Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the benefits of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery translate into superior surgical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish the 'best possible' outcomes for robotic bariatric surgery and compare them with the established laparoscopic benchmarks. METHODS: Benchmark cut-offs were established for consecutive primary robotic bariatric surgery patients of 17 centres across four continents (13 expert centres and 4 learning phase centres) using the 75th percentile of the median outcome values until 90 days after surgery. The benchmark patients had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnoea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI greater than 50 kg/m2, or age greater than 65 years. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients were included, who were mainly female (75.5%) and who had a mean(s.d.) age of 44.7(11.5) years and a mean(s.d.) baseline BMI of 44.6(7.7) kg/m2. In expert centres, 13.74% of the 3020 patients who underwent primary robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 5.9% of the 4078 patients who underwent primary robotic sleeve gastrectomy presented with greater than or equal to one complication within 90 postoperative days. No patient died and 1.1% of patients had adverse events related to the robotic platform. When compared with laparoscopic benchmarks, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had lower benchmark cut-offs for hospital stay, postoperative bleeding, and marginal ulceration, but the duration of the operation was 42 min longer. For most surgical outcomes, robotic sleeve gastrectomy outperformed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a comparable duration of the operation. In robotic learning phase centres, outcomes were within the established benchmarks only for low-risk robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: The newly established benchmarks suggest that robotic bariatric surgery may enhance surgical safety compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery; however, the duration of the operation for robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is longer.

Best practice approach for redo-surgeries after sleeve gastrectomy, an expert's modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common metabolic and bariatric surgical (MBS) procedure worldwide. Despite the desired effect of SG on weight loss and remission of obesity-associated medical problems, there are some concerns regarding the need to do revisional/conversional surgeries after SG. This study aims to make an algorithmic clinical approach based on an expert-modified Delphi consensus regarding redo-surgeries after SG, to give bariatric and metabolic surgeons a guideline that might help for the best clinical decision. METHODS: Forty-six recognized bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 25 different countries participated in this Delphi consensus study in two rounds to develop a consensus on redo-surgeries after SG. An agreement/disagreement ≥ 70.0% on statements was considered to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 62 of 72 statements and experts did not achieve consensus on 10 statements after two rounds of online voting. Most of the experts believed that multi-disciplinary team evaluation should be done in all redo-procedures after SG and there should be at least 12 months of medical and supportive management before performing redo-surgeries after SG for insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, experts agreed that in case of symptomatic GERD in the presence of adequate weight loss, medical treatment for at least 1 to 2 years is an acceptable option and agreed that Roux-en Y gastric bypass is an appropriate option in this situation. There was disagreement consensus on efficacy of omentopexy in rotation and efficacy of fundoplication in the presence of a dilated fundus and GERD. CONCLUSION: Redo-surgeries after SG is still an important issue among bariatric and metabolic surgeons. The proper time and procedure selection for redo-surgery need careful considerations. Although multi-disciplinary team evaluation plays a key role to evaluate best options in these situations, an algorithmic clinical approach based on the expert's consensus as a guideline can help for the best clinical decision-making.

Bariatric and metabolic surgery in patients with low body mass index: an online survey of 543 bariatric and metabolic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) in patients with low body mass index patients is a topic of debate. This study aimed to address all aspects of controversies in these patients by using a worldwide survey. METHODS: An online 35-item questionnaire survey based on existing controversies surrounding MBS in class 1 obesity was created by 17 bariatric surgeons from 10 different countries. Responses were collected and analysed by authors. RESULTS: A total of 543 bariatric surgeons from 65 countries participated in this survey. 52.29% of participants agreed with the statement that MBS should be offered to class-1 obese patients without any obesity related comorbidities. Most of the respondents (68.43%) believed that MBS surgery should not be offered to patients under the age of 18 with class I obesity. 81.01% of respondents agreed with the statement that surgical interventions should be considered after failure of non-surgical treatments. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated worldwide variations in metabolic/bariatric surgery in patients with class 1 obesity. Precise analysis of these results is useful for identifying different aspects for future research and consensus building.

Innovative Bariatric Procedures and Ethics in Bariatric Surgery: the IFSO Position Statement.

With the rise in obesity and bariatric procedures worldwide, there has been a surge in new and innovative procedures that has been increasingly offered to patients. In this position statement, IFSO highlights the importance of surgical ethics in innovation and when offering new procedures. Furthermore, the task force reviewed the current literature to describe which procedures can be offered as mainstream outside research protocols versus those that are still investigational and need further data.

