Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

Background: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Results: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. Conclusion: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions

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

Acute complications after laparoscopic bariatric procedures: update for the general surgeon

BACKGROUND: Development and widespread use of laparoscopic bariatric surgery exposes emergency room physicians and general surgeons to face acute or chronic surgical complications of bariatric surgery. METHODS: The most common surgical emergencies after bariatric surgery are examined based on an extensive review of bariatric surgery literature and on the personal experience of the authors' practice in four high-volume bariatric surgery centers. RESULTS: An orderly stepwise approach to the bariatric patient with an emergency condition is advisable. Resuscitation should follow the same protocol adopted for the non-bariatric patients. Consultation with the bariatric surgeon should be obtained early, and referral to the bariatric center should be considered whenever possible. The identification of the surgical procedure to which the patient was submitted will orient in the diagnosis of the acute condition. Procedure-specific complication should always be taken into consideration in the differential diagnosis. Acute slippage is the most frequent complication that needs emergency treatment in a laparoscopic gastric banding. Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypasses may present with life-threatening suture leaks or suture line bleeding. Gastric greater curvature plication (investigational restrictive procedure) can present early complications related to prolonged postoperative vomiting. Both gastric bypass and bilio-pancreatic diversion may cause anastomotic marginal ulcer, bleeding, or rarely perforation and severe stenosis, while small bowel obstruction due to internal hernia represents a surgical emergency, also caused by trocar site hernia, intussusceptions, adhesions, strictures, kinking, or blood clots. Rapid weight loss after bariatric surgery can cause cholecystitis or choledocholithiasis, which are difficult to treat after bypass procedures

Platelet-rich plasma PRP vs. absorbable mesh as cruroplasty reinforcement: a study on an animal model

Background: Reinforcement of posterior cruroplasty has been proposed to minimize the failure of hiatal hernia repair (HHR). The applications of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and absorbable mesh are barely reported in this area. Aims: To analyze local macroscopic and microscopic changes induced by mesh vs. PRP as reinforcement of HHR, using a reliable laparoscopic experimental porcine model. Material and methods: This prospective, comparative pilot study was conducted on 14 female pigs, aged four to six months. An iatrogenic hiatal defect was laparoscopically simulated and repaired, reinforced with Bio-A® mesh (group A) or PRP (group B). Specimen retrieval was performed after seven months for histopathological (HP) examination. Results: No local or general complications were registered, with complete resorption of reinforcements, that determined inflammatory infiltrates with local collagen production and tissue neo-vascularization. Group A had an increased mean chronic inflammation score (p =.3061), showing significant sclerotic collagenizing process. PRP enhanced angiogenesis, collagenizing, myofibroblast recruitment and tissue ingrowth. Conclusions: No residual materials or evidence of anatomical distortion were found. Animal model was safe and reliable. This is the first report of complete absorption of Bio-A® positioned on crural area. HP results suggest the clinical application of PRP in HHR as a promising co-adjuvant to local remodeling and healing. Abbreviations: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; AB: Alcian Blue; PAS: Periodic Acid-Schiff; CP: platelet concentrate; fPC: filtered plasma concentrate; GERD: gastro-esophageal reflux disease; HSA: hiatal surface area; HHR: hiatal hernia repair; HP: histopathological; HH: hiatal hernia; HE: hematoxylin and eosin; HR: hiatus repair alone; HRM: hiatus repair and acellular dermal matrix; NM: Nicolae Manolesccu; LNF: laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication; PC: posterior cruroplasty; PPP: platelet-poor plasma; RP: platelet-rich plasma

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and European consensus on bariatric surgery–extension 2022

none38Background: The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Bariatric Guidelines Group identified a gap in bariatric surgery recommendations with a structured, contextualized consideration of multiple bariatric interventions. Objective: To provide evidence-informed, transparent and trustworthy recommendations on the use of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, gastric plication, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, one anastomosis gastric bypass, and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity and metabolic diseases. Only laparoscopic procedures in adults were considered. Methods: A European interdisciplinary panel including general surgeons, obesity physicians, anesthetists, a psychologist and a patient representative informed outcome importance and minimal important differences. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist fixed and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) using the graph theory approach for each outcome. We calculated the odds ratio or the (standardized) mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA and GRADE methodologies. We considered the risk/benefit outcomes within a GRADE evidence to decision framework to arrive at recommendations, which were validated through an anonymous Delphi process of the panel. Results: We identified 43 records reporting on 24 RCTs. Most network information surrounded sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Under consideration of the certainty of the evidence and evidence to decision parameters, we suggest sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass over adjustable gastric banding, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and gastric plication for the management of severe obesity and associated metabolic diseases. One anastomosis gastric bypass and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are suggested as alternatives, although evidence on benefits and harms, and specific selection criteria is limited compared to sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/Lpv2kE Conclusions: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, pertinent recommendations on the use of bariatric and metabolic surgery for the management of severe obesity and metabolic diseases. The guideline replaces relevant recommendations published in the EAES Bariatric Guidelines 2020.noneCarrano F.M.; Iossa A.; Di Lorenzo N.; Silecchia G.; Kontouli K.-M.; Mavridis D.; Alarcon I.; Felsenreich D.M.; Sanchez-Cordero S.; Di Vincenzo A.; Balague-Ponz M.C.; Batterham R.L.; Bouvy N.; Copaescu C.; Dicker D.; Fried M.; Godoroja D.; Goitein D.; Halford J.C.G.; Kalogridaki M.; De Luca M.; Morales-Conde S.; Prager G.; Pucci A.; Vilallonga R.; Zani I.; Vandvik P.O.; Antoniou S.A.; Agresta F.; Azran C.; Busetto L.; Buza M.; Prats B.G.; Herlesova J.; Piatto G.; Pruijssers S.; Rayman S.; Romano E.Carrano, F. M.; Iossa, A.; Di Lorenzo, N.; Silecchia, G.; Kontouli, K. -M.; Mavridis, D.; Alarcon, I.; Felsenreich, D. M.; Sanchez-Cordero, S.; Di Vincenzo, A.; Balague-Ponz, M. C.; Batterham, R. L.; Bouvy, N.; Copaescu, C.; Dicker, D.; Fried, M.; Godoroja, D.; Goitein, D.; Halford, J. C. G.; Kalogridaki, M.; De Luca, M.; Morales-Conde, S.; Prager, G.; Pucci, A.; Vilallonga, R.; Zani, I.; Vandvik, P. O.; Antoniou, S. A.; Agresta, F.; Azran, C.; Busetto, L.; Buza, M.; Prats, B. G.; Herlesova, J.; Piatto, G.; Pruijssers, S.; Rayman, S.; Romano, E