ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 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.
Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , Gastric Bypass , Laparoscopy , Obesity, Morbid , Adult , Humans , Bariatric Surgery/methods , Consensus , Gastrectomy/methods , Gastric Bypass/methods , GRADE Approach , Laparoscopy/methods , Motion Pictures , Network Meta-Analysis , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: Revisión sistemática de la literatura con el objetivo de determinar diferencias entre el abordaje torácico mínimamente invasivo y por toracotomía tradicional para la esofagectomía por cáncer de esófago, en términos de complicaciones respiratorias. MÉTODOS: La búsqueda se ha realizado a través de las bases de datos Medline y Cochrane Library, identificando los estudios que comparaban las 2 variantes técnicas mencionadas, independientemente del tipo de abordaje a nivel abdominal (laparotomía/laparoscopia). Se seleccionaron aquellos estudios que describían las complicaciones respiratorias desglosadas por categorías y en datos absolutos. Se excluyeron los estudios en que se consideraba la minitoracotomía en el grupo de abordaje torácico mínimamente invasivo. Los criterios de selección fueron: consideramos los estudios en los que se describieron las complicaciones respiratorias desglosadas (9 en total) y analizamos las complicaciones más frecuentes (infecciones respiratorias, insuficiencia respiratoria y derrame pleural). RESULTADOS: Seleccionamos 9 estudios (un ensayo clínico prospectivo y aleatorizado, y 8 estudios de casos y controles) totalizando 1.190 pacientes, de los cuales 1.167 fueron intervenidos por cáncer de esófago, 482 pacientes por toracotomía y 708 por toracoscopia. En 3 estudios se encontraron definiciones de las infecciones respiratorias y la estratificación por gravedad de las complicaciones descritas se encontró en un estudio. Las complicaciones más frecuentes y que permitieron realizar un metaanálisis fueron: las infecciones respiratorias, el derrame pleural y la insuficiencia respiratoria. No se identificaron diferencias estadísticas significativas entre los 2 abordajes en el análisis global en cuanto a la tasa de complicaciones respiratorias mencionadas. DISCUSIÓN: El tipo de abordaje torácico (toracotomía o toracoscopia) no parece influir de forma significativa en el desarrollo de complicaciones respiratorias postesofagectomía por cáncer. Sin embargo, el diseño de los estudios analizados, los criterios de definición heterogéneos y la ausencia de una estratificación adecuada de las complicaciones hacen cuestionable esta constatación. Se necesitan más ensayos clínicos prospectivos y aleatorizados y un consenso en cuanto a la forma de definir las complicaciones respiratorias postoperatorias postesofagectomía
INTRODUCTION: A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim to determine differences in the rate of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using minimally invasive access vs traditional thoracic access. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Medline and Cochrane Library, identifying studies that compared the 2 types of thoracic access, regardless of the type of abdominal access (laparotomy/laparoscopy). The studies selected described respiratory complications in absolute numbers and different categories. Studies that considered minithoracotomy as a minimally invasive technique were excluded. Inclusion criteria were: studies decribing the different types of respiratory complications (9 in total), and analysing the most common complications: respiratory infection, respiratory failure and pleural effusion. RESULTS: Nine studies were selected (one prospective randomized trial and 8 case control studies) including 1,190 patients, 1,167 of which were operated on for esophageal cancer: 482 patients by thoracotomy and 708 by thoracoscopy. Three studies included definitions of respiratory complications, and one stratified them. The more frequent complications that allowed a meta-analysis were: respiratory infections, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. No significant differences were found between the 2 types of access in the global analysis. DISCUSSION: The type of thoracic access (thoracotomy or thoracoscopy) does not seem to influence the development of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for cancer. However, the design of the studies analysed, the absence of clear definitions and stratification of the complications makes this conclusion questionable. A consensus on the definition of complications and further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary
Subject(s)
Humans , Esophagectomy/methods , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Pleural Effusion/epidemiology , Respiration Disorders/epidemiology , Esophagectomy/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Thoracotomy/methodsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim to determine differences in the rate of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using minimally invasive access vs traditional thoracic access. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Medline and Cochrane Library, identifying studies that compared the 2 types of thoracic access, regardless of the type of abdominal access (laparotomy/laparoscopy). The studies selected described respiratory complications in absolute numbers and different categories. Studies that considered minithoracotomy as a minimally invasive technique were excluded. Inclusion criteria were: studies decribing the different types of respiratory complications (9 in total), and analysing the most common complications: respiratory infection, respiratory failure and pleural effusion. RESULTS: Nine studies were selected (one prospective randomized trial and 8 case control studies) including 1,190 patients, 1,167 of which were operated on for esophageal cancer: 482 patients by thoracotomy and 708 by thoracoscopy. Three studies included definitions of respiratory complications, and one stratified them. The more frequent complications that allowed a meta-analysis were: respiratory infections, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. No significant differences were found between the 2 types of access in the global analysis. DISCUSSION: The type of thoracic access (thoracotomy or thoracoscopy) does not seem to influence the development of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for cancer. However, the design of the studies analysed, the absence of clear definitions and stratification of the complications makes this conclusion questionable. A consensus on the definition of complications and further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.