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 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.

Effect of reversible intermittent intra-abdominal vagal nerve blockade on morbid obesity: the ReCharge randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although conventional bariatric surgery results in weight loss, it does so with potential short-term and long-term morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intermittent, reversible vagal nerve blockade therapy for obesity treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial involving 239 participants who had a body mass index of 40 to 45 or 35 to 40 and 1 or more obesity-related condition was conducted at 10 sites in the United States and Australia between May and December 2011. The 12-month blinded portion of the 5-year study was completed in January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred sixty-two patients received an active vagal nerve block device and 77 received a sham device. All participants received weight management education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The coprimary efficacy objectives were to determine whether the vagal nerve block was superior in mean percentage excess weight loss to sham by a 10-point margin with at least 55% of patients in the vagal block group achieving a 20% loss and 45% achieving a 25% loss. The primary safety objective was to determine whether the rate of serious adverse events related to device, procedure, or therapy in the vagal block group was less than 15%. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat analysis, the vagal nerve block group had a mean 24.4% excess weight loss (9.2% of their initial body weight loss) vs 15.9% excess weight loss (6.0% initial body weight loss) in the sham group. The mean difference in the percentage of the excess weight loss between groups was 8.5 percentage points (95% CI, 3.1-13.9), which did not meet the 10-point target (P = .71), although weight loss was statistically greater in the vagal nerve block group (P = .002 for treatment difference in a post hoc analysis). At 12 months, 52% of patients in the vagal nerve block group achieved 20% or more excess weight loss and 38% achieved 25% or more excess weight loss vs 32% in the sham group who achieved 20% or more loss and 23% who achieved 25% or more loss. The device, procedure, or therapy-related serious adverse event rate in the vagal nerve block group was 3.7% (95% CI, 1.4%-7.9%), significantly lower than the 15% goal. The adverse events more frequent in the vagal nerve block group were heartburn or dyspepsia and abdominal pain attributed to therapy; all were reported as mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with morbid obesity, the use of vagal nerve block therapy compared with a sham control device did not meet either of the prespecified coprimary efficacy objectives, although weight loss in the vagal block group was statistically greater than in the sham device group. The treatment was well tolerated, having met the primary safety objective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01327976.

Fecundity and Nutrient Deficiency Following Obesity Treatment: Implications for Young-Onset Cancer Risk in Offspring.

Young-onset adult cancers have been an emerging problem over the last three decades in Australia [...].

IFSO Worldwide Survey 2020-2021: Current Trends for Bariatric and Metabolic Procedures.

PURPOSE: This IFSO survey aims to describe the current trends of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) reporting on the number and types of surgical and endoluminal procedures performed in 2020 and 2021, in the world and within each IFSO chapter. METHODS: All national societies belonging to IFSO were asked to complete the survey form. The number and types of procedures performed (surgical and endoluminal interventions) from 2020 to 2021 were documented. A special section focused on the impact of COVID-19, the existence of national protocols for MBS, the use of telemedicine, and any mortality related to MBS. A trend analysis of the data, both worldwide and within each IFSO chapter, was also performed for the period between 2018 and 2021. RESULTS: Fifty-seven of the 74 (77%) IFSO national societies submitted the survey. Twenty-four of the 57 (42.1%) reported data from their national registries. The total number of surgical and endoluminal procedures performed in 2020 was 507,806 and in 2021 was 598,834. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remained the most performed bariatric procedure. Thirty national societies (52%) had regional protocols for MBS during COVID-19, 61.4% supported the use of telemedicine, and only 47.3% collected data on mortality after MBS in 2020. These percentages did not significantly change in 2021 (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The number of MBS markedly decreased worldwide during 2020. Although there was a positive trend in 2021, it did not reach the values obtained before the COVID-19 pandemic. SG continued to be the most performed operation. Adjustable gastric banding (AGB) continues to decrease worldwide.

IFSO Consensus on Definitions and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity Management-an International Delphi Study.

