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.

From database to practice: the MBSAQIP in the surgical literature.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) has been a game changer for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), with continuous improvements in safety and outcomes throughout the years of its usage. It allows in-depth evaluations of MBS procedures, presenting practitioners and researchers with unparalleled opportunities for quality assessment, research and clinical advancement. OBJECTIVES: To offer an updated overview of MBSAQIP-related publications. SETTING: United States. METHODS: PubMed was queried using keywords "MBSAQIP" and "Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program." Letters to editors, duplicates, commentaries, and retracted articles were excluded. Studies that mentioned MBSAQIP but did not use the data within were also excluded. RESULTS: A total of 400 search items were returned as of August 2023. After exclusions, 289 studies were reviewed. Articles were published in a total of 28 unique journals, the majority of which were featured in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (SOARD), with 114 articles (39.4%). Sixty-one articles were focused on creating predictive models or risk calculators, 58 on investigating the safety of procedures, and 52 on exploring complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were the 2 most commonly discussed procedures, at 80.3% and 80% respectively. Forty-three studies included patients who underwent robotic-assisted MBS. CONCLUSIONS: The MBSAQIP is a valuable resource that has generated a wealth of studies in the literature. It has allowed for intense analysis of clinical issues and fostered a culture of safety and quality improvement. Participating surgeons must pledge commitment to extended follow-up periods to maximize its effectiveness.

American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery 2022 estimate of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), despite being the most effective durable treatment for obesity, remains underused as approximately 1% of all qualified patients undergo surgery. The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery established a Numbers Taskforce to specify the annual rate of obesity treatment interventions utilization and to determine if patients in need are receiving appropriate treatment. OBJECTIVE: To provide the best estimated number of metabolic and bariatric procedures being performed in the United States in 2022. SETTING: United States. METHODS: We reviewed data from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. In addition, data from industry and state databases were used to estimate activity at non-accredited centers. Data from 2022 were compared mainly with data from the previous 2 years. RESULTS: Compared with 2021, the total number of MBS performed in 2022 increased from approximately 262,893 to 280,000. The sleeve gastrectomy (SG) continues to be the most commonly performed procedure. The gastric bypass procedure trend remained relatively stable. The percentage of revision procedures and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch procedures increased slightly. Intragastric balloon placement increased from the previous year. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty increased in numbers. CONCLUSIONS: There was a 6.5% increase in MBS volume from 2021 to 2022 and a 41% increase from 2020, which demonstrates a recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. SG continues to be the most dominant MBS procedure.

Current recommendations for procedure selection in class I and II obesity developed by an expert modified Delphi consensus.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is widely considered the most effective option for treating obesity, a chronic, relapsing, and progressive disease. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued new guidelines on the indications for MBS, which have superseded the previous 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines. The aim of this study is to establish the first set of consensus guidelines for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, using an Expert Modified Delphi Method. In this study, 78 experienced bariatric surgeons from 32 countries participated in a two-round Modified Delphi consensus voting process. The threshold for consensus was set at an agreement or disagreement of ≥ 70.0% among the experts. The experts reached a consensus on 54 statements. The committee of experts reached a consensus that MBS is a cost-effective treatment option for Class II obesity and for patients with Class I obesity who have not achieved significant weight loss through non-surgical methods. MBS was also considered suitable for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. The committee identified intra-gastric balloon (IGB) as a treatment option for patients with class I obesity and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) as an option for patients with class I and II obesity, as well as for patients with T2DM and a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2. Sleeve gastrectomy (1) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were also recognized as viable treatment options for these patient groups. The committee also agreed that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a suitable option for patients with Class II obesity and T2DM, regardless of the presence or severity of obesity-related medical problems. The recommendations for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, developed through an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus, suggest that the use of standard primary bariatric endoscopic (IGB, ESG) and surgical procedures (SG, RYGB, OAGB) are acceptable in these patient groups, as consensus was reached regarding these procedures. However, randomized controlled trials are still needed in Class I and II Obesity to identify the best treatment approach for these patients in the future.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) worldwide, some patients require conversional procedures due to weight recurrence or late complications. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) gained popularity as a viable option to address those problems. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of conversional OAGB after primary SG in the management of patients with obesity. METHODS: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to February 2023 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023403528). RESULTS: From 1,117 studies screened, twenty studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,057 patients with obesity undergoing conversional OAGB after primary SG. The mean age ranged from 28.2 to 49.5 years, and 744 patients (75.2%) were women. At one year after revisional OAGB, the pooled mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 65.2% (95%CI: 56.9, 73.4, I2 = 97%). The pooled mean %EWL after conversional OAGB was 71.1% (95%CI: 62.2, 80.0, I2 = 90%) at two years and 71.6% (95%CI: 61.0, 82.2, I2 = 50%) at five years. Additionally, resolution rates of diabetes and hypertension were 65.4% (95%CI: 0.522, 0.785, I2 = 65%) and 58.9% (95%CI: 0.415, 0.762, I2 = 89%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated OAGB as an effective conversional procedure after primary SG in terms of weight loss and obesity-associated medical problems for selected patients. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods are necessary to determine if the OAGB is the best conversional surgery after SG.

