Effects of Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy on Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the post-operative bone-related effects of bariatric surgery. However, little is known about the comparative effects of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures, namely Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the differences in areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and biochemical and hormonal markers of bone metabolism among patients undergoing RYGB and SG. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies aBMD at different sites, as well as bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BALP), 25-OH-vitamin D, calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) after RYGB and SG. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included (717 patients, 50.63% in the RYGB arm). Based on data collected at 1 year, 2 years and > 2 years, there were no significant differences in aBMD measurements at the total hip, lumbar spine, femoral neck, and the whole body with no statistical heterogeneity among different comparisons. Patients in the RYGB group showed significantly higher concentrations of BALP at 1 year (SMD = 0.52, 95%CI, 0.23-0.81, p = 0.0004) and PTH at > 2 years of follow-up (SMD = 0.68, 95%CI, 0.31-1.05, p = 0.0003) compared to the SG group. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in aBMD measurements at the hip, lumbar spine, femoral neck, and the total body following RYGB and SG procedures. However, BALP and PTH concentrations were significantly higher after RYGB surgeries compared to SG. Attention should be paid to patients undergoing RYGB to prevent the expected skeletal fragility over time.

The Impact of Drain and Reinforcement on the Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery: A Prospective Study.

Purpose We aimed to investigate the impact of reinforcement and abdominal drains on the outcome of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Methods The present study was a prospective study that included obese patients scheduled to undergo LSG. Patients were assigned to receive drain, reinforcement, or both according to the surgeon's preference and followed up for one month after surgery. The present study's primary outcome was the identification of the association between intraoperative drain/reinforcement and the incidence of postoperative complications. Results A total of 125 (20.3%) patients received intraoperative drains. The proportion of postoperative morbidity was comparable between the drain and non-drain groups (3.2% versus 1.6%; p = 0.25). Patients in the drain group had similar incidence of blood transfusion (2.4% versus 1.7% in non-drain group; p = 0.43) and postoperative leakage (0.8% versus 0.2% in non-drain group; p = 0.36). The incidences of blood transfusion (p = 0.56) and reoperation (p = 0.98) were comparable between the drain and non-drain groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the drain and non-drain groups regarding postoperative mortality and wound infection (p > 0.05). On the other hand, 440 (71.3%) patients received reinforcement. The proportion of postoperative morbidity was comparable between the reinforcement and non-reinforcement groups (1.6% versus 2.8%, p = 0.07). Patients in the reinforcement group were less likely to develop postoperative bleeding (0.7% versus 4% in the non-reinforcement group; p = 0.004), while no significant difference was detected in terms of postoperative leakage (p = 0.33) and in-hospital mortality. Conclusion In conclusion, abdominal drainage did not reduce the complications of LSG patients. Reinforcement has some role in controlling the bleeding but not leaks. Both techniques did not significantly impact the mortality rate. In the future, additional, large randomized trials are needed to examine the gastrointestinal-related quality of life.

Safe adoption of robotic colorectal surgery using structured training: early Irish experience.

Robotic surgery enhances the precision of minimally invasive surgery through improved three-dimensional views and articulated instruments. There has been increasing interest in adopting this technology to colorectal surgery and this has recently been introduced to the Irish health system. This paper gives an account of our early institutional experience with adoption of robotic colorectal surgery using structured training. Analysis was conducted of a prospectively maintained database of our first 55 consecutive robotic colorectal cases, performed by four colorectal surgeons, each at the beginning of his robotic surgery experience, using the Da Vinci Si® system and undergoing training as per the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS) programme. Overall surgical and oncological outcomes were interrogated. Fifty-five patients underwent robotic surgery between January 2017 and January 2018, M:F 34:21, median age (range) 60 (35-87) years. Thirty-three patients had colorectal cancer and 22 had benign pathologies. Eleven rectal cancer patients had neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. BMI was > 30 in 21.8% of patients and 56.4% of patients had previous abdominal surgery. Operative procedures performed were low anterior resection (n = 19), sigmoid colectomy (n = 9), right colectomy (n = 22), ventral mesh rectopexy (n = 3), abdominoperineal resection (n = 1) and reversal of Hartmann's procedure (n = 1). Median blood loss was 40 ml (range 0-400). Mean operative time (minutes) was 233 (SD 79) for right colectomy and 368 (SD 105) for anterior resection. Median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR 5-7). There was no 30-day mortality, intraoperative complications, conversion to laparoscopic or open, or anastomotic leakage. Median lymph nodes harvest was 15 in non-neoadjuvant cases (range 7-23) and 8 in neoadjuvant cases (2-14). Our early results demonstrate that colorectal robotic surgery can be adopted safely for both benign and neoplastic conditions using a structured training programme without compromising clinical or oncological outcomes. The early learning curve can be time intensive.