Subfascial Port Placement in Gastric Banding Surgery

Background In some bariatric patients with predominantly intra-abdominal fat a shallow fat layer separates the gastric band access port from the skin. We hypothesise that subfascial port placement in these patients reduces skin erosions and port infections and improves cosmesis as weight loss occurs. Aim This study aims to compare port complications, cosmetic outcome and ease of band adjustment with access ports in front of or behind the rectus muscle. Method We retrospectively compared complications and cosmetic outcomes of patients with subfascial ports to a control group matched for gender, BMI and age. Each subject completed a questionnaire utilising a 1 to 10 scale for nine parameters related to comfort and cosmesis and two parameters related to discomfort during adjustments. Results Sixty-eight patients with subfascial ports were identified and the overall response rate was 84%. The groups were well matched for gender (m:f ratio 1.8:1 vs. 1.7:1, p= 1.000), age (51.0 vs. 49.6 years, p=0.528) and BMI (39.8 vs. 40.3 kg/m2, p=0.585). There was no difference in port infection rates (0/68 vs. 1/68, p=1.000) but the subfascial group had more hernias (3/68 vs. 0/68, p=0.244). Subfascial patients experienced more pain during adjustments (score 4.3 vs. 2.6, p=0.047) but a combined analysis of cosmesis showed a slight positive trend (1.58 vs. 1.76, p=0.379). Conclusion Both port locations are well tolerated. Subfascial placement is associated with more pain during adjustments but there is no difference in port infection or skin erosion rates.No Full Tex

Laparoscopic gastric banding in over 60s

Background The aggressive pursuit of weight loss in the elderly remains a controversial objective. In this series of 113 patients over 60 years of age who underwent laparoscopic gastric banding surgery, we report on complications, co-morbidity change, quality-of-life improvement and changes in medication use over a median follow-up period of 25.5 months. Methods A prospectively kept database was reviewed from January 1999 to September 2008 identifying patients over 60 who underwent gastric banding surgery. Baseline and follow-up SF-36urvey scores were compared longitudinally. Co-morbidity change and medication use were assessed by questionnaire and electronic record review. Results Major complications were experienced by 7.1% over the follow-up period with a re-operation rate of 15.0%. Excess BMI loss was 44.1% after 5 years and combined mean SF-36uality-of-life scores (out of 100) improved 22.1 points, achieving parity with age-matched norms for the general population. Diabetes improved in 74.2% with hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and depression improving in 57.1, 51.1 and 35.9% of cases. A significant drop in medication use was not seen, and cancer was responsible for three deaths over the follow-up period. No surgical mortality was incurred. Conclusion Laparoscopic gastric banding can markedly improve quality of life for morbidly obese over 60s. Health gains are significant, but medication use is not substantially altered. Gastric banding is an ideal weight loss operation for this age group due to its safety and efficacy, and the primary goal should be quality-of-life improvement.No Full Tex

The Reflux and BariClip: Initial Results and Mechanism of Action

Introduction: Laparoscopic BariClip Gastroplasty (LBCG) represents a new bariatric procedure that mimics the principle of the Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG), but using a completely reversible mechanism, which is essential for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the evolution of GERD following the initial experience with LBCG. Methods: The first 43 obese patients who underwent LBCG performed by the same surgeon in two different medical centers in May 2018–December 2019 were included in the current study. Twelve patients had issues of reflux, regularly receiving PPIs (proton pump inhibitors) treatment in eight cases, and occasionally in four cases. Thirty-two patients completed the follow-up at one year and the GERD was evaluated using the PPI medications and the GerdQ. Results: The median preoperative GerdQ score was (14.58 ± 1.9). Three patients out of the twelve who had complained about preoperative GERD did not consent to the one year follow-up form. For the rest of nine patients, the median post-operative GerdQ score was (10.11 ± 3.2). The PPIs were used at one year follow-up in six patients: four with occasional use, one patient with regular use showing no improvement, and one who experienced de novo GERD symptomatology (3.1%). No statistically significant difference between the groups was recorded in terms of GERD. We recorded no intraoperative complications. No case of erosion occurred in the post-operative period, but we encountered two cases of slippage. One additional BariClip was removed at 14 months. Conclusion: LBCG represents a new bariatric procedure that mimics the principle of the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but with a completely reversible mechanism. Even with limited cases, our experience reports several mechanisms of action that will be evaluated and discussed in further prospective clinical trials. After this preliminary clinical study, LBCG’s effects on GERD and its safety are highly encouraging

