Am I on Track? Evaluating Patient-Specific Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery Using an Outcomes Calculator

PURPOSE: Individual weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery can vary considerably. As a result, identifying and assisting patients who are not on track to reach their weight loss goals can be challenging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a bariatric surgery outcomes calculator, which was formulated using a state-wide bariatric-specific data registry, predicted weight loss at 1 year after surgery was calculated on 658 patients who underwent bariatric surgery at 35 different bariatric surgery programs between 2015 and 2017. Patient characteristics, postoperative complications, and weight loss trajectories were compared between patients who met or exceeded their predicted weight loss calculation to those who did not based on observed to expected weight loss ratio (O:E) at 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Patients who did not meet their predicted weight loss at 1 year (n = 237, 36%) had a mean O:E of 0.71, while patients who met or exceeded their prediction (n = 421, 63%) had a mean O:E = 1.14. At 6 months, there was a significant difference in the percent of the total amount of predicted weight loss between the groups (88% of total predicted weight loss for those that met their 1-year prediction vs 66% for those who did not, p \u3c 0.0001). Age, gender, procedure type, and risk-adjusted complication rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Using a bariatric outcomes calculator can help set appropriate weight-loss expectations after surgery and also identify patients who may benefit from additional therapy prior to reaching their weight loss nadir

Technique or technology? Evaluating leaks after gastric bypass

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between technique and surgical devices on anastomotic and staple-line leaks after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. BACKGROUND: Leaks after bariatric surgery remain a major source of morbidity and mortality. The association of surgical technique and devices with leaks after gastric bypass is poorly understood. SETTING: Multi-centered study that included teaching and non-teaching hospitals that participate in a statewide consortium for quality improvement using a payer-funded outcome registry. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative and performed a case-control study comparing patients who sustained a leak with those who did not after primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A total of 71 (.44%) patients with leaks were identified between January 2007 and December 2011. The leak group was matched 1:2 to a control group (nonleak) based on procedure type, age, body mass index, sex, and the year in which the procedure was performed. Technique-specific case characteristics and device-specific factors were assessed by reviewing operative notes from all primary bariatric procedures in our study population. RESULTS: The rate of leak decreased during the study period, and there was a significant downward trend (slope estimate: -.19961%, P = .0372). After performing multivariate analysis, the type of anastomosis (circular stapler, hand-sewn, or linear stapler) and stapler manufacturer were not associated with leaks. The use of buttressing material was associated with a higher rate of leaks (odds ratio: 8.79 [95% confidence interval: 2.49-31.01], P = .0007), whereas the use of fibrin sealant was associated with a lower rate of leaks (odds ratio .11 [95% confidence interval: .03-.41], P = .0013). These findings could not be explained by differences in measures of surgeon performance. CONCLUSION: Leak rates after laparoscopic gastric bypass have fallen in Michigan despite variations in technique and device utilization. Although the type of anastomosis and stapler manufacturer do not appear to be significantly associated with leaks, it appears that the use of buttressing material was more common in cases in which leaks occurred, whereas the use of fibrin sealant was not. Given the complex interplay of multiple variables that affect surgical outcomes, future studies justifying the benefits of operative devices should be evaluated prospectively in the context of surgeon technique and skill