INTRODUCTION: This survey of international experts in obesity management was conducted to achieve consensus on standardized definitions and to identify areas of consensus and non-consensus in metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) to assist in an algorithm of clinical practice guidelines for the management of obesity. METHODS: A three-round Delphi survey with 136 statements was conducted by 43 experts in obesity management comprising 26 bariatric surgeons, 4 endoscopists, 8 endocrinologists, 2 nutritionists, 2 counsellors, an internist, and a pediatrician spanning six continents over a 2-day meeting in Hamburg, Germany. To reduce bias, voting was unanimous, and the statements were neither favorable nor unfavorable to the issue voted or evenly balanced between favorable and unfavorable. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% inter-voter agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all 15 essential definitional and reporting statements, including initial suboptimal clinical response, baseline weight, recurrent weight gain, conversion, and revision surgery. Consensus was reached on 95/121 statements on the type of surgical procedures favoring Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty. Moderate consensus was reached for sleeve gastrectomy single-anastomosis duodenoileostomy and none on the role of intra-gastric balloons. Consensus was reached for MBS in patients > 65 and < 18 years old, with a BMI > 50 kg/m2, and with various obesity-related complications such as type 2 diabetes, liver, and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of 43 multi-disciplinary experts, consensus was reached on standardized definitions and reporting standards applicable to the whole medical community. An algorithm for treating patients with obesity was explored utilizing a thoughtful multimodal approach.

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.

Therapeutic Options for Recurrence of Weight and Obesity Related Complications After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: An IFSO Position Statement.

Obesity is a chronic disease that may require multiple interventions and escalation of therapy throughout the years. Until recently, no universal definition existed for recurrent weight gain and insufficient weight loss. Standardization of reporting is key so outcomes can be compared and data can be pooled. The recent IFSO consensus provided standard terminology and definitions that will likely resolve this in the future, and publishers will need to enforce for authors to use these definitions. This current IFSO position statement provides guidance for the management of recurrent weight gain after bariatric surgery.

Technical Variations and Considerations around OAGB in IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC Chapters, an Expert Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the technical variations of one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) among IFSO-APC and MENAC experts. BACKGROUND: The multitude of technical variations and patient selection challenges among metabolic and bariatric surgeons worldwide necessitates a heightened awareness of these issues. Understanding different perspectives and viewpoints can empower surgeons performing OAGB to adapt their techniques, leading to improved outcomes and reduced complications. METHODS: The scientific team of IFSO-APC, consisting of skilled bariatric and metabolic surgeons specializing in OAGB, conducted a confidential online survey. The survey aimed to assess technical variations and considerations related to OAGB within the IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC chapters. A total of 85 OAGB experts participated in the survey, providing their responses through a 35-question online format. The survey took place from January 1, 2024, to February 15, 2024. RESULTS: Most experts do not perform OAGB for children and adolescents younger than 18 years. Most experts create the gastric pouch over a 36-40-F bougie and prefer to create a gastrojejunostomy, at the posterior wall of the gastric pouch. An anti-reflux suture during OAGB is performed in all patients by 51.8% of experts. Most experts set a common limb length of > 4 m in revisional and conversional OAGBs to prevent nutritional complications. CONCLUSION: The ongoing debate among metabolic and bariatric surgeons regarding the technical variations and patient selection in OAGB remains a significant point of discussion. This survey demonstrated the variations in technical aspects and patient selection for OAGB among MBS surgeons in the IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC chapters. Standardizing the OAGB technique is crucial to ensure optimal safety and efficacy in this procedure.

Resmetirom and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis: Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Management from Global Healthcare Professionals.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The approval of resmetirom brings great hope to patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH). The purpose of this review is to explore its impact on the global health environment. The implementation of multidisciplinary management MASH is proposed. RECENT FINDINGS: Resmetirom has benefits in the treatment of MASH, and its safety and effectiveness have been studied. The adverse events (AEs) need to be noticed. To improve patient outcomes, a multimodal approach with medication such as resmetirom, combined with metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) and lifestyle interventions can be conducted. MASH, a liver disease linked with obesity, is a challenging global healthcare burden compounded by the absence of any approved pharmacotherapy. The recent conditional approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States of resmetirom, an oral, liver-directed, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist, marks a significant milestone, offering a treatment option for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and who have moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. This narrative review discusses the efficacy and safety of resmetirom and its role in the therapeutic landscape of MASH treatment. Despite the promising hepatoprotective effect of resmetirom on histological liver endpoints, its use need further research, particularly regarding ethnic differences, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, production scalability, social acceptance and accessibility. In addition, integrating resmetirom with other multidisciplinary therapeutic approaches, including lifestyle changes and MBS, might further improve clinical liver-related and cardiometabolic outcomes of individuals with MASH. This review highlights the importance of a comprehensive treatment strategy, supporting continued innovation and collaborative research to refine treatment guidelines and consensus for managing MASH, thereby improving clinical patient outcomes in the growing global epidemic of MASH. Studies done to date have been relatively short and ongoing, the course of the disease is highly variable, the conditions of various patients vary, and given this complex clinical phenotype, it may take many years of clinical trials to show long-term benefits.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2): a Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the preferred method to achieve significant weight loss in patients with Obesity Class V (BMI > 60 kg/m2). However, there is no consensus regarding the best procedure(s) for this population. Additionally, these patients will likely have a higher risk of complications and mortality. The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus among a global panel of expert bariatric surgeons using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A total of 36 recognized opinion-makers and highly experienced metabolic and bariatric surgeons participated in the present Delphi consensus. 81 statements on preoperative management, selection of the procedure, perioperative management, weight loss parameters, follow-up, and metabolic outcomes were voted on in two rounds. A consensus was considered reached when an agreement of ≥ 70% of experts' votes was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 54 out of 81 statements reached consensus. Remarkably, more than 90% of the experts agreed that patients should be notified of the greater risk of complications, the possibility of modifications to the surgical procedure, and the early start of chemical thromboprophylaxis. Regarding the choice of the procedure, SADI-S, RYGB, and OAGB were the top 3 preferred operations. However, no consensus was reached on the limb length in these operations. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first attempt to reach consensus on the choice of procedures as well as perioperative management in patients with obesity class V. Although overall consensus was reached in different areas, more research is needed to better serve this high-risk population.

