by the ERAS® Society.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018­2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.

No Uniformity in the References of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bariatric Surgery: a Review of 3 Similar Guidelines Published in 2020.

In 2020, updated versions of the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, the Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Dutch Federation for Medical Specialist clinical practice guidelines on bariatric surgery were published. We systematically reviewed and compared them on recommendations and references. Although the authors would have had access to the same literature, only 5 out of 655 unique references were used by all 3 guidelines and just 49 references by any combination of 2 guidelines. These findings attest to the subjectivity involved in clinical practice guidelines development and could be the cause for the observed differences in recommendations. International cooperation in guideline development might be a conceivable solution.

Development and Validation of New BODY-Q Scales Measuring Expectations, Eating Behavior, Distress, Symptoms, and Work Life in 4004 Adults From 4 Countries.

PURPOSE: The BODY-Q is a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for patients seeking treatment for obesity and body contouring surgery. A limitation of the uptake of the BODY-Q in weight management treatments is the absence of scales designed to measure eating-specific concerns. We aimed to develop and validate 5 new BODY-Q scales measuring weight loss expectations, eating behaviors, distress, symptoms, and work life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In phase 1 (qualitative), patient and expert input was used to develop and refine the new BODY-Q scales. In phase 2 (quantitative), the scales were field-tested in bariatric and weight management clinics in the United States (US), The Netherlands, and Denmark between June 2019 and January 2020. Data were also collected in the US and Canada in September 2019 through a crowdworking platform. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used for item reduction and to examine reliability and validity. RESULTS: The new BODY-Q scales were refined through qualitative input from 17 patients and 20 experts (phase 1) and field-tested in 4004 participants (phase 2). All items showed ordered thresholds and good fit to the Rasch model. The RMT analysis provided evidence of reliability, with PSI values ≥0.72, Cronbach alpha values ≥0.83, and test-retest values ≥0.79. Better scores on 4 scales (exception expectations scale) correlated with lower BMI, with the strongest correlation between the eating-related distress scale scores and BMI (r= -0.249, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The new BODY-Q scales can be used in research and clinical practice to assess weight loss treatments from the patient perspective.

National Bariatric Surgery Registries: an International Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Pooling population-based data from all national bariatric registries may provide international real-world evidence for outcomes that will help establish a universal standard of care, provided that the same variables and definitions are used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the concordance of variables across national registries to identify which outcomes can be used for international collaborations. METHODS: All 18 countries with a national bariatric registry who contributed to The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Global Registry report 2019 were requested to share their data dictionary by email. The primary outcome was the percentage of perfect agreement for variables by domain: patient, prior bariatric history, screening, operation, complication, and follow-up. Perfect agreement was defined as 100% concordance, meaning that the variable was registered with the same definition across all registries. Secondary outcomes were defined as variables having "substantial agreement" (75-99.9%) and "moderate agreement" (50-74.9%) across registries. RESULTS: Eleven registries responded and had a total of 2585 recorded variables that were grouped into 250 variables measuring the same concept. A total of 25 (10%) variables have a perfect agreement across all domains: 3 (18.75%) for the patient domain, 0 (0.0%) for prior bariatric history, 5 (8.2%) for screening, 6 (11.8%) for operation, 5 (8.8%) for complications, and 6 (11.8%) for follow-up. Furthermore, 28 (11.2%) variables have substantial agreement and 59 (23.6%) variables have moderate agreement across registries. CONCLUSION: There is limited uniform agreement in variables across national bariatric registries. Further alignment and uniformity in collected variables are required to enable future international collaborations and comparison.

Metabolic effects of bariatric surgery on patients with type 2 diabetes: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery among patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) can induce complete remission. However, it remains unclear whether sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has better T2D remission within a population-based daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare patients undergoing RYGB and SG on the extent of T2D remission at the 1-year follow-up. SETTING: Nationwide, population-based study including all 18 hospitals in the Netherlands providing metabolic and bariatric surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing RYGB and SG between October 2015 and October 2018 with 1 year of complete follow-up data were selected from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Audit for Treatment of Obesity (DATO). The primary outcome is T2D remission within 1 year. Secondary outcomes include ≥20% total weight loss (TWL), obesity-related co-morbidity reduction, and postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥III within 30 days. We compared T2D remission between RYGB and SG groups using propensity score matching to adjust for confounding by indication. RESULTS: A total of 5015 patients were identified from the DATO, and 4132 (82.4%) had completed a 1-year follow-up visit. There were 3350 (66.8%) patients with a valid T2D status who were included in the analysis (RYGB = 2623; SG = 727). RYGB patients had a lower body mass index than SG patients, but were more often female, with higher gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyslipidemia rates. After adjusting for these confounders, RYGB patients had increased odds of achieving T2D remission (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.1; P < .01). Groups were balanced after matching 695 patients in each group. After matching, RYGB patients still had better odds of T2D remission (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.27-2.88; P < .01). Also, significantly more RYGB patients had ≥20%TWL (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.96-3.75; P < .01) and RYGB patients had higher dyslipidemia remission rates (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.39-2.76; P < .01). There were no significant differences in CD ≥III complications. CONCLUSION: Using population-based data from the Netherlands, this study shows that RYGB leads to better T2D remission rates at the 1-year follow-up and better metabolic outcomes for patients with obesity and T2D undergoing bariatric surgery in daily practice.

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.

The first modified Delphi consensus statement on sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet there is significant variation in practice concerning its various aspects. This paper report results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on SG. METHODS: We established a committee of 54 globally recognized opinion makers in this field. The committee agreed to vote on several statements concerning SG. An agreement or disagreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was construed as a consensus. RESULTS: The committee achieved a consensus of agreement (n = 71) or disagreement (n = 7) for 78 out of 97 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. The committee agreed with 96.3% consensus that the characterization of SG as a purely restrictive procedure was inaccurate and there was 88.7% consensus that SG was not a suitable standalone, primary, surgical weight loss option for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) without dysplasia. There was an overwhelming consensus of 92.5% that the sleeve should be fashioned over an orogastric tube of 36-40 Fr and a 90.7% consensus that surgeons should stay at least 1 cm away from the angle of His. Remarkably, the committee agreed with 81.1% consensus that SG patients should undergo a screening endoscopy every 5 years after surgery to screen for BE. CONCLUSION: A multinational team of experts achieved consensus on several aspects of SG. The findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of SG, the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide, and guide future research on this topic.