Setting realistic expectations for weight loss after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the clinical benefits of bariatric surgery, some patients have experienced disappointment with their weight loss. Setting realistic expectations is the key to success. AIM: To develop a specific prediction calculator to estimate the expected body mass index (BMI) at 1 year after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to study 211 patients after primary LSG. Nine baseline variables were analyzed. Least angle regression (LARS) was employed for variable selection and to build the predictive model. External validation was performed on a dataset of 184 patients. To test the accuracy of the model, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed between BMI estimates and the observed BMI. A linear logistic equation was used to construct the online predictive calculator. RESULTS: The model included three variables - preoperative BMI (ß = 0.023, p < 0.001), age (ß = 0.005, p < 0.001), and female gender (ß = 0.116, p = 0.001) - and demonstrated good discrimination (R2 = 0.672; adjusted R2 = 0.664) and good accuracy (root mean squared error of estimate, RMSE = 0.124). The difference between the observed BMI and the estimated BMI was not statistically significant (median = 0.737 (-2.676, 3.254); p = 0.223). External validation confirmed good performance of the model. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed a useful predictive model for estimating BMI at 1 year after LSG. The model was used for development of the PREDICT BMI calculator. This tool allows one to set realistic expectations of weight loss at one year after LSG.

Current Practice of Global Bariatric Tourism-Survey-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to present the experience of bariatric surgeons with medical tourism on a global scale. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online-based survey was sent to bariatric surgeons worldwide regarding surgeon's country of practice, number and types of bariatric procedures performed, number of tourists treated, their countries of origin, reasons for travel, follow-up, and complications. RESULTS: Ninety-three responders performed 18,001 procedures in 2017. Sixty-four of those 93 responders operated on foreign patients performing a total of 3740 operations for them. The majority of the responders practice in India (n = 11, 17%), Mexico (n = 10, 16%), and Turkey (n = 6, 9%). Mexico dominated the number of bariatric surgeries for tourists with 2557 procedures performed in 2017. The most frequent procedures provided were laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) provided by 89.1% of the respondents, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (40.6% of respondents), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (37.5% of respondents). CONCLUSION: At least 2% of worldwide bariatric procedures are provided for medical tourists. Countries such as Mexico, Lebanon, and Romania dominate as providers for patients mainly from the USA, UK, and Germany. The lack of affordable bariatric healthcare and long waiting lists are some of the reasons for patients choosing bariatric tourism.

Safety of Revision Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Roux-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Gastric Banding: Analysis of the MBSAQIP.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of revisional surgery to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) compared to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). BACKGROUND: The number of reoperations after failed gastric banding rapidly increased in the United States during the last several years. A common approach is band removal with conversion to another weight loss procedure such as gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in a single procedure. The safety profile of those procedures remains controversial. METHODS: Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files 2015 were selected for all patients who underwent a 1-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (conv-LSG) or LRYGB (conv-LRYGB). Conv-LSG cases were matched (1:1) with conv-LRYGB patients by age (±1 year), body mass index (±1 kg/m(2)), sex, and comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, venous stasis, and sleep apnea. RESULTS: A total of 2708 patients (1354 matched pairs) were included in the study. The groups were closely matched as intended. The mean operative time in conv-LRYGB was significantly longer in comparison to conv-LSG patients (151 ±â€Š58 vs 113 ±â€Š45 minutes, P < 0.001). No mortality was observed in either group. Patients after conv-LRYGB had a clinically increased anastomotic leakage rate (2.07% vs 1.18%, P = 0.070) and significantly increased bleed rate (2.66% vs 0.44%, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission rate was significantly higher in conv-LRYGB patients (7.46% vs 3.69%, P < 0.001), as was 30-day reoperation rate (3.25% vs 1.26%, P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was longer in conv-LRYGB. CONCLUSIONS: A single-stage conversion of failed LAGB leads to greater morbidity and higher complication rates when converted to LRYGB versus LSG in the first 30 days postoperatively. These differences are particularly notable with regards to bleed events, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, operative time, and hospital stay.

Safety of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in elderly patients - analysis of the MBSAQIP.

BACKGROUND: An increase in the prevalence of obesity and longer life expectancy has resulted in an increased number of candidates over the age of 60 who are pursuing a bariatric procedure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in patients aged 60 years or older. SETTING: University Hospital, United States METHODS: Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes from the MBSAQIP 2015 were selected for all patients aged 60 years or older who underwent a LSG or LRYGB. LRYGB cases were closely matched (1:1) with LSG patients by age (±1 year), BMI (±1 kg/m2), gender, preoperative steroid or immunosuppressant use, preoperative functional health status and comorbidities including: diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, venous stasis, sleep apnea and history of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. RESULTS: A 3371 matched pairs were included in the study. The mean operative time in LRYGB was significantly longer in comparison to LSG patients (122 vs 84 min., P<0.001). Patients after LRYGB had a significantly increased anastomotic leakage rate (1.01% vs 0.47 %, p = 0.011), 30-day readmission rate (6.08% vs 3.74%, p < 0.001) and 30-day reoperation rate (2.49% vs 0.89%, p < 0.001) The length of hospital stay was longer in LRYGB. Mortality and bleed rate was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB and LSG in patients aged 60 years or older are relatively safe in the short term with an acceptable complication rate and low mortality. However, LRYGB is more challenging and is associated with significantly increased rates of leakage events, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, longer operative time and longer hospital stay.

Application of HARM Score to Measure Surgical Quality and Outcomes in Bariatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: The HospitAl stay, Readmission, and Mortality rates (HARM) score is a quality indicator that is easily determined from routine administrative data. However, the HARM score has not yet been applied to patients undergoing bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the present study were to adjust the HARM score to the bariatric population and to validate the ability of the modified HARM score to serve as an inexpensive tool to measure the quality of bariatric surgery. METHODS: A MBSAQIP 2015 PUF database was reviewed. For each discharge, a 1 to 10 score was calculated on the basis of length of stay (LOS), discharge status, and 30-day readmissions. We adjusted the LOS categories to the distribution of LOS in the MBSQIP database. The new LOS categories were used to calculate the modified HARM score, referred to as the BARiatric HARM (BAR-HARM) score. The association between HARM and BAR-HARM scores and complication rate was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 197,141 cases were evaluated: 98.8% were elective and 1.2% were emergent admissions. The mean individual patient BAR-HARM score was 1.75 ± 1.04 for elective cases, and 2.02 ± 1.45 for emergency cases. The complication rates for the respective BAR-HARM categories ≤ 2, > 2 to 3, > 3 to 4, and > 4 were 3.95, 27.53, 40.14, and 79.97% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of bariatric surgery can be reliably and validly assessed using the BAR-HARM score, which is a modification of the HARM score.