Search

Background: Several tools are used to assess postoperative weight loss after bariatric surgery, including the percentage of excess body weight loss (%EWL), percentage of total weight loss (%TWL), and percentage of excess body mass index (BMI) loss (%EBMIL). A repeated series of measurements should be considered to assess weight loss as accurately as possible. This study aimed to test weight loss metrics. Methods: Data were obtained from a prospective database of patients with obesity who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2016 and 2017 in a French tertiary referral bariatric center. A multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model with repeated measures was used to analyze repeated weight measurements over time. Results: A total of 435 patients underwent LRYGB (n = 266) or LSG (n = 169). At 2 years, the average %EWL, %EBMIL, and %TWL were 56.8%, 61.3%, and 26.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent LSG experienced lower weight loss (β: − 4233 in %TWL model, β: − 6437 in %EWL model, and β: − 6989 in %EBMIL model) than those who underwent LRYGB. In multivariate mixed analysis, preoperative BMI was not significantly associated with %TWL at 2 years (β, − 0.09 [− 0.22–0.03] p = 0.1). Preoperative BMI was negatively associated with both %EWL (β, − 1.61 [− 1.84–− 1.38] p < 0.0001) and %EBMIL (β, − 1.91 [− 2.16–− 1.66] p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This is the first study to assess %TWL use for postoperative weight measurement, using a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model %TWL is the measure of choice to assess weight loss following bariatric surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Regarding weight loss outcomes, the results published after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y (LRYGB) are conflicting. At this time, no clear evidence exists that outcomes from LSG are similar to those for LRYGB. The main objective of this study was to compare the percent of total weight loss (%TWL) between LRYGB and LSG over the first 2 years using a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression. Methods: Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent primary laparoscopic bariatric surgery from January 2016 to December 2017 at a French accredited bariatric center. The medical records of 435 consecutive patients were analyzed. %TWL was calculated at each follow-up surgical consultation and used as a repeated outcome variable in our models to assess the long-term %TWL. Due to this hierarchical structure of the data (%TWL at each visit = level 1) within patients (level 2), a multilevel linear regression adjusted for age, sex, preoperative BMI and comorbidities was used. Results: Among the medical records of 435 consecutive patients included, 266 patients underwent LRYGB and 169 underwent LSG. The average %TWL at 2 years was 31.7% for the LRYGB group and 25.8% for the LSG group. The final multivariate model showed that, compared with LRYGB, LSG was associated with a decreased %TWL at over 2 years of follow-up (β: −4.01; CI95%: −5.47 à −2.54; p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: This observational study suggests that compared with LRYGB, LSG was associated with a decreased %TWL at 2 years using a multilevel model. Further studies are required to confirm the results observed with this statistical model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate, mid-term outcomes between elderly patients (EP, i.e., age > 60 years old) and young patients (YP, i.e., age < = 60 years old) who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Studies comparing EP versus YP for bariatric surgery published until April 2020 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. After LSG, overall morbidity and specific post-operative complication rates (i.e., leak, abscess, hemorrhage, and reoperation) were significantly more frequent in EP compared with those in YP. Surgical outcomes were similar between EP and YP after LRYGB. Both procedures achieved weight loss, but it was statistically greater in YP compared with that in EP. In summary, this meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopic bariatric surgery is a safe and effective treatment in EP compared with that in YP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic fundoplication in children under 5 kg is still debated. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) in children under 5 kg.Methods: We reviewed the cases of 96 children treated by laparoscopic fundoplication between 2005 and 2014. Thirty-five patients had a weight of 5 kg or less at the time of LF (Low Weight Group) and 61 patients had a weight between 5.1 and 10 kg (High Weight Group). The pre-operative, peri-operative, post-operative data regarding surgery and anesthesia were compared between groups.Results: Mean weight was 3.9 ± 0.8 kg in the LWG and 7.8 ± 1.5 kg in the HWG. Children in the LWG were more prone to pre-operative respiratory management (40% mechanical ventilation and 42.9% oxygen therapy). The operating times (82 ± 28 min for LWG and 85 ± 31 min for HWG) and respiratory parameters during the procedure (PCO2) were comparable between groups. Post-operative complications were 1 gastric perforation with peritonitis and 1 small bowel obstruction in the LWG, 2 cases of gastric perforation with peritonitis in the HWG. Mean follow-up was 67 ± 44 months. Significant recurrence of GERD requiring a redo fundoplication was noted in 3 patients in the LWG and 1 patient in the HWG.Conclusion: Laparoscopic fundoplication is a safe procedure in infants ≤ 5 kg without increase of post-operative complications, recurrence, or mean operative time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The objective of this study was to review the available prospective, randomized, controlled trials to determine whether an early ( ELC) or a delayed ( DLC) approach to a laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with an increase in length of hospitalization after acute cholecystitis. Methods Medline, the Cochrane Trials Register and EMBASE were searched for prospective, randomized, controlled trials ( RCTs) comparing ELC versus DLC, published up to May 2014. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. Results Nine RCTs were included in a total of 617 who underwent ELC and 603 patients who underwent DLC after acute cholecystitis. The mean hospital stay was 5.4 days in the ELC group and 9.1 days in the DLC group. The meta-analysis showed a mean hospital stay significantly lower in the ELC group [medical doctor (MD) = 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.95-4.54, P < 0.001]. The major biliary duct injury rate in the ELC group was 0.8% (2/247) and 0.9% (2/223) in the DLC group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the ELC and DLC groups [relative risk ( RR) =0.96, 95% CI = 0.25-3.73, P = 0.950]. Conclusion DLC is associated with a longer total hospital stay but equivalent morbidity as compared to ELC for patients presenting with acute cholecystitis. ELC would appear to be the treatment of choice for patients presenting with ELC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis. Method: EMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins. Conclusions: In terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]