Obesity in adults: a clinical practice guideline

Obesity is a complex chronic disease in which abnormal or excess body fat (adiposity) impairs health, increases the risk of long-term medical complications and reduces lifespan.1 Epidemiologic studies define obesity using the body mass index (BMI; weight/height2), which can stratify obesity-related health risks at the population level. Obesity is operationally defined as a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 and is subclassified into class 1 (30­34.9), class 2 (35­39.9) and class 3 (≥ 40). At the population level, health complications from excess body fat increase as BMI increases.2 At the individual level, complications occur because of excess adiposity, location and distribution of adiposity and many other factors, including environmental, genetic, biologic and socioeconomic factors.

Emerging technologies and virtual medicine in obesity management

The management of obesity through technological means has shown benefits in recent years. These include treatment and follow-up strategies delivered through portable devices (e.g., mobile phones), web-based platforms (e.g., websites) and wearable tracking devices (e.g., pedometers). Technology-based interventions provide cost-effective, time-efficient and flexible options for the management of patients with obesity, either on their own or as an adjunct to conventional (face-to-face) care. The weight-loss benefits of technology-based interventions in the management of obesity have repeatedly been proven in the literature. However, there is insufficient data comparing these interventions to conventional (face-to-face) management. This prohibits us from forming firm conclusions about their comparative benefits in the management of patients living with obesity.

Revisional vs. primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass--a case-matched analysis: less weight loss in revisions.

With the increase in bariatric procedures performed, revisional surgery is now required more frequently. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered to be the gold standard revision procedure. However, data comparing revisional vs. primary RYGB is scarce, and no study has compared non-resectional primary and revisional RYGB in a matched control setting. Analysis of 61 revisional RYGB that were matched one to one with 61 primary RYGB was done. Matching criteria were preoperative body mass index, age, gender, comorbidities and choice of technique (laparoscopic vs. open). After matching, the groups did not differ significantly. Previous bariatric procedures were 13 gastric bands, 36 vertical banded gastroplasties, 10 RYGB and two sleeve gastrectomies. The indication for revisional surgery was insufficient weight loss in 55 and reflux in 6. Intraoperative and surgical morbidity was not different, but medical morbidity was significantly higher in revisional procedures (9.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.031). Patients undergoing revisional RYGB lost less weight in the first two postoperative years compared with patients with primary RYGB (1 month, 14.9% vs. 29.7%, p = 0.004; 3 months, 27.4% vs. 51.9%, p = 0.002; 6 months, 39.4 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001; 12 months, 58.5% vs. 85.9%, p < 0.001; 24 months, 60.7% vs. 90.0%, p = 0.003). Although revisional RYGB is safe and effective, excess weight loss after revisional RYGB is significantly less than following primary RYGB surgery. Weight loss plateaus after 12 months follow-up.

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE) has been shown to have clinical advantages, but selection bias is present. METHODS: All patients undergoing MIE or OE for cancer between 1999 and 2007 were eligible for analysis. To minimize selection bias, only patients who also met the selection criteria for the thoracoscopic approach were included in the open esophagectomy group. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients underwent MIE and 98 OE. No significant differences in demographics or pathologic data between groups occurred, with the exception of thoracic epidural analgesia (OE 98%, MIE 71.1%, p < 0.001), and neoadjuvant treatment (OE 50.5%, MIE 71.4%, p = 0.016). Morbidity and in-hospital death were not significantly different. Duration of surgery was longer in MIE (250 vs 209 minutes, p < 0.001) and blood loss less (320 mL vs 857 mL, p < 0.001). Intensive care unit stay was shorter in MIE (3.0 vs 6.8 days, p = 0.022). The relative risk (RR) for in-hospital death was 0.57 (p = 0.475) if the patients underwent MIE. After adjusting for thoracic epidural analgesia, the RR was 0.29 (p = 0.213) for the MIE group. The RR for surgical morbidity was 1.47 (p = 0.154) for patients undergoing MIE. Neoadjuvant treatment increased the RR for surgical morbidity to 1.78 (p = 0.028). No difference between the two groups concerning survival occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The MIE is comparable with the OE. In MIE, neoadjuvant treatment increased the risk of surgical morbidity. Thoracic epidural analgesia in MIE reduced the risk of in-hospital death and should be considered for all patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Outcome for esophageal cancer following treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy but not esophagectomy: Nonsurgical treatment of esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of patients with esophageal cancer are not suitable for surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of patients undergoing standard nonsurgical treatment. METHODS: Data of all patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment for esophageal cancer were identified from a prospective database. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were treated for localized disease, and 52 for metastatic disease at diagnosis. Except for age, which was higher in patients without metastases, there were no significant differences between the patients with vs. without metastatic disease. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a median survival of 10.8 months for all patients. There was a significant difference in survival (p < 0.001) between the groups with versus without metastases, with median survival in the patients without metastases 13.6 months versus 6.5 months in patients with metastases. Patients undergoing nonsurgical treatment for localized disease had a five-year survival of 12%. No significant difference between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma was identified. Subanalysis of patients who received chemoradiotherapy revealed similar results to the overall group of patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with localized disease at diagnosis, long-term survival can be achieved in some patients, whereas five-year survival is rare in patients who present with metastatic disease.