Gastroesophageal reflux disease following laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass: meta-analysis and systematic review of 5-year data.

To compare 5-year gastroesophageal reflux outcomes following Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) based on high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a sub-analysis of our systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of primary LVSG and LRYGB procedures in adults for 5-year post-operative complications (PROSPERO CRD42018112054). Electronic databases were searched from January 2015 to July 2021 for publications meeting inclusion criteria. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model was utilized to estimate weighted mean differences where meta-analysis was possible. Bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and GRADE. Four RCTs were included (LVSG n = 266, LRYGB n = 259). An increase in adverse GERD outcomes were observed at 5 years postoperatively in LVSG compared to LRYGB in all outcomes considered: Overall worsened GERD, including the development de novo GERD, occurred more commonly following LVSG compared to LRYGB (OR 5.34, 95% CI 1.67 to 17.05; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; (Moderate level of certainty); Reoperations to treat severe GERD (OR 7.22, 95% CI 0.82 to 63.63; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%; High level of certainty) and non-surgical management for worsened GERD (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.05; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%; Low level of certainty) was more common in LVSG patients. LVSG is associated with the development and worsening of GERD symptoms compared to LRYGB at 5 years postoperatively leading to either introduction/increased pharmacological requirement or further surgical treatment. Appropriate patient/surgical selection is critical to minimize these postoperative risks.

Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Repair (POMR) Versus Primary Suture Repair (PSR) for Prevention of Incisional Hernia (IH) After Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With many different operative techniques in use to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias (IH) following a midline laparotomy, there is no consensus among the clinicians on the efficacy and safety of any particular repair technique. This meta-analysis compares the prophylactic onlay mesh repair (POMR) and primary suture repair (PSR) for the incidence of IH. METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool. RESULTS: According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P < 0.01) with a significantly higher seroma formation rate post-surgery (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18, 0.67] P < 0.01). Furthermore, the length of hospital stay (WMD -0.78 [95% CI -1.58, 0.02] P = 0.05) was significantly shorter for PSR compared to POMR group. Comparable effects were noted for reintervention, postoperative ileus, postoperative hematoma, postoperative mortality, long-term intervention and long-term deaths between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: POMR significantly reduces the risk of IH when compared to the PSR, with an increased risk of postoperative seroma formation and longer hospital stay. However, more RCTs with standardized protocols are needed for meaningful comparisons of the two interventions, along with longer duration of follow-up to assess the impact on the occurrence of IH.

Anterior Dor or Posterior Toupet with Heller Myotomy for Achalasia Cardia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Partial fundoplication is commonly performed in conjunction with Heller Myotomy. It is, however, controversial whether anterior Dor or posterior Toupet partial fundoplication is the antireflux procedure of choice. The aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing these two procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search of PubMed, Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Google scholar and current contents for English language articles comparing Dor and Toupet fundoplication following HM between 1991 and 2018 was performed. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, length of hospital stay (LOHS), overall complication rate, quality of life (QOL), postoperative reflux, residual postoperative dysphagia, treatment failure and reoperations. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA-P statement. RESULTS: Seven studies totaling 486 patients (Dor = 245, Toupet = 241) were analyzed. LOHS was significantly shorter for Toupet repair compared to Dor procedure (WMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.99; P < 0.0001). Furthermore, patients after Toupet experienced significantly better QOL than those after Dor (WMD 1.68, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.73, P < 0.001). All other variables showed comparable effects for these two procedures. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that Toupet fundoplication is superior to Dor in terms of LOHS and QOL following HM. For other variables such as postoperative reflux, postoperative dysphagia, complication rates and treatment failure, both Dor and Toupet fundoplication produced effective and equivalent results.

Diabetes improvement and resolution following laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) procedures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is growing in both developed and developing countries and is strongly linked with the prevalence of obesity. Bariatric surgical procedures such as laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are increasingly being utilized to manage related comorbid chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB. RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.