Evaluation of Long-Term Nutrition Outcomes After Duodenal Switch: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is the most effective and durable metabolic and bariatric surgery to achieve a target weight loss. However, many surgeons are hesitant to adopt BPD-DS due to a lack of training, technical complexity, and long-term nutrition deficiencies. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate long-term nutrition outcomes after primary BPD-DS in the management of obesity. METHODS: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to February 2023 by 2 independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023391316). RESULTS: From 834 studies screened, 8 studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 3443 patients with obesity undergoing primary BPD-DS. At long-term follow-up (≥5 years), 25.4% of patients had vitamin A deficiency (95% CI: -.012, .520, I2 = 94%), and 57.3% had vitamin D deficiency (95% CI: .059, 1.086, I2 = 86%). Calcium deficiency was observed in 125 patients (22.2%, 95% CI: .061, .383, I2 = 97%), and 69.7% had an abnormal parathyroid hormone level (95% CI: .548, .847, I2 = 78%). Ferritin level was abnormal in 30 patients (29.0%, 95% CI: .099, .481, I2 = 79%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite displaying comparable nutrition-related outcomes to mid-term follow-up, our study demonstrated that BPD-DS could result in a high level of long-term nutrition deficiency after BPD-DS for selected patients. However, further randomized controlled studies with standardized supplementation regimens and improvement in compliance are necessary to evaluate and prevent long-term nutritional deficiencies after BPD-DS.

MBSAQIP database: are the data reliable?

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database collects data from all accredited centers in the US. A prior study showed data quality issues limiting use of up to 20% of the 2015 database. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the completeness and data quality (internal validity, accuracy, and consistency) of the MBSAQIP database between 2015 and 2019. SETTING: United States. METHODS: All subsets of data from the MBSAQIP Participant User Data File (PUDF) were compiled into one main file. Completeness, internal validity, accuracy, and consistency were evaluated. Completeness was determined via missing values. Internal validity was assessed using the percentage of patients with a body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m2 who underwent primary bariatric surgery. Accuracy was evaluated using reported versus calculated BMI. Consistency was assessed using the percentage of patients with a gain of >5 or a loss of >20 units of BMI change in 30 days. Effects across years were assessed using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: Missing data for age, BMI, and ASA was consistently low (<2.5%) with no significant difference across years. Only .02% of patients who underwent a primary bariatric procedure had a reported BMI <30 kg/m2. The mean difference between reported versus calculated BMI was -.02 units. A maximum of .33% of patients gained >5 units of BMI, and a maximum of .85% of patients lost > 20 units of BMI in early follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While the MBSAQIP is a database with acceptable data quality and minimal changes from 2015-2019, ongoing efforts are needed to improve data.

Comparative analysis of sleeve conversions of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program 2020 Database.

