Bariatric surgery provision in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study of a national registry.

BACKGROUND: When surgery resumed following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines recommended the prioritization of patients with greater obesity-related co-morbidities and/or higher body mass index. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to record the effect of the pandemic on total number, patient demographics, and perioperative outcomes of elective bariatric surgery patients in the United Kingdom. SETTING AND METHODS: The United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgical Registry was used to identify patients who underwent elective bariatric surgery during the pandemic (1 yr from April 1, 2020). Characteristics of this group were compared with those of a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcomes were case volume, case mix, and providers. National Health Service cases were analyzed for baseline health status and perioperative outcomes. Fisher exact, χ2, and Student t tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: The total number of cases decreased to one third of pre-pandemic volume (8615 to 2930). The decrease in operating volume varied, with 36 hospitals (45%) experiencing a 75%-100% reduction. Cases performed in the National Health Service fell from 74% to 53% (P < .0001). There was no change in baseline body mass index (45.2 ± 8.3 kg/m2 from 45.5 ± 8.3 kg/m2; P = .23) or prevalence of type 2 diabetes (26% from 26%; P = .99). Length of stay (median 2 d) and surgical complication rate (1.4% from 2.0%; relative risk = .71; 95% CI .45-1.12; P = .13) were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a dramatic reduction in elective bariatric surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with more severe co-morbidities were not prioritized for surgery. These findings should inform preparation for future crises.

Clinical characteristics of patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom based on the National Bariatric Surgery Registry.

Baseline demographic characteristics and operations undertaken for patients having bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom are largely unknown. This study aimed to describe the profile of patients having primary bariatric surgery in the National Health Service (NHS) or by self-pay, and associated operations performed for both pathways. The National Bariatric Surgery Registry dataset for 5 years between January 2015 and December 2019 was used. 34 580 patients underwent primary bariatric surgery, of which 75.9% were NHS patients. Mean patient age and initial body mass index were significantly higher for NHS compared to self-pay patients (mean age 45.8 ± 11.3 [SD] vs. 43.0 ± 12.0 years and initial body mass index 48.0 ± 7.9 vs. 42.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2 , p < .001). NHS patients were more likely to have obesity-related complications compared to self-pay patients: prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus 27.7% versus 8.3%, hypertension 37.1% versus 20.1%, obstructive sleep apnoea 27.4% versus 8.9%, severely impaired functional status 19.3% versus 13.9%, musculoskeletal pain 32.5% versus 20.1% and being on medication for depression 31.0% versus 25.9%, respectively (all p < .001). Gastric bypass was the most commonly performed primary NHS bariatric operation 57.2%, but sleeve gastrectomy predominated in self-pay patients 48.7% (both p < .001). In contrast to self-pay patients, NHS patients are receiving bariatric surgery only once they are older and at a much more advanced stage of obesity-related disease complications.

Bariatric-metabolic surgery for NHS patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgery Registry.

AIM: Bariatric-metabolic surgery is approved by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for people with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (including class 1 obesity after 2014). This study analysed baseline characteristics, disease severity and operations undertaken in people with obesity and T2DM undergoing bariatric-metabolic surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS) compared to those without T2DM. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, trends over time and operations undertaken were analysed for people undergoing primary bariatric-metabolic surgery in the NHS using the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR) for 11 years from 2009 to 2019. Clinical practice before and after the publication of the NICE guidance (2014) was examined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations with T2DM status and the procedure undertaken. RESULTS: 14,948/51,715 (28.9%) participants had T2DM, with 10,626 (71.1%) on oral hypoglycaemics, 4322 (28.9%) on insulin/other injectables, and with T2DM diagnosed 10+ years before surgery in 3876 (25.9%). Participants with T2DM, compared to those without T2DM, were associated with older age (p < 0.001), male sex (p < 0.001), poorer functional status (p < 0.001), dyslipidaemia (OR: 3.58 (CI: 3.39-3.79); p < 0.001), hypertension (OR: 2.32 (2.19-2.45); p < 0.001) and liver disease (OR: 1.73 (1.58-1.90); p < 0.001), but no difference in body mass index was noted. Fewer people receiving bariatric-metabolic surgery after 2015 had T2DM (p < 0.001), although a very small percentage increase of those with class I obesity and T2DM was noted. Gastric bypass was the commonest operation overall. T2DM status was associated with selection for gastric bypass compared to sleeve gastrectomy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NHS bariatric-metabolic surgery is used for people with T2DM much later in the disease process when it is less effective. National guidance on bariatric-metabolic surgery and data from multiple RCTs have had little impact on clinical practice.

