Analysis of the effect of staple line reinforcement on leaking and bleeding after sleeve gastrectomy from the UK National Bariatric Surgery Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is currently the most frequently performed procedure for obesity worldwide. Staple line reinforcement (SLR) has been suggested as a strategy to reduce the risk of staple line leak or bleeding; however, its use for SG in the United Kingdom (UK) is unknown. This study examined the effect of SLR on the development of postoperative complications from SG using a large national dataset from the UK. METHODS: Patients undergoing either primary or revision SG over 10 years from Jan 2012 to Dec 2021 were identified by the National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Comparative and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to determine the effect of SLR on staple line leak and bleeding. RESULTS: During this time, 14,231 patients underwent SG for whom there were complete data. Of these, 76.5% were female and the median age was 46 years (IQR: 36-53). The rate of surgical complications was 2.3% (n = 219/14,231). The incidence of bleeding was 1.3% (n = 179/14,231) and leak was 1.0% (n = 140/14,231). Over time, the use of SLR of any variety declined significantly from 99.7% in 2012 to 57.3% in 2021 (p < 0.001). Multivariable (adjusted) regression analysis demonstrated that neither the use of nor the type of reinforcement had any effect on the rate of bleeding or leaking. CONCLUSION: SLR for SG has declined in the UK since 2012. There were no differences in staple line leak or bleed with or without reinforcement.

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.

Evaluation of 30-day morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter prospective observational Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (IAGES) Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the standard of care for benign gallstone disease. There are no robust Indian data on the 30-day morbidity and mortality of this procedure. A prospective multicentre observational study was conducted by the Indian Association of Gastro-Intestinal Endo Surgeons (IAGES) to assess the 30-day morbidity and mortality of LC in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participating surgeons were invited to submit data on all consecutive LCs for benign diseases performed between 09/12/2020 and 08/03/2021 in adults. Primary outcome measures were 30-day morbidity and mortality. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables significantly associated with primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 293 surgeons from 125 centres submitted data on 6666 patients. Of these, 71.7% (n = 4780) were elective. A total LC was carried out in 95% (n = 6331). Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy was performed in 1.9% (n = 126) and the procedure were converted to open in 1.4% of patients. Bile duct injury was seen in 0.3% (n = 20). Overall, 30-day morbidity and mortality were 11.1% (n = 743) and 0.2% (n = 14), respectively. Nature of practice, ischemic heart disease, emergency surgery, postoperative intensive care, and postoperative hospital stay were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Age, weight, body mass index, duration of symptoms, nature of the practice, history of Coronavirus Disease-2019, previous major abdominal surgery, acute cholecystitis, use of electrosurgical or ultrasonic or bipolar energy for cystic artery control; use of polymer clips for cystic duct control; conversion to open surgery, subtotal cholecystectomy, simultaneous common bile duct exploration, mucocele, gangrenous gall bladder, dense adhesions, intraoperative cholangiogram, and use of drain were independently associated with 30-day morbidity. CONCLUSION: LC has 30-day morbidity of 11.1%, 30-day mortality of 0.2%, conversion to open rate of 1.4%, and bile duct injury rate of 0.3% in India.

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.

The First Modified Delphi Consensus-Building Exercise on Surgical Ward Rounds in the United Kingdom National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: The ward round is an integral part of everyday surgical practice. It is a complex clinical activity that requires both sound clinical management and communication skills. This study reports the results of a consensus-building exercise on the common aspects of the general surgical ward rounds. METHODS: The consensus-building committee involving a range of stakeholders from 16 United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service trusts took part in this consensus exercise. The members discussed and suggested a series of statements concerning surgical ward round. An agreement of ≥ 70% among members was regarded as a consensus. RESULTS: Thirty-two members voted on 60 statements. There was a consensus on fifty-nine statements after the first round of voting, and one statement was modified before it reached consensus in the second round. The statements covered nine sections: a preparation phase, team allocation, multidisciplinary approach to the ward round, structure of the round, teaching considerations, confidentiality and privacy, documentation, post-round arrangements, and weekend round. There was a consensus on spending time to prepare for the round, a consultant-led round, involvement of the nursing staff, an MDT round at the beginning and end of the week, a minimum of 5 min allocated to each patient, utilisation of a round checklist, afternoon virtual round, and a clear handover and plan for the weekend. CONCLUSION: The consensus committee achieved agreement on several aspects concerning the surgical ward rounds in the UK NHS. This should help improve the care of surgical patients in the UK.