Revision/Conversion Surgeries After One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-An Experts' Modified Delphi Consensus

Purpose: There is a lack of evidence for treatment of some conditions including complication management, suboptimal initial weight loss, recurrent weight gain, or worsening of a significant obesity complication after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study was designed to respond to the existing lack of agreement and to provide a valuable resource for clinicians by employing an expert-modified Delphi consensus method. Methods: Forty-eight recognized bariatric surgeons from 28 countries participated in the modified Delphi consensus to vote on 64 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus. Results: A consensus was achieved for 46 statements. For recurrent weight gain or worsening of a significant obesity complication after OAGB, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus that elongation of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) is an acceptable option and the total bowel length measurement is mandatory during BPL elongation to preserve at least 300–400 cm of common channel limb length to avoid nutritional deficiencies. Also, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus on conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with or without pouch downsizing as an acceptable option for the treatment of persistent bile reflux after OAGB and recommend detecting and repairing any size of hiatal hernia during conversion to RYGB. Conclusion: While the experts reached a consensus on several aspects regarding revision/conversion surgeries after OAGB, there are still lingering areas of disagreement. This highlights the importance of conducting further studies in the future to address these unresolved issues. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)

Religious Fasting of Muslim Patients After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: a Modified Delphi Consensus

Background Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars of the Muslim faith. Despite the positive effects of fasting on health, there are no guidelines or clear recommendations regarding fasting after metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS). The current study reports the result of a modified Delphi consensus among expert metabolic/bariatric surgeons with experience in managing patients who fast after MBS

Patient Selection in One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass-an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus

Purpose: One anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is up to date the third most performed obesity and metabolic procedure worldwide, which recently has been endorsed by ASMBS. The main criticisms are the risk of bile reflux, esophageal cancer, and malnutrition. Although IFSO has recognized this procedure, guidance is needed regarding selection criteria. To give clinicians a daily support in performing the right patient selection in OAGB/MGB, the aim of this paper is to generate clinical guidelines based on an expert modified Delphi consensus. Methods: A committee of 57 recognized bariatric surgeons from 24 countries created 69 statements. Modified Delphi consensus voting was performed in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was considered to indicate a consensus. Results: Consensus was achieved for 56 statements. Remarkably, ≥ 90.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB is an acceptable and suitable option "in patients with Body mass index (BMI) > 70, BMI > 60, BMI > 50 kg/m2 as a one-stage procedure," "as the second stage of a two-stage bariatric surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy for BMI > 50 kg/m2 (instead of BPD/DS)," and "in patients with weight regain after restrictive procedures. No consensus was reached on the statement that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in case of resistant Helicobacter pylori. This is likely as there is a concern that this procedure is associated with reflux and its related long-term complications including risk of cancer in the esophagus or stomach. Also no consensus reached on OAGB/MGB as conversional surgery in patients with GERD after restrictive procedures. Consensus for disagreement was predominantly achieved "in case of intestinal metaplasia of the stomach" (74.55%), "in patients with severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)(C,D)" (75.44%), "in patients with Barrett's metaplasia" (89.29%), and "in documented insulinoma" (89.47%). Conclusion: Patient selection in OAGB/MGB is still a point of discussion among experts. There was consensus that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in elderly patients, patients with low BMI (30-35 kg/m2) with associated metabolic problems, and patients with BMIs more than 50 kg/m2 as one-stage procedure. OAGB/MGB can also be a safe procedure in vegetarian and vegan patients. Although OAGB/MGB can be a suitable procedure in patients with large hiatal hernia with concurrent hiatal hernia, it should not be offered to patients with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett's metaplasia