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.

The First Modified Delphi Consensus Statement for Resuming Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery in the COVID-19 Times.

The purpose of this study was to achieve consensus amongst a global panel of expert bariatric surgeons on various aspects of resuming Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery (BMS) during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A modified Delphi consensus-building protocol was used to build consensus amongst 44 globally recognised bariatric surgeons. The experts were asked to either agree or disagree with 111 statements they collectively proposed over two separate rounds. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% of experts was construed as consensus as per the predetermined methodology. We present here 38 of our key recommendations. This first global consensus statement on the resumption of BMS can provide a framework for multidisciplinary BMS teams planning to resume local services as well as guide future research in this area.

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS. METHODS: We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus. RESULTS: Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%). CONCLUSION: Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice.

Exploring the Patient-Reported Impact of the Pharmacist on Pre-bariatric Surgical Assessment.

BACKGROUND: The effects of surgical procedures and the need for life-long nutrient supplementation may impact on medication regimes, requiring changes to dosage and formulation of medicines, which can be difficult for patients following surgery. Our pre-surgical assessment pathway involves a pharmacist with specialist knowledge of bariatric surgery, to help prepare patients for these changes. OBJECTIVE: To explore the patient-reported impact of the specialist bariatric pharmacist in pre-surgical assessment. SETTING: National Health Service Hospital, United Kingdom. METHODS: A two phased, retrospective study design using participants recruited from pre-surgical clinic lists. The first phase consisted of confidential, face to face semi-structured interviews. A constant comparative analytic framework informed the construction of the second phase, which consisted of a confidential survey to test the generalizability of the findings with a larger cohort of patients. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants (12 interviews, 28 surveys) were recruited to the study. The majority of participants were female (n = 33), mean age 50 years, mean pre-surgical weight 124 kg (n = 38). The most common comorbidity was type 2 diabetes. Participants on medication had at least one comorbidity, with the majority of conditions improved or eliminated after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The pre-surgical consultation with the pharmacist was highly valued by the participants, providing information and support which helped prepare for medication changes after bariatric surgery. Many felt that a post-surgical appointment with the pharmacist would provide support and improve compliance with vitamins and medications. Future research into the role of pharmacists in the bariatric multi-disciplinary team and patient support are recommended.

Practices Concerning Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Survey of 460 Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is currently little evidence available on various aspects of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) and no published consensus amongst experts. The purpose of this study was to understand variation in practices concerning RBS. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world who perform RBS were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey®. RESULTS: A total of 460 respondents from 62 countries took the survey. For revision after gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (75.5%, n = 345) emerged as the commonest choice followed by sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (56.9%, n = 260) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (37.2%, n = 170). For revision after SG, RYGB (77.7%, n = 355) was the commonest option followed by OAGB (42.45%, n = 194) and re-sleeve (22.32%, n = 102). For revision after RYGB, surgical pouch reduction (49.1%, n = 223), prolongation of bilio-pancreatic limb (30.0%, n = 136), and surgical stoma size reduction (26.43%, n = 120) were the most preferred options. Approximately 90.0% of respondents (n = 406/454) routinely perform an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before an RBS, and 85.6% (n = 388/453) routinely perform a contrast study. Ninety percent (n = 403/445) reported that the demand for RBS was usually patient-driven, and there was wide variation in criteria used to define successful response, non-responders, and significant weight regain. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is the first attempt to understand various aspects of RBS. The findings will help in identifying areas for research and allow consensus building amongst experts.

Oral Vitamin B12 Supplementation After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many respectable guidelines recommend lifelong vitamin B12 injections for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients in the absence of lack of consensus on the efficacy of oral route of prophylaxis and the appropriate doses needed for this purpose. The purpose of this review was to examine the published English language scientific literature in accordance with PRISMA principles to find out if orally given vitamin B12 is adequate for prophylactic purposes in RYGB patients and the appropriate dosages needed for this purpose if it is. METHODS: We examined the PubMed database for all English language articles examining various doses of oral vitamin B12 supplementation after proximal RYGB in adult patients. The search revealed 19 such articles. RESULTS: The data suggest that oral vitamin B12 supplementation doses of ≤ 15 µg daily are insufficient to prevent deficiency in RYGB patients. Higher supplementation doses show better results and it appears that a dose of 600.0 µg vitamin B12 daily is superior to 350.0 µg daily suggesting an incremental dose-response curve. It further appears that supplementation doses of 1000.0 µg vitamin B12 daily lead to an increase in B12 levels and are sufficient for the prevention of its deficiency in most RYGB patients. CONCLUSION: The review finds that oral supplementation doses of ≤ 15 µg vitamin B12 daily are inadequate for prophylaxis of vitamin B12 deficiency in adult RYGB patients but doses of 1000 µg vitamin B12 daily might be adequate. Future studies need to examine this and even higher oral doses for vitamin B12 supplementation for patients undergoing RYGB.