30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of the GENEVA data.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data comparing 30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study aimed to compare the 30-day safety of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis utilised data collected from the GENEVA study which was a multicentre observational cohort study of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in 185 centres across 42 countries between 01/05/2022 and 31/10/2020 during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 30-day complications were categorised according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients receiving SG, RYGB, or OAGB were propensity-matched according to baseline characteristics and 30-day complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 6770 patients (SG 3983; OAGB 702; RYGB 2085) were included in this analysis. Prior to matching, RYGB was associated with highest 30-day complication rate (SG 5.8%; OAGB 7.5%; RYGB 8.0% (p = 0.006)). On multivariate regression modelling, Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia were associated with increased 30-day complications. Being a non-smoker was associated with reduced complication rates. When compared to SG as a reference category, RYGB, but not OAGB, was associated with an increased rate of 30-day complications. A total of 702 pairs of SG and OAGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 7.3% (n = 51) as compared to 7.5% (n = 53) in the OAGB group (p = 0.68). Similarly, 2085 pairs of SG and RYGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 6.1% (n = 127) as compared to 7.9% (n = 166) in the RYGB group (p = 0.09). And, 702 pairs of OAGB and RYGB were matched. The complication rate in both groups was the same at 7.5 % (n = 53; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This global study found no significant difference in the 30-day morbidity and mortality of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts.

Global variations in preoperative practices concerning patients seeking primary bariatric and metabolic surgery (PACT Study): A survey of 634 bariatric healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery (BMS) is a popular weight loss intervention worldwide, yet few scientific studies have examined variations in preoperative practices globally. This study aimed to capture global variations in preoperative practices concerning patients planned for BMS. METHODS: A 41-item questionnaire-based survey was designed and the survey link was freely distributed on social and scientific media platforms, email groups and circulated through personal connections of authors. The survey included eight parts: basic information; criteria for BMS; preoperative nutritional screening; preoperative weight loss; preoperative diets for liver size reduction; preoperative glycemic control; other laboratory investigations and preparations; decision making, education, and consents. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data and graphs were used for representation where applicable. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-four bariatric healthcare professionals from 76 countries/regions completed the survey. Of these, n = 310 (48.9%) were from public hospitals, n = 466 (73.5%) were surgeons, and the rest were multidisciplinary professionals. More than half of respondents reported using local society/association guidelines in their practice (n = 310, 61.6%). The great majority of respondents routinely recommend nutritional screening preoperatively (n = 385, 77.5%), mandatory preoperative diets for liver size reduction (n = 220, 53.1%), routine screening for T2DM (n = 371, 90.7%), and mandate a glycemic control target before BMS in patients with T2DM (n = 203, 55.6%). However, less than half (n = 183, 43.9%) recommend mandatory preoperative weight loss to all patients. Most respondents (n = 296, 77.1%) recommend psychological intervention before surgery for patients diagnosed with psychological conditions. Variations were also identified in laboratory investigations and optimisation; and in the aspects of decision making, education and consent. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified significant global variations in preoperative practices concerning patients seeking primary BMS. Our findings could facilitate future research for the determination of best practice in these areas of variations, and consensus-building to guide clinical practice while we wait for that evidence to emerge.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a review of pathophysiology, clinical management and effects of weight loss.

Given the increasing prevalence of diabetes and obesity worldwide, the deleterious effects of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are becoming a growing challenge for public health. NAFLD is the most common chronic liver disease in the Western world. NAFLD is closely associated with metabolic disorders, including central obesity, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, hyperglycaemia and persistent abnormalities of liver function tests.In general NAFLD is a common denominer for a broad spectrum of damage to the liver, which can be due to hepatocyte injury, inflammatory processes and fibrosis. This is normally seen on liver biopsy and can range from milder forms (steatosis) to the more severe forms (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver failure). In these patients, advanced fibrosis is the major predictor of morbidity and liver-related mortality, and an accurate diagnosis of NASH and NAFLD is mandatory. Histologic evaluation with liver biopsy remains the gold standard to diagnose NAFLD. Diagnosis of NAFLD is defined as presence of hepatic steatosis, ballooning and lobular inflammation with or without fibrosis. Weight loss, dietary modification, and the treatment of underlying metabolic syndrome remain the mainstays of therapy once the diagnosis is established. Dietary recommendations and lifestyle interventions, weight loss, and the treatment of underlying metabolic syndrome remain the mainstays of therapy once the diagnosis is established with promising results but are difficult to maintain. Pioglitazone and vitamin E are recommended by guidelines in selected patients. This review gives an overview of NAFLD and its treatment options.