BACKGROUND: Although the sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the dominant bariatric procedure, studies have shown conversion rates of up to 30%. These conversions are generally for weight regain (WR), insufficient weight loss (IWL) or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Before 2020, details on why conversions were being performed were not collected in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use Data File (PUF). Now, the indication for sleeve conversion is noted in the PUF, allowing identification and reporting sleeve conversion reasons. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the reasons for SG conversions nationwide. SETTING: The 2020 MBSAQIP PUF. METHODS: The 2020 MBSAQIP PUF was examined to determine the reasons why SG were converted to other operations. The data field of "Revision/Conversion Final Indication" was used along with "Procedure type." Primary bariatric operations were excluded. Descriptive statistics were applied. Different reasons for conversion and operations were compared by preoperative characteristics and operative outcomes. RESULTS: There were 103,782 primary SG reported in the 2020 PUF. There were 7181 SG that were converted to other operations. The most common conversion (86.2%) was to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The main reason for SG conversion was GERD at 48.4%, followed by WR/IWL (41.9%). Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve patients differed significantly from RYGB patients in specific preoperative characteristics and operative outcomes. CONCLUSION: The most common procedure SG is converted to is the RYGB. GERD was the most common reason for SG conversion, followed by WR/IWL.

Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass.

BACKGROUND: Adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are frequently converted to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to weight recurrence or band complications. Such conversions carry a higher-risk than primary procedures. Some patients undergo two conversions-from AGB to SG, and subsequently from SG to RYGB. This presents a unique situation with limited literature on indications and complication rates associated with these double conversions. METHODS: We examined the 2020-2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use File to evaluate conversions from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. Patient and operative characteristics, along with outcomes, were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: We identified 276 patients who underwent a conversion from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. The primary reason for the second conversion (SG to RYGB) was gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) at 55.1%, followed by inadequate weight loss or weight regain (IWL/WR) at 36.9%. The remaining reasons included dysphagia, nausea, vomiting, or others. Patients converted for IWL/WR demonstrated a higher baseline body mass index and prevalence of sleep apnea compared to other cohorts (both p < 0.001). Meanwhile, patients in the "other reasons" group had the highest rate of open surgical approaches (9.1%) and concurrent lysis of adhesions (p = 0.001 and p = 0.022), with correspondingly higher rates of anastomotic leak, reoperations, serious complications, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing double conversions (AGB to SG to RYGB) do so primarily for GERD or IWL/WR. Further research is required to better define the optimal primary operation for each patient, aiming to reduce the necessity for multiple conversions.

Evaluating metabolic and bariatric surgery fellows' attitudes toward their training.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgeons (ASMBS) Leadership Academy is conducted at the ASMBS Weekend to prepare surgeons for practice, while in their fellowship. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis is to gather the views of current fellows in training on issues regarding practice patterns and career development. SETTING: Survey at ASMBS Fellows Leadership Academy. METHODS: An online survey was conducted at the last 2 ASMBS Leadership Academy Meetings at the ASMBS Weekend. There were 14 questions. There were 61 respondents. Twenty-three respondents had incomplete surveys and were not included in the final analysis. There were 24 fellows surveyed at the Leadership Academy in November 2022, in San Antonio, TX and 37 in January 2022, in Las Vegas, NV. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of attendees were interviewing for employment after their fellowship with 3.64% already employed. Eighteen percent had employment secured upon completion of their fellowship. Of the academic fellows, 29.1% believe that private practice will no longer exist in 2030 and 10.9% of attendees believe that we will have Medicare for all by 2030. Fellows in academic programs ranked their fellowship as either "best decision of my life" or "great" (96.4%) and 3.6% ranked it as "useless (not good/not bad)." Ninety-three percent of attendees said they would do a bariatric fellowship again. Of those that said they would not, all were from a robotic fellowship program. Of those that would do a bariatric fellowship again, 80% stated they would do so at the same institution. CONCLUSIONS: The fellows that attended the ASMBS Leadership Academy overall were very pleased with their fellowship experience, and most would choose to do a MIS/bariatric fellowship again.

Early Bowel Obstruction after Bariatric Surgery: An Analysis of the 2020-2021 MBSAQIP Database.