Impact of biliopancreatic limb length on severe protein-calorie malnutrition requiring revisional surgery after one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: One anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass (OAGB) is believed to be more malabsorptive than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A number of patients undergoing this procedure suffer from severe protein-calorie malnutrition requiring revisional surgery. The purpose of this study was to find the magnitude of severe protein-calorie malnutrition requiring revisional surgery after OAGB and any potential relationship with biliopancreatic limb (BPL) length. METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey was carried out on the surgeons performing OAGB. Data were further corroborated with the published scientific literature. RESULTS: A total of 118 surgeons from thirty countries reported experience with 47,364 OAGB procedures. Overall, 0.37% (138/36,952) of patients needed revisional surgery for malnutrition. The highest percentage of 0.51% (120/23,277) was recorded with formulae using >200 cm of BPL for some patients, and lowest rate of 0% was seen with 150 cm BPL. These data were corroborated by published scientific literature, which has a record of 50 (0.56%) patients needing surgical revision for severe malnutrition after OAGB. CONCLUSIONS: A very small number of OAGB patients need surgical correction for severe protein-calorie malnutrition. Highest rates of 0.6% were seen in the hands of surgeons using BPL length of >250 cm for some of their patients, and the lowest rate of 0% was seen with BPL of 150 cm. Future studies are needed to examine the efficacy of a standardised BPL length of 150 cm with OAGB.

Perioperative Practices Concerning One Anastomosis (Mini) Gastric Bypass: A Survey of 210 Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is currently little evidence available on the perioperative practices concerning one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) and no published consensus amongst experts. Even the published papers are not clear on these aspects. The purpose of this study was to understand various perioperative practices concerning OAGB/MGB. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey. Only surgeons performing this procedure were included. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten surgeons from 39 countries with a cumulative experience of 68,442 procedures took the survey. Surgeons described a large number of absolute (n = 55) and relative contraindications (n = 59) to this procedure in their practice. Approximately 71.0% (n = 148/208), 70.0% (n = 147/208) and 65.0% (n = 137/209), respectively, routinely perform a preoperative endoscopy, screening for Helicobacter pylori and ultrasound scan of the abdomen. A minority (35.0%, n = 74/208) of the surgeons used a constant bilio-pancreatic limb (BPL) length for all the patients with remaining preferring to tailor the limb length to the patient and approximately half (49.0%, n = 101/206) routinely approximate diaphragmatic crura in patients with hiatus hernia. Some 48.5% (n = 101/208) and 40.0% (n = 53/205) surgeons, respectively, do not recommend routine iron and calcium supplementation. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first attempt to understand a range of perioperative practices with OAGB/MGB. The findings will help in identifying areas for future research and allow consensus building amongst experts with preparation of guidelines for future practice.

The First Consensus Statement on One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) Using a Modified Delphi Approach.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of surgeons worldwide are now performing one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB). Lack of a published consensus amongst experts may be hindering progress and affecting outcomes. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus building exercise on this procedure. METHODS: A committee of 16 recognised opinion-makers in bariatric surgery with special interest in OAGB/MGB was constituted. The committee invited 101 OAGB/MGB experts from 39 countries to vote on 55 statements in areas of controversy or variation associated with this procedure. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% of the experts was considered to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved for 48 of the 55 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. There was no consensus for seven statements. Remarkably, 100.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB was an "acceptable mainstream surgical option" and 96.0% felt that it could no longer be regarded as a new or experimental procedure. Approximately 96.0 and 91.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB did not increase the risk of gastric and oesophageal cancers, respectively. Approximately 94.0% of the experts felt that the construction of the gastric pouch should start in the horizontal portion of the lesser curvature. There was a consensus of 82, 84, and 85% for routinely supplementing iron, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, respectively. CONCLUSION: OAGB/MGB experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects concerning this procedure but several areas of disagreements persist emphasising the need for more studies in the future.

Bariatric Surgery in Septuagenarians: a Comparison with <60 Year Olds.