The many faces of diabetes. Is there a need for re-classification? A narrative review.

The alarming rise in the worldwide prevalence of obesity and associated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have reached epidemic portions. Diabetes in its many forms and T2DM have different physiological backgrounds and are difficult to classify. Bariatric surgery (BS) is considered the most effective treatment for obesity in terms of weight loss and comorbidity resolution, improves diabetes, and has been proven superior to medical management for the treatment of diabetes. The term metabolic surgery (MS) describes bariatric surgical procedures used primarily to treat T2DM and related metabolic conditions. MS is the most effective means of obtaining substantial and durable weight loss in individuals with obesity. Originally, BS was used as an alternative weight-loss therapy for patients with severe obesity, but clinical data revealed its metabolic benefits in patients with T2DM. MS is more effective than lifestyle or medical management in achieving glycaemic control, sustained weight loss, and reducing diabetes comorbidities. New guidelines for T2DM expand the use of MS to patients with a lower body mass index.Evidence has shown that endocrine changes resulting from BS translate into metabolic benefits that improve the comorbid conditions associated with obesity, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and T2DM. Other changes include bacterial flora rearrangement, bile acids secretion, and adipose tissue effect.This review aims to examine the physiological mechanisms in diabetes, risks for complications, the effects of bariatric and metabolic surgery and will shed light on whether diabetes should be reclassified.

Solve study: a study to capture global variations in practices concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of published data on variations in practices concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The purpose of this study was to capture variations in practices on a range of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative aspects of this procedure. METHODS: A 45-item electronic survey was designed to capture global variations in practices concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and disseminated through professional surgical and training organisations and social media. RESULTS: 638 surgeons from 70 countries completed the survey. Pre-operatively only 5.6% routinely perform an endoscopy to rule out peptic ulcer disease. In the presence of preoperatively diagnosed common bile duct (CBD) stones, 85.4% (n = 545) of the surgeons would recommend an Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) before surgery, while only 10.8% (n = 69) of the surgeons would perform a CBD exploration with cholecystectomy. In patients presenting with gallstone pancreatitis, 61.2% (n = 389) of the surgeons perform cholecystectomy during the same admission once pancreatitis has settled down. Approximately, 57% (n = 363) would always administer prophylactic antibiotics and 70% (n = 444) do not routinely use pharmacological DVT prophylaxis preoperatively. Open juxta umbilical is the preferred method of pneumoperitoneum for most patients used by 64.6% of surgeons (n = 410) but in patients with advanced obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m2, only 42% (n = 268) would use this technique and only 32% (n = 203) would use this technique if the patient has had a previous laparotomy. Most surgeons (57.7%; n = 369) prefer blunt ports. Liga clips and Hem-o-loks® were used by 66% (n = 419) and 30% (n = 186) surgeons respectively for controlling cystic duct and (n = 477) 75% and (n = 125) 20% respectively for controlling cystic artery. Almost all (97.4%) surgeons felt it was important or very important to remove stones from Hartmann's pouch if the surgeon is unable to perform a total cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights significant variations in practices concerning various aspects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The first survey addressing patients with BMI over 50: a survey of 789 bariatric surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 is a challenging task. The aim of this study was to address main issues regarding perioperative management of these patients by using a worldwide survey. METHODS: An online 48-item questionnaire-based survey on perioperative management of patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2 was ideated by 15 bariatric surgeons from 9 different countries. The questionnaire was emailed to all members of the International Federation of Surgery for Obesity (IFSO). Responses were collected and analyzed by the authors. RESULTS: 789 bariatric surgeons from 73 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (89.9%) believed that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) on patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 should only be performed by expert bariatric surgeons. Half of the participants (55.3%) believed that weight loss must be encouraged before surgery and 42.6% of surgeons recommended an excess weight loss of at least 10%. However, only 3.6% of surgeons recommended the insertion of an Intragastric Balloon as bridge therapy before surgery. Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) was considered the best choice for patients younger than 18 or older than 65 years old. SG and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass were the most common procedures for individuals between 18 and 65 years. Half of the surgeons believed that a 2-stage approach should be offered to patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, with SG being the first step. Postoperative thromboprophylaxis was recommended for 2 and 4 weeks by 37.8% and 37.7% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated worldwide variations in bariatric surgery practice regarding patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2. Careful analysis of these results is useful for identifying several areas for future research and consensus building.