BACKGROUND: The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program evaluates 30-day outcomes of bariatric cases performed in the United States. The Participant Use File in 2020 introduced bowel obstruction (BO). We compared the rates of BO, risk factors, and postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and duodenal switch (DS). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic RYGB, SG, or DS obtained from the 2020-2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. Patients who underwent either as a primary procedure with a body mass index >35 kg/m 2 were selected. Baseline characteristics, operative details, and postoperative complications were collected. The outcome of interest was BO occurring within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 205,533 cases of which 148,944 were SG (72.4%), 54,606 were RYGB (26.5%), and 1983 were DS (1%). BO occurred in 0.74%, 0.4%, and 0.03% of patients who underwent an RYGB, DS, or SG, respectively. Patients with a BO in the RYGB group were more likely to be on immunosuppressive therapy (5.4% vs. 1.9%, P <0.001) with longer operative time (136.2 min±58.0 min vs. 117.4 min±53.6 min, P <0.001). SG patients with a BO were older (47.5±13.6 vs. 41.9±11.6, P =0.011) with longer operating times (98.6±63.8 vs. 68.9±33.4, P =0.002). Patients in the RYGB group with a BO had the highest rates of readmissions (71.9%) and reoperations (58.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Early bowel obstruction is rare after bariatric surgery. It is more common after RYGB and least common after SG. Readmission and reoperation rates were highest in patients with BO in the RYGB group.

Bariatric surgery reduces odds of perioperative complications after inpatient hysterectomy: Analysis from a national database, 2016 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Increased body mass index is a known risk factor for increased adverse events post-hysterectomy. The effects of previous bariatric surgery on outcomes after inpatient hysterectomy are not well elucidated. METHODS: The 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample was queried for patients who underwent hysterectomy using International Classification of Disease 10 Procedure Codes before a matched analysis was performed to neutralize the potential confounding effects of comorbidities, body mass index, and age. Patients were divided into the following 2 groups: a case group (those with a history of bariatric surgery) and a control group (those without a history of bariatric surgery). Patients in the respective groups were matched 1:2 by age, Elixhauser comorbidity score, and body mass index at the time of surgery to analyze the risk of complications and mean length of stay. RESULTS: When 1:2 case-control matching was performed, women with a history of bariatric surgery (N = 595) had significantly fewer complications and decreased mean length of stay than the non-bariatric group (N = 1,190), even after controlling for body mass index at the time of hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: When matched for age, body mass index, and comorbidity score, patients with previous bariatric surgery had fewer complications and shorter lengths of stay than patients without a history of bariatric surgery. Women with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2 requiring non-urgent hysterectomy may benefit from undergoing bariatric surgery first.

Bariatric surgery and left ventricular assist device in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), in synergy with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, in the scope of end-stage heart failure management for patients with severe obesity is not well elucidated. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis using Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases to include articles from their inception to November 2022. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients who underwent MBS during or after the LVAD implantation were included from eleven separate studies. After surgery, 67.4% of patients were listed on the heart transplant waitlist with 32.5% undergoing a successful transplant. We reported a mean listing time of 13.8 months. Finally, the pooled postoperative complication rate, 30-day readmission rate, and one-year mortality rate were 47.6%, 23.6% and 10.2% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MBS and LVAD is a safe and effective approach to bridge patients with severe obesity and end-stage heart failure for definitive heart transplantation.

When do leaks occur? An analysis of the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND: Leak is a feared complication of bariatric surgeries. Time to presentation is important in their management. We used the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) to evaluate the rate and timing of leaks. OBJECTIVES: To determine when leaks present after bariatric surgery. SETTING: MBSAQIP database. METHODS: The MBSAQIP Participant Use Files (PUF) for the years 2015-2020 were evaluated. Outcomes of interest were "organ space infection" and "leak." We evaluated the time to presentation for these variables as well as patient characteristics, operative time, complication rates and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: There were 370,369 sleeve gastrectomies (SG) and 159,280 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (RYGB). We identified 598 (.16%) SG leaks with an average time to presentation of 13.2 ± 7.8 days. For RYGB, there were 520 leaks (.32%) with an average time to presentation of 9.5 ± 7.4 days. Both procedures had longer operative times for the patients with leak; RYGB was 115 minutes versus 131 minutes and SG was 67 minutes versus 77 minutes (both P < .01). SG and RYGB patients with a leak had a higher relative risk (RR) of grade 4 and 5 Clavien-Dindo complication rates. RR of mortality rates in SG patients with leak was 35.2 (confidence interval (CI): 20-61) and in RYGB with leak was 31.4 (CI: 19-50). CONCLUSIONS: The length of time for SG leak presentation was more delayed than RYGB leak presentation. Surgeons should be vigilant for leaks for at least 3 weeks after surgery. Leaks increase the mortality rate and overall serious complications.

Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Bariatric Surgery Compared to Standard Laparoscopic Approach Using a Standardized Definition: First Look at the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Project (MBSAQIP) Data.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of robotic-assisted (RA-) approach compared to the standard laparoscopic (L-) approach using the 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry Public Use File (PUF). Our secondary objective is to establish standards for the reporting of outcomes using PUF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PUF database (n = 168,568), patients were divided into sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), revisions, and conversions and then analyzed separately. We created balanced covariate through propensity score matching and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). We also conducted multivariable relative risk regression to confirm our results. RESULTS: For RYGB, the incidence of "transfusion" was significantly lower in the RA-RYGB compared to the L-RYGB. There was no significant difference in the rate of Serious Event Occurrences (SEOs) or rate of intervention at 30 days. For SG, there was a higher rate of "transfusion" in the RA group. Incidence of SEOs was also significantly higher in the RA-group. There was no significant difference in SEOs for conversions; however, revisions had a trend toward a lower rate of SEOs favoring the robotic approach. Operative times were significantly higher for all RA-groups. CONCLUSION: RA- approach in metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains controversial because of differences in outcomes. The use of SEOs as reported by MBSAQIP in its semi-annual report can be used as a composite score to assess outcomes while using PUF. Further studies are needed to compare RA- to L- MBS.

Bariatric Surgeon Perspective on Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) for Weight Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Weight recurrence (WR) after bariatric surgery occurs in nearly 20% of patients. Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) may benefit this population but remains controversial among surgeons. OBJECTIVES: Explore surgeon perspectives and practices for patients with WR after primary bariatric surgery (PBS). SETTING: Web-based survey of bariatric surgeons. METHODS: A 21-item survey was piloted and posted on social media closed groups (Facebook) utilized by bariatric surgeons. Survey items included demographic information, questions pertaining to the definition of suboptimal and satisfactory response to bariatric surgery, and general questions related to different WR management options. RESULTS: One hundred ten surgeons from 19 countries responded to the survey. Ninety-eight percent responded that WR was multifactorial, including behavioral and biological factors. Failure of PBS was defined as excess weight loss < 50% by 31.4%, as excess weight loss <25% by 12.8%, and as comorbidity recurrence by 17.4%. Surgeon responses differed significantly by gender (P = .036). 29.4% believed RBS was not successful, while 14.1% were unsure. Nevertheless, 73% reported that they would perform RBS if sufficient evidence of benefit existed. Most frequently performed revisional procedures included conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band to RYGB, and RYGB revision (21.9% versus 18.2% versus 15.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates significant variability in surgeon perception regarding causes and the effectiveness of RBS. Moreover, they disagree on what constitutes a nonsatisfactory response to PBS and to whom they offer RBS. These findings may relate to limited available clinical evidence on best management options for this patient population. Clinical trials investigating the comparative effectiveness of various treatment options are needed.

One- versus two-stage conversions of adjustable gastric bands: an analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are converted at high rates to secondary bariatric procedures. The available literature on the safety of converting in 1- versus 2-stage processes has not included large databases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of a 1- versus 2-stage conversion of AGB. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), United States. METHODS: The MBSAQIP database for the years 2020 and 2021 was evaluated. One-stage AGB conversions were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and database variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine whether 1- or 2-stage conversions were associated with 30-day serious complications. RESULTS: There were 12,085 patients who underwent conversion from previous AGB to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (63.0%) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (37.0%), of whom 41.0% underwent conversion in 1 stage and 59.0% in 2 stages. Patients who underwent 2-stage conversions had higher body mass indexes. Rates of serious complications were higher for patients undergoing RYGB compared with SG (5.2% versus 3.3%, P < .001) but were similar between 1-stage and 2-stage conversions in both cohorts. In both cohorts, there were similar rates of anastomotic leaks, postoperative bleeding, reoperation, and readmissions. Mortality was rare and similar between conversion groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in outcomes or complications in 30 days between 1- and 2-stage conversions of AGB to RYGB or SG. Conversions to RYGB have higher complication and mortality rates than to SG, but there was no statistically significant difference between staged procedures. One- and 2-stage conversions from AGB are equivalent in safety.