INTRODUCTION: There is reluctance amongst many healthcare professionals to offer bariatric surgery to septuagenarians. There is only one study in the scientific literature specifically describing any experience with this group of patients and none that compares the outcomes in this group with younger patients. METHODS: We retrospectively examined our prospective database to identify all those who were >70 years old at the time of bariatric surgery. This group was then compared with a matched (for sex, body mass index, surgical procedure, and time of surgery) cohort of younger (<60 year old) patients. Information was obtained from our database, case notes, hospital electronic records, by interviewing team members, and from general practitioners. RESULTS: A total of 10 septuagenarians were compared with 10 younger patients (mean age 41 years). There were one early complication and 1 late complication in the over 70 group as opposed to no early complication and 2 late complications in the younger group. There was no mortality or early reoperation in either group. Excess weight loss of 50.4, 67.4, and 74.0% in the >70 age group at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, was no different to 51.3, 70.8, and 73.9% in <60 year olds. The effect on the co-morbidity resolution was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In carefully selected septuagenarians, bariatric surgery can be performed with safety and efficacy comparable to those <60 years old.

Understanding Objections to One Anastomosis (Mini) Gastric Bypass: A Survey of 417 Surgeons Not Performing this Procedure.

BACKGROUND: Despite published experience with thousands of patients, the uptake of One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) has been less than enthusiastic and many surgeons still harbour objections to this procedure. The purpose of this study was to understand these objections scientifically. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey®. Surgeons already performing this procedure were excluded. RESULTS: Four hundred seventeen bariatric surgeons (from 42 countries) not currently performing OAGB/MGB took the survey. There were 211/414 (50.97%) and 188/414 (45.41%) respondents who expressed concerns that it will lead to an increased risk of gastric and oesophageal cancers respectively. A total of 62/416 (14.9%) and 201/413 (n = 48.6%) surgeons respectively felt that OAGB/MGB was associated with a higher early (30-day) and late complication rate compared to the RYGB. Moreover, 7.8% (n = 32/411) and 16.26% (n = 67/412) of the respondents were concerned that OAGB/MGB carried a higher early (30-day) and late mortality, respectively, in comparison with the RYGB. There were 79/410 (19.27%) and 88/413 (21.3%) respondents who were concerned that OAGB/MGB was not an effective procedure for weight loss and co-morbidity resolution, respectively. A total of 258/411 (62.77%) respondents reported that OAGB/MGB was not approved by their national society as a mainstream bariatric procedure; 51.0% of these surgeons would start performing this procedure if it was. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons not performing OAGB/MGB cite a number of concerns for not performing this operation. This survey is the first scientific attempt to understand these objections scientifically.

Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass is Effective for Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease but not for Further Weight Loss.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate weight loss (IWL)/weight regain (WR) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), unresponsive to medical management, are two most common indications for conversion of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study reports detailed outcomes of conversion of SG to RYGB for these two indications separately. METHODS: We interrogated our prospectively maintained database to identify patients who underwent a conversion of their SG to RYGB in our unit. Outcomes in patients converted for IWL/WR and those converted for GERD were evaluated separately. RESULTS: We carried out 22 SG to RYGB in our unit between Aug 2012 and April 2015 with a mean follow-up of 16 months. Indication for conversion was GERD in 10/22 (45.5%) patients and IWL/WR in 11/22 (50.0%) patients. Patients undergoing conversion for GERD were significantly lighter (BMI 30.5) than those converted for IWL/WR (BMI 43.3) at the time of conversion. The conversion was very effective for GERD with 100% patients reporting improvement in symptoms, and 80% patients were able to stop their antacid medications. IWL/WR group achieved a further BMI drop of 2.5 points 2 years after surgery (final BMI 40.8) in comparison with 2.0 points BMI drop achieved by the GERD group (final BMI 28.5). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that conversion of SG to RYGB is effective for GERD symptoms but not for further weight loss, which was modest in both groups. Future studies need to examine the best revisional procedure for IWL/WR after SG.

Ascertaining the Place of Social Media and Technology for Bariatric Patient Support: What Do Allied Health Practitioners Think?

