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

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.

Negative-pressure wound therapy after stoma reversal in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stoma-reversal surgery is associated with high postoperative morbidity, including wound complications and surgical-site infections (SSIs). This study aims to assess whether the application of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can improve wound healing compared with conventional wound dressing. METHODS: This was a single-centre, superiority, open-label, parallel, individually randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing stoma reversal were randomized (1 : 1) to receive NPWT or conventional wound dressing. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of wound complications and SSIs after stoma closure. The secondary endpoints were postoperative wound pain, rate of wound healing after 30 days from stoma closure, and wound aesthetic satisfaction. RESULTS: Between June 2019 and January 2021, 50 patients were allocated to the NPWT group (all received NPWT, 49 were analysed); 50 patients were allocated to the conventional wound dressing group (48 received the treatment, 45 were analysed). No significant difference was found in wound-complication rate (10 per cent NPWT versus 16 per cent controls; odds ratio 0.61 (95 per cent c.i. 0.18 to 2.10), P = 0.542) and incisional SSI rate (8 per cent NPWT versus 7 per cent controls; odds ratio 1.24 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 5.99), P = 1.000). The NPWT group showed less pain, higher aesthetic satisfaction (P < 0.0001), and a higher proportion of wound healing (92 versus 78 per cent; P = 0.081) compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: NPWT does not reduce the incidence of SSI after stoma-reversal surgery compared with conventional wound dressing. However, NPWT improved the healing of uninfected wounds, reduced wound pain and led to better aesthetic outcomes.Registration number: NCT037812016 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Management of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic left colectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery has gained a major role in the current management of colorectal disease since the introduction of laparoscopy in the early 1990s for colorectal procedures. The laparoscopic approach, in fact, is not exempt from the risk of intraoperative complications, some of which can occur outside the field of view. The aim of this chapter was to review the different types of complications that can happen during left colectomy, analyzing the causes, how to prevent them and what to do in case they occur. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search was carried out using the MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies published between January 1980 and October 2020. The following terms were used for the search: "complications," "risk factors," "colorectal surgery," "colorectal resection," "laparoscopy," "left colectomy," "intraoperative complications," "splenic injury," and "intraoperative bleeding." EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From our literature search we identified twenty-four studies, including two systematic reviews and metanalyses, that were the most pertinent to the subject. CONCLUSIONS: Many different complications can occur during laparoscopic left colectomy. Maintaining control of the situation is important to provide a prompt solution to the occurred injury. Increasing the reporting rate of complications may help, in the future, to analyze the causes and improve management strategies, keeping in mind that the only surgeon who does not have complications is the one who does not operate.

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.

A Quest for Optimization of Postoperative Triage After Major Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Innovative strategies to reduce costs while maintaining patient satisfaction and improving delivery of care are greatly needed in the setting of rapidly rising health care expenditure. Intensive care units (ICUs) represent a significant proportion of health care costs due to their high resources utilization. Currently, the decision to admit a patient to the ICU lacks standardization because of the lack of evidence-based admission criteria. The objective of our research is to develop a prediction model that can help the physician in the clinical decision-making of postoperative triage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our group identified a list of index events that commonly grants admission to the ICU independently of the hospital system. We analyzed correlation among 200 quantitative and semiquantitative variables for each patient in the study using a decision tree modeling (DTM). In addition, we validated the DTM against explanatory models, such as bivariate analysis, multiple logistic regression, and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. RESULTS: Unlike explanatory modeling, DTM has several unique strengths: tree models are easy to interpret, the analysis can examine hundreds of variables at once, and offer insight into variable relative importance. In a retrospective analysis, we found that DTM was more accurate at predicting need for intensive care compared with current clinical practice. DISCUSSION: DTM and predictive modeling may enhance postoperative triage decision-making. Future areas of research include larger retrospective analyses and prospective observational studies that can lead to an improved clinical practice and better resources utilization.