The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

The future of bariatric surgery research: A worldwide mapping of registered trials.

The bariatric surgery (BS) research landscape is a continuous evolving. Since the first described procedure, numerous different techniques have been developed by surgical teams. In this context, we conducted a systematic mapping of upcoming randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in BS for people with obesity. In June 2021, we performed a systematic review of RCTs evaluating BS versus another surgical procedure or versus a medical control group, through a search in ClinicalTrials.gov. There was no restriction on outcomes for study selection. A total of 62 RCTs were included, totaling 10,800 potential individuals to be included, with planned Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy surgeries the most common. The median number of patients planned to be enrolled is 78 (IQR: 50-143). Mean follow-up time is 12 months in 55% of trials and 4 years or more in 23%. The most frequent (81% of RCTs) outcomes to be investigated are obesity-related diseases with the study of type 2 diabetes, followed by weight loss, quality of life, and surgical complications. The rising number of BS procedures around the world has been followed by a subsequent surge in BS research. An increase in interest is observed in outcomes such as obesity-related diseases, intermediate metabolic markers, quality of life, and body composition.

150-cm Versus 200-cm Biliopancreatic Limb One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that shortening the length of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) to 150 cm in one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) would reduce nutritional complication rates without impairing weight loss outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare patients who underwent OAGB with a 200-cm BPL (OAGB-200) to patients with OAGB with a 150-cm BPL (OAGB-150) in terms of weight loss and late morbidity. METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective matched cohort study including patients with a body mass index between 35 and 50 kg/m2 who underwent an OAGB-150 or an OAGB-200. Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and body mass index, prior to bariatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 784 patients who underwent OAGB were included (OAGB-150 n = 392 and OAGB-200 (n = 392). There was no significant difference in terms of early morbidity. Regarding late morbidity in patients with an OAGB-150, significantly lower rates for marginal ulcer (OR = 0.4, CI 95% [0.2; 0.8], p = 0.006), incisional hernia (OR = 0.5, CI 95% [0.3; 1], p = 0.041), and bowel obstruction (OR = 0.3, CI 95% [0.1; 0.9], p = 0.039) were reported. Likewise, regarding late nutritional deficiencies, post-OAGB-150, a significantly lower number of patients with hypoalbuminemia (OR = 0.3, CI 95% [0.2; 0.7], p = 0.006), low vitamin B9 (OR = 0.5, CI 95% [0.2; 1], p = 0.044), and low ferritin (OR = 0.5, CI 95% [0.3; 0.8], p = 0.005) were observed. There was no significant difference in the percentage of excess BMI loss at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: Compared to OAGB-200 in patients with BMI ≤ 50 kg/m2, OAGB-150 results in fewer nutritional deficiency rates long term, without impairing weight loss.