Scientific evidence for the updated guidelines on indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery (IFSO/ASMBS).

The 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) updated the indications for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), replacing the previous guidelines established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over 30 years ago. The evidence supporting these updated guidelines has been strengthened to assist metabolic and bariatric surgeons, nutritionists, and other members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), as well as patients. This study aims to assess the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations compared to the previously published criteria.

Scientific Evidence for the Updated Guidelines on Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (IFSO/ASMBS).

The 2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) updated the indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS), replacing the previous guidelines established by the NIH over 30 years ago. The evidence supporting these updated guidelines has been strengthened to assist metabolic and bariatric surgeons, nutritionists, and other members of multidisciplinary teams, as well as patients. This study aims to assess the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations compared to the previously published criteria.

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.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgeon Criteria-An International Experts' Consensus.

PURPOSE: With the global epidemic of obesity, the importance of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is greater than ever before. Performing these surgeries requires academic training and the completion of a dedicated fellowship training program. This study aimed to develop guidelines based on expert consensus using a modified Delphi method to create the criteria for metabolic and bariatric surgeons that must be mastered before obtaining privileges to perform MBS. METHODS: Eighty-nine recognized MBS surgeons from 42 countries participated in the Modified Delphi consensus to vote on 30 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 29 out of 30 statements. Most experts agreed that before getting privileges to perform MBS, surgeons must hold a general surgery degree and complete or have completed a dedicated fellowship training program. The experts agreed that the learning curves for the various operative procedures are approximately 25-50 operations for the LSG, 50-75 for the OAGB, and 75-100 for the RYGB. 93.1% of experts agreed that MBS surgeons should diligently record patients' data in their National or Global database. CONCLUSION: MBS surgeons should have a degree in general surgery and have been enrolled in a dedicated fellowship training program with a structured curriculum. The learning curve of MBS procedures is procedure dependent. MBS surgeons must demonstrate proficiency in managing postoperative complications, collaborate within a multidisciplinary team, commit to a minimum 2-year patient follow-up, and actively engage in national and international MBS societies.

Revision/Conversion Surgeries After One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-An Experts' Modified Delphi Consensus.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of evidence for treatment of some conditions including complication management, suboptimal initial weight loss, recurrent weight gain, or worsening of a significant obesity complication after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study was designed to respond to the existing lack of agreement and to provide a valuable resource for clinicians by employing an expert-modified Delphi consensus method. METHODS: Forty-eight recognized bariatric surgeons from 28 countries participated in the modified Delphi consensus to vote on 64 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved for 46 statements. For recurrent weight gain or worsening of a significant obesity complication after OAGB, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus that elongation of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) is an acceptable option and the total bowel length measurement is mandatory during BPL elongation to preserve at least 300-400 cm of common channel limb length to avoid nutritional deficiencies. Also, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus on conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with or without pouch downsizing as an acceptable option for the treatment of persistent bile reflux after OAGB and recommend detecting and repairing any size of hiatal hernia during conversion to RYGB. CONCLUSION: While the experts reached a consensus on several aspects regarding revision/conversion surgeries after OAGB, there are still lingering areas of disagreement. This highlights the importance of conducting further studies in the future to address these unresolved issues.