Follow-up after bariatric surgery: is it time to tailor it? Analysis of early predictive factors of 3-year weight loss predictors of unsuccess in bariatric patients.

Bariatric surgery (BS) is the most effective treatment strategy for obesity. Nevertheless, a subset of patients does not reach a successful weight loss or experience long-term weight regain. Conflicting evidence exists regarding predictors of BS outcomes. We aimed to define the early factors linked to 3 year unsuccessful weight loss in order to promote a tailored close follow-up. We enrolled 443 patients who underwent BS from January 2014 to December 2018 with a 3 year follow-up. An unsuccessful BS outcome was defined as a percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) < 20. We compared the characteristics between successful and unsuccessful patients in order to identify predictor factors of unsuccess after surgery. We found that the proportion of patients with unsuccessful weight loss progressively increased from one to three years after BS. In a multiple regression model, only 1 month %TWL and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were significantly associated with 3 year unsuccessful weight loss. We stratified our cohort in four groups according to the risk of BS unsuccess, in terms of 1 month %TWL and type of surgery (SG vs gastric bypass). Interestingly, groups showed a significant difference in terms of %TWL at each follow-up point. Patients submitted to SG with lower 1 month %TWL must be considered at higher risk of future weight regain; consequently, they require a tailored and closer follow-up.

Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score and Micronutrient Deficiency in Bariatric Patients: Midterm Outcomes of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass/Mini Gastric Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Two of the most common bariatric procedures performed worldwide are Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Comparative data regarding nutritional status are lacking and no previous study focus on malnutrition according to a validated score. METHODS: Retrospective data from a single institution were reviewed. Anthropometric variables and nutritional data were assessed. The primary aim was to analyze and compare the nutritional status before and 3 years after RYGB vs OAGB using the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score. The incidence of micronutrient deficiency and the remission of comorbidities in each group were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients in each arm were enrolled. A 3-year mild malnutrition (CONUT score 2-3) was found in 38% and 37.05% in the RYGB and OAGB groups, respectively (p > 0.05). In terms of percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of adjustable weight loss (%AWL), no differences were found between OAGB and RYGB groups. OAGB and RYGB patients had similar vitamin deficiencies. Anemia, hypoproteinemia, hypoalbuminemia, and hypocalcemia were comparable between groups. At 3-year follow-up, total protein and albumin values were similar between arms while prealbumin deficit was more frequent after OAGB than after RYGB. The rate of type 2 diabetes (87.5% in OAGB and 92% in RYGB), arterial hypertension (51.6% in OAGB and 58.3% in RYGB), and dyslipidemia (69.7% in OAGB and 78.6% in RYGB) remission was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative CONUT score, micronutrient deficiency, comorbidity remission, and improvement of anthropometric parameters 3 years postoperatively were comparable between RYGB and OAGB groups.