Very low energy diets prior to bariatric surgery may reduce postoperative morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PurposeTo optimize patients prior to bariatric surgery, very low energy diets (VLEDs) are often employed for 2–4 weeks preoperatively. They are known to result in preoperative weight loss, decrease liver volume, and decrease surgeon-perceived operative difficulty. Their impact on postoperative morbidity has been less extensively studied. We performed a focused systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing preoperative VLEDs prior to bariatric surgery with controls in terms of overall postoperative morbidity.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to February 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing postoperative morbidity in adult patients (i.e., over the age of 18) receiving a VLED with liquid formulation to those receiving a non-VLED control prior to elective bariatric surgery. Outcomes included overall 30-day postoperative morbidity and preoperative weight loss. An inverse variance meta-analysis was performed with GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence.ResultsAfter reviewing 2,525 citations, four RCTs with 294 patients receiving preoperative VLEDs with liquid formulation and 294 patients receiving a non-VLED control met inclusion. Patients receiving VLED experienced significantly more preoperative weight loss than patients receiving control (mean difference (MD) 3.38 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06–5.70, p = 0.004, I2 = 95%). According to low certainty evidence, there was a non-significant reduction in 30-day postoperative morbidity in patients receiving VLED prior to bariatric surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95%CI 0.39–1.17, p = 0.16, I2 = 0%).ConclusionThe impact of preoperative VLEDs on postoperative outcomes following bariatric surgery remains unclear. It is possible that VLEDs may contribute to decreased postoperative morbidity, but further larger prospective trials are required to investigate the signal identified in this study

The Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract Objectives To systematically review and meta-analyze the impact of bariatric surgery on obese patients with urinary incontinence (UI). Methods A search of Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed to June 2018 was performed using methods pre-published on PROSPERO. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. Studies comparing UI status in obese patients before and after bariatric surgery were included. Primary outcomes were the improvement or complete resolution of any UI, stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Secondary outcomes were validated UI questionnaire scores. The GRADE approach assessed overall quality of evidence. Results 33 cohort studies (2,910 patients) were included (median follow-up 12 months). Bariatric surgery resulted in improvement or resolution of any UI in 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48?63%), SUI in 47% (95% CI 34?60%), and UUI in 53% (95% CI 32?73%) of patients. Moreover, bariatric surgery significantly decreased (PPeer reviewe

Laparoscopic versus open loop ileostomy reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Loop ileostomies (LIs) are used for temporary fecal diversion to protect downstream colorectal anastomoses. Standard operative approach for LI reversal has been through an open technique. Recently, laparoscopic LI reversal has been employed and studied. The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and open LI reversal. Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared rate of postoperative morbidity and/or length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open LI reversal. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evidence (GRADE) approach was conducted to assess quality of evidence. Results: From 410 citations, four observational studies with 213 patients undergoing laparoscopic LI reversal and 176 patients undergoing open LI reversal met inclusion. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter LOS (MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 to -0.04, p = 0.03). Laparoscopic and open LI reversal were comparable in postoperative morbidity, aside from a decrease of superficial surgical site infection (sSSI) with the use of laparoscopy (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.71, p = 0.01). Operative time was not significantly different between groups (MD 11.91, 95%CI -1.87 to 25.70, p = 0.09). The GRADE quality of evidence was low to very low. Conclusions: This review presents low quality evidence that laparoscopic LI reversal is a feasible approach that may reduce postoperative LOS and sSSI compared to open LI reversal without increasing operative time. Future prospective comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of the present review