Suture Cruroplasty Versus Prosthetic Hiatal Herniorrhaphy for Large Hiatal Hernia: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of hiatal closure for large hiatal hernia and to evaluate their strengths and flaws. METHODS: Prospective RCTs comparing suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1991 and October 2014. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration, and reoperation. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important because they influence the practical approach toward patient management. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both dichotomous and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran's Q statistic and I index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Four RCTs were analyzed totaling 406 patients (Suture = 186, Prosthesis = 220). For only 1 of the 4 outcomes, ie, reoperation rate (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.18, 11.82, P = 0.03), the pooled effect size favored prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy over suture cruroplasty. For other outcomes, comparable effect sizes were noted for both groups which included recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.92, 4.39, P = 0.07), operating time (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.16, -0.24, P = 0.19) and complication rates (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.45, 2.50, P = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our meta-analysis and its limitations, we believe that the prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy and suture cruroplasty produces comparable results for repair of large hiatal hernias. In the future, a number of issues need to be addressed to determine the clinical outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of these 2 methods for elective surgical treatment of large hiatal hernias. Presently, the use of prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia cannot be endorsed routinely and the decision for the placement of mesh needs to be individualized based on the operative findings and the surgeon's recommendation.

Laparoscopic anterior versus posterior fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Although laparoscopic posterior fundoplication (LPF) i.e., Nissen or Toupet have the proven efficacy for controlling gastro-esophageal reflux surgically, there remain problems with postoperative dysphagia and gas bloat syndrome. To decrease some of these postoperative complications, laparoscopic anterior fundoplication (LAF) was introduced. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the merits and drawbacks of LPF versus LAF for the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND REVIEW METHODS: A search of Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database identified all RCTs comparing different types of LPF and LAF published in the English Language between 1990 and 2013. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Data was extracted and analyzed on ten variables which include dysphagia score, heartburn rate, redo operative rate, operative time, overall complications, rate of conversion to open, Visick grading of satisfaction, overall satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 24-h pH scores. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials totaling 840 patients (anterior = 425, posterior = 415) were analyzed. There was a significant reduction in the odds ratio for dysphagia in the LAF group compared to the LPF group. Conversely, significant reduction in the odds ratio for heartburn was observed for LPF compared to LAF. Comparable effects were noted for both groups for other variables which include redo surgery, operating time, overall complications, conversion rate, Visick's grading, patients' satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 24-h pH scores. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis, LPF compared to LAF is associated with significant reduction in heartburn at the expense of higher dysphagia rate on a short- and medium-term basis. We therefore conclude that LPF is a better alternative to LAF for controlling GERD symptoms.

Five-year Comorbidity Outcomes in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) is now the most commonly performed bariatric procedure; however, it remains to be elucidated if it delivers equivalent long-term comorbid disease resolution outcomes similar to the longer established laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the comparative 5-year outcomes of both procedures. METHODS: Electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched for RCTs conducted in adults (>18y) that compared the 5-year- outcomes of LVSG to LRYGB and described comorbidity outcomes were included. Where data allowed, effect sizes were calculated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model. Presence of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and funnel plots, and certainty of evidence evaluated by GRADE. The study prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112054). RESULTS: Three RCTs (LVSG=254, LRYGB=255) met inclusion criteria and reported on chronic disease outcomes. Improvement and/or resolution of hypertension favoured LRYGB (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.29, 0.84; P =0.03). Trends favoring LRYGB were seen for type 2 diabetes and dysplidemia, and LVSG for sleep apnea and back/joint conditions ( P >0.05). The certainty of evidence associated with each assessed outcome ranged from low to very low, in the setting of 'some' to 'high' bias assessed as being present. CONCLUSION: Both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in providing long-term improvements in commonly experienced obesity-related comorbidities; however, the limited certainty of the evidence does not allow for strong clinical conclusions to be made at this time regarding benefit of one procedure over the other.

Late (≥5 y) Complications of Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data that compares the relative complication profiles of laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) at 5 years. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare late complications of LVSG and LRYGB. METHODS: We updated our previous systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of primary LVSG and LRYGB procedures in adults, to review late (5 years) complication outcomes (PROSPERO 112054). Electronic databases were searched from January 2015 to July 2021 for publications meeting inclusion criteria. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model was utilized to estimate weighted mean differences where meta-analysis was possible. Bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (n=531; LVSG=272, LRYGB=259). No late treatment-related mortality was reported with either procedure. A significant reduction in surgical reoperations (odds ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.82, P =0.01) and endoscopic interventions (odds ratio: 0.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.71, P =0.02) were reported at 5 years post-LVSG relative to LRYGB. Reoperations were more frequently performed for reflux management in LVSG and for internal hernia repairs in LRYGB. Complications requiring medical management were common following both procedures. Limitations included few eligible studies for inclusion, and varying definitions of medically managed complications. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB is associated with a higher proportion of surgical and endoscopic interventions at 5 years compared with LVSG. More high-quality, long-term studies are required to further elucidate both surgical and nutritional long-term outcomes post these procedures.

