Concomitant Cholecystectomy for Asymptomatic Gallstones in Bariatric Surgery-Safety Profile and Feasibility in a Large Tertiary Referral Bariatric Center.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a risk factor for gallstone formation, which can be exacerbated by bariatric surgery-induced rapid weight loss. Current guidelines do not recommend concomitant cholecystectomy (CC) for asymptomatic gallstones during the bariatric surgery procedure. However, long-term follow-up studies have shown that the incidence of post-bariatric surgery symptomatic gallstones necessitating therapeutic cholecystectomy increases to 40%. Therefore, some surgeons advocate simultaneous cholecystectomy during the bariatric surgery for asymptomatic individuals. This study aims to evaluate the safety of performing cholecystectomy for asymptomatic gallstones during the bariatric procedure. METHODS: Data from a consecutive series of patients that underwent primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or conversion of LSG to a LRYGB with or without concomitant cholecystectomy for asymptomatic gallstones between Jan 2010 and Dec 2017 were retrieved from the database. The primary endpoint was the complication rate. Secondary endpoints were the surgical operating room time (ORT) and the length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Out of the 2828 patients who were included, 120 patients underwent a concomitant cholecystectomy during their bariatric procedure (LSG or LRYGB) for asymptomatic gallbladder stones and were compared to the 2708 remaining patients who only had bariatric surgery. None of the concomitant cholecystectomy patients developed a gallbladder-related complication. There was no significant increase in the rate of minor or major complications between the CC groups and the non-CC groups (LSG: 6.7% vs. 3.2%, p=0.132; LRYGB: 0% vs. 2.3%, p =0.55; and conversion of LSG to LRYGB: 20% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.125, respectively). In addition, there was no significant increase in the length of hospital stay (1.85 ±4.19 days vs. 2.24 ±1.82, p=0.404) for LSG group and (1.75 ±2.0 vs. 2.3 ±2.1, p=0.179) for LRYGB group. Adding the cholecystectomy to the bariatric procedure only added an average of 23 min (min) (27 min when added to LSG and 18 min when added to LRYGB). CONCLUSION: As one of the largest series reviewing concomitant cholecystectomy in bariatric surgery, this study showed that in skilled laparoscopic bariatric surgical hands, concomitant cholecystectomy during bariatric surgery is safe and prevents potential future gallstone-related complications. Long-term large prospective randomized trials are needed to further clarify the recommendation of prophylactic concomitant cholecystectomy during bariatric surgery.

First Successful Large-Scale Introduction of an Enhanced Recovery after Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) Program in the Middle East: The Results and Lessons Learned of Tawam Hospital/Johns Hopkins, a Tertiary Governmental Center in the UAE.

BACKGROUND: Although enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery (ERABS) has proven to be safe and cost-effective, this concept is relatively new in the Middle East. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive registered cohorts of patients who underwent primary and purely laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) were compared before introduction of ERABS (2010-2014) and after ERABS (2015-2017) at Tawam Hospital/Johns Hopkins, the UAE. RESULTS: A total of 462 eligible bariatric patients (LSG 414 and LRYGB 48) were operated on before and 1602 (LSG 1436 and LRYGB 166) after introduction of the ERABS. Significant improvements of mean patient time of the patient being within the OR for LSG (from 2:27 to 1:23 min, p = 0.000) and LRYGB (from 3:17 to 1:59 min, p = 0.000) were achieved when comparing pre-ERABS with after introduction of ERABS. Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in LOS in both LSG (from 3.2 to 1.5 days, p = 0.000) and in LRYGB (from 3.5 to 1.7 days, p = 0.000). Major (CD classification III-IV) complications decreased significantly in LSG (from 13.8 to 0.8%, p = 0.000) and were similar in LRYGB (from 4.2% to 3.0%, p = NS). The readmission rate for LSG (from 2.9 to 2.6%, p = NS) or LRYGB (from 0 to 4.8%, p = NS) and the reoperation rates after LSG (from 0.7 to 0.5%, p = NS) and LRYGB (from 0 to 2.4%, p = NS) did not differ between both groups following introduction of ERABS. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized ERABS program in the Middle East is feasible and safe and leads to reduced LOS and OR times.