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing presence of patient-led social media, mobile apps and patient support technology, but little is known about the role of these in the support of bariatric surgery patients in the UK. This study aimed to seek the views of allied health professionals (AHPs) working in bariatric surgical teams to understand their current perceptions of the role of social media, mobile apps and patient-support technology within bariatric surgery in the UK. METHODS: A confidential, printed survey was distributed to the AHPs at the British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society (BOMSS) 7th Annual Scientific Conference in January 2016. An email to AHPs who did not attend the conference was sent requesting voluntary participation in the same survey online through Survey Monkey® within 2 weeks of the conference. RESULTS: A total of 95 responses were received, which was a 71% response rate (n = 134). Responses were from nurses (34%, n = 46), dietitians (32%, n = 32), psychologists (16%, n = 12) and 1 nutritionist, 1 physiotherapist, 1 patient advocate, 1 surgeon and 9 respondents did not fill in their title. CONCLUSION: The use of social media and mobile apps by patients is increasing, with AHPs concerned about misinformation; advice may differ from what is given in clinic. Technologies, e.g. telehealth and videoconferencing are not widely used in bariatric surgery in the UK. AHPs are unclear about the role of technologies for bariatric surgical patient support. Further discussions are needed to understand the potential of technology with AHPs supporting/facilitating patients as this becomes more commonplace.

Management of super-super obese patients: comparison between one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Gastric bypass can be technically challenging in super-super obese patients. Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) have been described in these patients, but direct comparisons are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the early outcomes with these two procedures in patients with body mass index (BMI) of ≥60 kg/m2 in our unit. METHODS: We identified all super-super obese patients who underwent either OAGB/MGB or RYGB from our prospectively maintained database. Information was also obtained from the case notes and from hospital computerized records. We obtained data regarding patient demographics, operative details, complications, and weight loss, in both groups, and compared them using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: This study compares our results with 19 OAGB/MGB and 47 RYGB super-super obese patients performed in our unit between October 2012 and June 2015. OAGB/MGB group patients had a significantly higher weight and body mass index. There was no mortality or major complication in either group. There were two late complications in the OAGB/MGB group compared to six in the RYGB group. One patient in the OAGB/MGB group needed conversion to RYGB for persistent reflux symptoms. OAGB/MGB patients achieved a significantly higher EWL of 70.4% at 2 years compared to 57.1% in the RYGB group. The difference between TWL of 44.4 and 33.4%, respectively, was also significant at 2 years. TWL of 43.0 and 29.3%, respectively, in OAGB/MGB and RYGB groups at 18 months was also significantly different, but the difference in EWL at 18 months did not reach significance. CONCLUSION: One anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass yields superior weight loss at 18 and 24 months in comparison with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients with BMI of ≥60 kg/m2. Findings need confirmation in larger randomized studies.

Zinc Deficiency after Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review.

Up to 50% of patients have zinc deficiency before bariatric surgery. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. It can further exacerbate zinc deficiency by reducing intake as well as absorption. The British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society, therefore, recommends that zinc level should be monitored routinely following gastric bypass. However, the American guidance does not recommend such monitoring for all RYGB patients and reserves it for patients with 'specific findings'. This review concludes that clinically relevant Zn deficiency is rare after RYGB. Routine monitoring of zinc levels is hence unnecessary for asymptomatic patients after RYGB and should be reserved for patients with skin lesions, hair loss, pica, dysgeusia, hypogonadism or erectile dysfunction in male patients, and unexplained iron deficiency anaemia.

Criteria for Inclusion of Newer Bariatric and Metabolic Procedures into the Mainstream: a Survey of 396 Bariatric Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no consensus on the criteria for inclusion of new bariatric procedures into routine clinical practice. This study canvasses bariatric surgeons in an attempt to define these criteria. METHODS: Bariatric Surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey ®. RESULTS: 396 bariatric surgeons, 337 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) members, took the survey. Five clinical studies conducted under the strict monitoring of an Institutional Review Board would satisfy most surgeons (67.7 %, n = 266). When asked regarding the number of patients in these studies, a cumulative number of 500 patients would satisfy 64.5 % (n = 255) of the surgeons. Most respondents regarded endorsement by their national society and IFSO as 'very important' or 'extremely important'. An overwhelming 74.4 % (n = 294) felt that every new procedure should undergo a randomized comparison against one of the established alternatives like Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass or Sleeve Gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of a new bariatric procedure in at least 5 adequately supervised clinical studies (four of which must be randomized comparisons with one of the existing alternatives) reporting at least 5 years results on a minimum of 500 patients would satisfy majority of bariatric surgeons for the inclusion of a new bariatric procedure into clinical practice. The findings of this survey are simply aimed at starting a discussion on this topic and cannot be used to influence the ground reality until an international consensus can be reached amongst experts.