Does powered stapler improve the mechanical integrity of gastrojejunal anastomosis compared to the current techniques? Experimental study in ex vivo porcine models.

BACKGROUND: Numerous techniques have been described for fashioning gastrojejunostomy (GJ) in a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. These include hand-sewn anastomosis (HSA) and mechanical anastomosis; the latter includes circular stapled anastomosis (CSA) or manual linear stapled anastomosis (mLSA). More recently, this list also includes powered linear stapled anastomosis (pLSA). The aim of this study was to analyse if addition of power to stapling would improve the integrity of GJ anastomosis in ex vivo porcine models. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The present study included five groups - mLSA1, mLSA2, HSA, CSA, and pLSA. Sequential infusions of methylene blue-coloured saline were performed into the GJ models. Pressure readings were recorded till the point of leak denoting burst pressure (BP). Total volume (TV) and site of leak were recorded. Compliance was calculated from the equation ΔTV/ΔBP. RESULTS: Differences in pouch and intestinal thickness were not statistically significant between the models. BPs were higher in the mechanical anastomosis groups, i.e., pLSA 21 ± 9.85 mmHg, CSA 20.33 ± 5.78 mmHg, mLSA1 18 ± 4.69 mmHg and mLSA2 11 ± 2.94 mmHg, when compared to HSA 9.67 ± 3.79 mm Hg, which was found to be statistically significant (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.03). Overall, the highest BP was recorded for powered stapling followed by circular, and then, linear stapling; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.86). There was no statistically significant difference among groups with regard to compliance (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.082). CONCLUSION: Despite the limited number of samples, mechanical anastomosis showed a statistically higher BP when compared to HSA, suggesting better anastomotic integrity. The pLSA group showed promising results with the highest BP recorded among all groups; however, this did not reach statistical significance.

Effect of one anastomosis gastric bypass on liver function tests: A comparison between 150 cm and 200 cm biliopancreatic limbs.

CONTEXT: Some studies have shown that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) results in the derangement of liver function tests (LFTs). We wanted to study this in our patients. AIMS: The aims are to study the effect of OAGB on LFTs and to compare the effect of a biliopancreatic limb (BPL) of 150 cm (OAGB-150) to a BPL of 200 cm (OAGB-200). SETTINGS AND DESIGN: The study was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a university hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information was obtained from our prospectively maintained database and hospital's computerised records. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A P < 0.05 was regarded statistically significant; however, given the number of variables examined, findings should be regarded as exploratory. RESULTS: A total of 405 patients underwent an OAGB-200 (n = 234) or OAGB-150 (n = 171) in our unit between October 2012 and July 2018. There were significant improvements in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) levels at 1 and 2 years after OAGB-200 and significant worsening in the levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and albumin at 1 and 2 years. There was a significant improvement in GGT levels at 1 and 2 years after OAGB-150 and in alanine transaminase levels at 1 year. There was a significant worsening in ALP and albumin levels at both follow-up points in this group. OAGB-150 group had a significantly lower bilirubin level at 1 year and significantly fewer abnormal ALP values at 2 years in comparison with OAGB-200 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study demonstrates the overall safety of OAGB with regard to its effect on LFTs, with no remarkable difference between OAGB-150 and OAGB-200.

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.

Factors that make Bariatric Surgery Technically Challenging: A Survey of 370 Bariatric Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is no published data on the factors bariatric surgeons think make bariatric surgery challenging. This study aimed to identify factors that bariatric surgeons feel and increase the technical complexity of bariatric surgery. METHODS: Bariatric surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on Survey Monkey®. An Average Weighted Score was calculated for each factor. A score of < 1.0 meant that the factor was perceived to make surgery technically easier. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 59 countries completed the survey. The top 10 factors that our respondents felt were most important for determining the technical difficulty of a procedure were inappropriate trocar placement (AWS 3.44), BMI above 60 (AWS 3.41), open bariatric surgery (AWS 3.26), less experienced bariatric anesthetist (AWS 3.18), liver cirrhosis (AWS 3), large liver (AWS 2.99), less experienced bariatric assistant (AWS 2.97), lower surgeon total bariatric surgery volume (AWS 2.95), lower surgeon specific procedure volume (AWS 2.85) and previous laparotomy (AWS 2.83), respectively. Respondents also felt that the younger patients (AWS 0.78), dedicated operating team (AWS 0.67), BMI less than 35 (AWS 0.54), and French position (AWS 0.45) actually make the surgery easier. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first attempt to understand the factors which make bariatric surgery more difficult. Knowing the factors made the operation more challenging, led to better scheduling the potentially difficult patients to reduce the complications.