Meta-analysis of D1 versus D2 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and drawbacks of limited (D1) versus extended lymphadenectomy (D2) for proven gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A search of Cochrane, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index and Current Contents electronic databases identified randomized controlled trials published in the English language between 1980 and 2008 comparing the outcomes of D1 versus D2 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The 6 outcome variables analyzed included length of hospital stay; overall complication rate; anastomotic leak rate; reoperation rate; 30-day mortality rate and 5-year survival rate. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD). RESULTS: Six trials totaling 1876 patients (D1 = 946, D2 = 930) were analyzed. In 5 of the 6 outcomes the summary point estimates favored D1 over D2 group with a statistically significant reduction of (i) 6.37 days reduction in hospital stay (WMD -6.37, confidence interval [CI] -10.66, -2.08, P = 0.0036); (ii) 58% reduction in relative odds of developing postoperative complications (OR 0.42, CI 0.27, 0.66, P = 0.0002); (iii) 60% reduction in anastomotic breakdown (OR 0.40, CI 0.25, 0.63, P = 0.0001); (iv) 67% reduction in reoperation rate (OR 0.33, CI 0.15, 0.72, P = 0.006); and (v) 41% reduction in 30-day mortality rate (OR 0.59, CI 0.40, 0.85, P = 0.0054). Lastly there was no significant difference in the 5-year survival (OR 0.97, CI 0.78, 1.20, P = 0.7662) between D1 and D2 gastrectomy patients. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that D1 gastrectomy is associated with significant fewer anastomotic leaks, postoperative complication rate, reoperation rate, decreased length of hospital stay and 30-day mortality rate. Finally, the 5-year survival in D1 gastrectomy patients was similar to the D2 cohort.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: current status and future direction.

BACKGROUND: Oesophagectomy is one of the most challenging surgeries. Potential for morbidity and mortality is high. Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications and recovery times. Debate continues over whether these techniques are beneficial to morbidity and whether oncological resection is compromised. This review article will analyse the different techniques employed in minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) and critically evaluate commonly reported outcome measures from the available literature. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases were used to search English language articles published on MIO. Thirty-one articles underwent thorough analysis and the data were tabulated where appropriate. To date, only level III evidence exists. Where appropriate, comparisons are made with a meta-analysis on open oesophagectomy. RESULTS: Positive aspects of MIO include at least comparable postoperative recovery data and oncological resection measures to open surgery. Intensive care unit requirements are lower, as is duration of inpatient stay. Respiratory morbidity varies. Negative aspects include increased technical skill of the surgeon and increased equipment requirements, increased operative time and limitation with respect to local advancement of cancer. With increasing individual experience, improvements in outcome measures and the amenability of this approach to increasing neoplastic advancement has been shown. CONCLUSION: MIO has outcome measures at least as comparable to open oesophagectomy in the setting of benign and nonlocally advanced cancer. Transthoracic oesophagectomy provides superior exposure to the thoracic oesophagus compared to the transhiatal approach and is currently preferred. No multicentre randomised controlled trials exist or are likely to come into fruition. As with all surgery, careful patient selection is required for optimal results from MIO.

Low-dose fractionated radiation with induction docetaxel and cisplatin followed by concurrent cisplatin and radiation therapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: A randomized phase II-III trial.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and outcome of adding low-dose fractionated radiotherapy (LDFRT) to induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiation in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC). METHODS: A single-institute, phase II-III, prospectively controlled randomized clinical trial was performed at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre. Patients aged 18-70 years with WHO type II and III, stage III-IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2, with adequate hematological, renal, and hepatic function were eligible. In total, 108 patients were enrolled in this trial. All patients received two cycles of induction docetaxel and cisplatin (75 mg/m2 each) chemotherapy on Days 1 and 22, followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Radiation therapy consisted of 70 Gy in 33 fractions, with concurrent cisplatin 25 mg/m2 for 4 days on Days 43 and 64. Patients were randomly assigned to either adding LDFRT (0.5 Gy twice daily 6 hours apart for 2 days) to induction chemotherapy in the experimental arm (54 patients) or induction chemotherapy alone in the control arm (54 patients). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the post-induction response rates (RRs) or in toxicity between the two treatment arms. The 3-year overall survival (OS), locoregional control (LRC), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates for experimental arm and control arm were 94% versus 93% (p = .8), 84.8% versus 87.5% (p = .58), and 84.1% versus 91.6% (p = .25), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results showed no benefit from adding LDFRT to induction chemotherapy in terms of RR, OS, LRC, and DMFS.