Identification of Common Themes from Never Events Data Published by NHS England.

BACKGROUND: Never events (NEs) are serious clinical incidents that cause potentially avoidable harm and impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems. The purpose of this study was to identify common never events. METHODS: We analysed the NHS England NE data from 2012 to 2020 to identify common never events category and themes. RESULTS: We identified 51 common NE themes in 4 main categories out of a total of 3247 NE reported during this period. Wrong-site surgery was the most common category (n = 1307;40.25%) followed by retained foreign objects (n = 901;27.75%); wrong implant or prosthesis (n = 425;13.09%); and non-surgical/infrequent ones (n = 614; 18.9%). Wrong-side (laterality) and wrong tooth removal were the most common wrong-site NE accounting for 300 (22.95%) and 263 (20.12%) incidents, respectively. There were 197 (15%) wrong-site blocks, 125 (9.56%) wrong procedures, and 96 (7.3%) wrong skin lesions excised. Vaginal swabs were the most commonly retained items (276;30.63%) followed by surgical swabs (164;18.20%) and guidewires (152;16.87%). There were 67 (7.44%) incidents of retained parts of instruments and 48 (5.33%) retained instruments. Wrong intraocular lenses (165; 38.82%) were the most common wrong implants followed by wrong hip prostheses (n = 94; 22.11%) and wrong knees (n = 91; 21.41%). Non-surgical events accounted for 18.9% (n = 614) of the total incidents. Misplaced naso-or oro-gastric tubes (n = 178;29%) and wrong-route administration of medications were the most common events in this category (n = 111;18%), followed by unintentional connection of a patient requiring oxygen to an air flow-meter (n = 93; 15%). CONCLUSION: This paper identifies common NE categories and themes. Awareness of these might help reduce their incidence.

Common general surgical never events: analysis of NHS England never event data.

BACKGROUND: There is little available data on common general surgical never events (NEs). Lack of this information may have affected our attempts to reduce the incidence of these potentially serious clinical incidents. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify common general surgical NEs from the data held by the National Health Service (NHS) England. METHODS: We analysed the NHS England NE data from April 2012 to February 2020 to identify common general surgical NEs. RESULTS: There was a total of 797 general surgical NEs identified under three main categories such as wrong-site surgery (n = 427; 53.58%), retained items post-procedure (n = 355; 44.54%) and wrong implant/prosthesis (n = 15; 1.88%). We identified a total of 56 common general surgical themes-25 each in the wrong-site surgery and retained foreign body categories and six in wrong implants category.Wrong skin condition surgery was the commonest wrong-site surgery (n = 117; 27.4%). There were 18 wrong-side chest drains (4.2%) and 18 (4.2%) wrong-side angioplasty/angiograms. There were seven (1.6%) instances of confusion in pilonidal/perianal/perineal surgeries and six (1.4%) instances of biopsy of the cervix rather than the colon or rectum.Retained surgical swabs were the most common retained items (n = 165; 46.5%). There were 28 (7.9%) laparoscopic retrieval bags with or without the specimen, 26 (7.3%) chest drain guide wires, 26 (7.3%) surgical needles and 9 (2.5%) surgical drains. Wrong stents were the most common (n = 9; 60%) wrong implants followed by wrong breast implants (n = 2; 13.3%). CONCLUSION: This study found 56 common general surgical NEs. This information is not available to surgeons around the world. Increased awareness of these common themes of NEs may allow for the adoption of more effective and specific safeguards and ultimately help reduce their incidence.

Bridged one-anastomosis gastric bypass: technique and preliminary results.

PURPOSE: One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an established bariatric procedure performed worldwide. We developed a modification of OAGB leaving a bridge at the cranial 2 cm of the fundus as a gastro-gastric fistula to allow for endoscopic access to the bypassed stomach. We present the preliminary results of 44 patients who underwent this technique in our hospital. METHODS: We analyzed, retrospectively, data collected prospectively on 44 patients who underwent our bridged one-anastomosis gastric bypass (BOAGB) procedure between September, 2018 and November, 2020. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 45.2 ± 9.3 years (range 20-66 years). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI), weight, and HbA1c values were 41.5 ± 6.4 kg/m2 (range 35-59), 116 ± 22.7 kg, and 8.2 ± 2.1%, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 18 months (11-26 months), the mean postoperative BMI was 28.4 ± 3.2 kg/m2 (range 21-38), the mean total weight loss was 35.8 ± 13.5 kg (range 20-80 kg), and the mean percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) and the percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) were 79.8 ± 16.1% (range 47-109) and 30.6 ± 6.9% (range 19-48), respectively. The mean postoperative HbA1c level was 6.3 ± 0.9%. There were two early complications (stenosis and bleeding) and one late complication (marginal ulcer). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent BOAGB lost weight similarly to those who underwent OABG as reported in the literature, without an apparent increase in complications related to the technique. Randomized studies with longer term follow-up are needed.