Mentoring and surgical training: a time for reflection!

Effective mentoring has an invaluable role in the development of surgeons at various levels and is frequently perceived vital in achieving career success. Its role therefore is only second to credentialing. However, the formal role of mentoring and learner support in surgical training remains non-existent. This is reflected in a paucity of empirical data on mentoring in graduate medical education which makes meaningful research even more difficult. This article reflects on these failings, explores the reasons for apathy towards mentoring in surgical training and why the attitudes toward mentoring remain casual and lukewarm. Furthermore the authors explore the literature on this subject to identify ways and methods of remedying the situation.

Oral assessment and postgraduate medical examinations: establishing conditions for validity, reliability and fairness.

The purpose of this review was to examine the practice of oral assessment in postgraduate medical education in the context of the core assessment constructs of validity, reliability and fairness. Although oral assessment has a long history in the certification process of medical specialists and is a well-established part of such proceedings for a wide range of specialties in most countries, there remains concern regarding its use. Therefore, there has been some move away from oral assessment for postgraduate medical education in some countries. This review also highlights the complexity of oral assessment as an examination format, partly through a consideration of the six dimensions of oral assessment, and raises concerns about the validity, reliability and fairness of such an assessment procedure for the award of certification of completion of the specialist training. Supporting high quality published research into examination practices and outcomes and acting on the findings of such research is needed urgently to allay concerns about the transparency and fairness of these examinations, especially when assessing international medical graduates. The article concludes by proposing 15 conditions under which oral assessment is valid, reliable and fair.

Bariatric surgery and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

With the rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity globally, the practice of bariatric surgery is being adopted routinely to prevent the development of chronic conditions as well as some forms of cancers associated with obesity. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of those chronic conditions. Furthermore, there is accumulating data that obesity is associated with complications related to longstanding GERD such as erosive esophagitis (EE), Barrett's esophagus (BE), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Central obesity, rather than body mass index (BMI), appears to be more closely associated with these complications. It should be expected, therefore, that weight loss procedures should result in improvement in GERD symptoms and its associated complications. However, in reality the different bariatric surgical procedures have unpredictable effects on an established GERD and may even produce GERD symptoms for the very first time (de novo). In this review, we explore the literature studying the effects of bariatric surgical operations on GERD. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appears to have the most beneficial effect on GERD. On the other hand, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) are linked with long-term increased prevalence of GERD. We argue that GERD is an extremely important preoperative consideration for any patient undergoing bariatric surgery and therefore should be thoroughly investigated objectively (with 24-hour pH study and high-resolution manometry) to select the most suitable bariatric procedure for patients for their long-term success.

Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: To explore the perioperative outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled comparing MIE versus OE were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and March 2019. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials totaling 569 patients were analyzed. For MIE, there was a significantly reduction of 67% in the odds of pulmonary complications. For operating time, MIE was nonsignificantly 29 minutes longer. MIE was associated with nonsignificantly less blood loss of 443.98 mL. There was nonsignificant 60% reduction in the odds of total complications and 51% reduction in the odds of medical complications favoring MIE group. For delayed gastric emptying, there was a nonsignificant reduction of 75% in the odds ratio favoring the MIE group. For postoperative anastomotic leak, there was a nonsignificant increase of 48% in the odds ratio for MIE group. For gastric necrosis, chylothorax, reintervention and 30-day mortality, no difference was observed for both groups. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the length of hospital stay of 7.98 days and intensive care unit stay of 2.7 days favoring MIE. CONCLUSIONS: MIE seems to be superior to OE for only pulmonary complications. All the other perioperative variables were comparable however, the trend is favoring the MIE. Therefore, the routine use of MIE presently may only be justifiable in high volume esophagogastric units.

Micronutrient management following bariatric surgery: the role of the dietitian in the postoperative period.

Bariatric surgery is increasingly being utilized to manage obesity and obesity related comorbidities, but may lead to the development of micronutrient deficiencies postoperatively. The anatomical, physiological, nutritional and behavioral reasons for micronutrient vulnerabilities are reviewed, along with recommendations for routine monitoring and replacement following surgery. The role the dietitian and their contribution in the postoperative identification, prevention and management of micronutrient vulnerabilities in bariatric patients is described. Specific considerations such as the nutritional and dietetic management of pregnant and lactating women post-bariatric surgery is also discussed.

Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

In the era of evidence-based decision-making, systematic reviews (SRs) are being widely used in many health care policies, government programs, and academic disciplines. SRs are detailed and comprehensive literature review of a specific research topic with a view to identifying, appraising, and synthesizing the research findings from various relevant primary studies. A SR therefore extracts the relevant summary information from the selected studies without bias by strictly adhering to the review procedures and protocols. This paper presents all underlying concepts, stages, steps, and procedures in conducting and publishing SRs. Unlike the findings of narrative reviews, the synthesized results of any SRs are reproducible, not subjective and bias free. However, there are a number of issues related to SRs that directly impact on the quality of the end results. If the selected studies are of high quality, the criteria of the SRs are fully satisfied, and the results constitute the highest level of evidence. It is therefore essential that the end users of SRs are aware of the weaknesses and strengths of the underlying processes and techniques so that they could assess the results in the correct perspective within the context of the research question.

Five-Year Weight Loss Outcomes in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) has overtaken the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) as the most frequently performed bariatric surgical procedure. To date little has been reported on the long-term outcomes of the LVSG procedure comparative to the traditionally favoured LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the 5-year outcomes of comparing LVSG and LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare 5-year weight loss outcomes of randomized controlled trials comparing LVSG to LRYGB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) and open anti-reflux surgery (OARS) for proven gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared LARS and OARS and that were published in the English language between 1990 and 2007. A meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement. The six outcome variables analyzed were operating time, hospital stay, return to normal activity, perioperative complications, treatment failure, and requirement for further surgery. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs). RESULTS: Twelve trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 503 patients underwent OARS and 533 had LARS. For three of the six outcomes, the summary point estimates favored LARS over OARS. There was a significant reduction of 2.68 days in the duration of hospital stay for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: -2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.54 to -1.81; P<0.0001), a significant reduction of 7.75 days in return to normal activity for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: -7.75, 95% CI: -14.37 to -1.14; P=0.0216), and finally, there was a statistically significant reduction of 65% in the relative odds of complication rates for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.75; P=0.0072). The duration of operating time was significantly longer (39.02 min) in the LARS group (WMD: 39.02, 95% CI: 17.99-60.05; P=0.0003). Treatment failure rates were comparable between the two groups (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.71-2.72; P=0.3423). Despite this, the requirement for further surgery was significantly higher in the LARS group (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.00-3.22; P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this meta-analysis, the authors conclude that LARS is an effective and safe alternative to OARS for the treatment of proven GERD. LARS enables a faster convalescence and return to productive activity, with a reduced risk of complications and a similar treatment outcome, than an open approach. However, there is a significantly higher rate of re-operation (79%) in the LARS group.

Meta-analysis: a critical appraisal of the methodology, benefits and drawbacks.

Meta-analysis has become an integral part of evidence-based decision-making processes and is being increasingly used in medical and non-medical disciplines. Aggregate data or summary statistics continue to be the mainstay of meta-analysis and are used by many professional societies to support clinical practice guidelines. Meta-analyses synthesize the summary statistics from independent trials by pooling them to estimate the underlying common effect size. The results represent the highest level of evidence but only if the chosen studies are of high quality and the selection criteria are fully satisfied. It is important to address the issues of defining an explicit and relevant question, exhaustively searching for the totality of evidence, meticulous and unbiased data transfer or extraction, assessment of between study heterogeneity and the use of appropriate statistical methods for estimating summary effect measures. This article reviews the methodology, benefits and drawbacks of performing a meta-analysis.