Bariatric surgery for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring insulin: Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is well established as an effective treatment for patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there exists reluctance to increase its availability for patients with severe T2DM. The aims of this study were to examine the impact of bariatric surgery on T2DM resolution in patients with obesity and T2DM requiring insulin (T2DM-Ins) using data from a national database and to develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgery in this cohort when compared to best medical treatment (BMT). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Clinical data from the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR), a comprehensive database of bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom, were extracted to analyse outcomes of patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017. Outcomes for this group were combined with data sourced from a comprehensive literature review in order to develop a state-transition microsimulation model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery versus BMT for patients over a 5-year time horizon. The main outcome measure for the clinical study was insulin cessation at 1-year post-surgery: relative risks (RR) summarising predictive factors were determined, unadjusted, and after adjusting for variables including age, initial body mass index (BMI), duration of T2DM, and weight loss. Main outcome measures for the economic evaluation were total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP£20,000. A total of 2,484 patients were eligible for inclusion, of which 1,847 had 1-year follow-up data (mean age of 51 years, mean initial BMI 47.2 kg/m2, and 64% female). 67% of patients no longer required insulin at 1-year postoperatively: these rates persisted for 4 years. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was associated with a higher rate of insulin cessation (71.7%) than sleeve gastrectomy (SG; 64.5%; RR 0.92, confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.99) and adjustable gastric band (AGB; 33.6%; RR 0.45, CI 0.34-0.60; p < 0.001). When adjusted for percentage total weight loss and demographic variables, insulin cessation following surgery was comparable for RYGB and SG (RR 0.97, CI 0.90-1.04), with AGB having the lowest cessation rates (RR 0.55, CI 0.40-0.74; p < 0.001). Over 5 years, bariatric surgery was cost saving compared to BMT (total cost GBP£22,057 versus GBP£26,286 respectively, incremental difference GBP£4,229). This was due to lower treatment costs as well as reduced diabetes-related complications costs and increased health benefits. Limitations of this study include loss to follow-up of patients within the NBSR dataset and that the time horizon for the economic analysis is limited to 5 years. In addition, the study reflects current medical and surgical treatment regimens for this cohort of patients, which may change. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that in patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins, bariatric surgery was associated with high rates of postoperative cessation of insulin therapy, which is, in turn, a major driver of overall reductions in direct healthcare cost. Our findings suggest that a strategy utilising bariatric surgery for patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins is cost saving to the national healthcare provider (National Health Service (NHS)) over a 5-year time horizon.

A systematic review of the effect of gastric pouch and/or gastrojejunostomy (stoma) size on weight loss outcomes with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the gastric pouch or Gastrojejunostomy (GJ or stoma) size on weight loss outcomes after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is unclear with studies reporting conflicting results. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the impact of the gastric pouch or stoma size on weight loss outcomes with RYGB. METHODS: An online search of PubMed was carried out to identify all articles evaluating the effect of the gastric pouch and/or gastric stoma size at the time of surgery on outcomes associated with RYGB. Quality and heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. So a systematic review was performed without a meta-analysis. RESULTS: This review found a total of 14 studies (two of which were randomised) evaluating the effect of pouch sizes on weight loss outcomes after RYGB. Nine of these studies did not find any significant association between pouch size and weight loss outcomes whereas five studies found larger pouches to be associated with poorer weight loss outcomes. No study found larger pouches to be associated with better weight loss outcomes. Out of the ten studies (one of which was randomised) that evaluated the effect of stoma size on weight loss outcomes after RYGB, six studies did not show any significant effect of stoma size on weight loss outcomes and four found larger stoma sizes to be associated with significantly poorer weight loss outcomes. No study found larger stoma to be associated with better weight loss outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review finds that a larger pouch or stoma size may be associated with adverse weight loss outcomes but the quality of data does not allow us to precisely determine optimum pouch or stoma size with RYGB. There is a need for more randomised data comparing long-term weight loss outcomes with pouches or stoma of different sizes.