Evaluation of health status and quality of life after bariatric surgery: comparison of standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, vertical banded gastroplasty and laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding.

BACKGROUND: This study is a trial to compare the effects and outcomes of three different bariatric procedures performed in two centers. Standard Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was performed by Dr. Norman Samuels in Fort Lauderdale (Florida); vertical banded gastroplasty and laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding were done in Hallein (Salzburg) by Dr. Emanuel Hell and Dr. Karl Miller. METHODS: In a prospective comparative study 30 matched patients from each group were followed to assess post-operative improvement in health status and quality of life, to compare the three different techniques. The Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS) as described by Oria and Moorehead has been used for evaluation. RESULTS: The observation time was at least 3 years (3 to 8 years) in each individual case. A significant increase in quality of life and health status in 75% of the surgically-treated patients was observed when compared with a non-operated control group of morbidly obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: By utilizing BAROS it has been found possible to compare the results of different procedures done by different surgeons with different techniques, utilizing patients from different cultures and with different languages. The results of this comparative study favor the standard gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity. This operation is superior to purely gastric restrictive procedures in weight loss and improvement of quality of life.

Bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system (BAROS)

BACKGROUND: The lack of standards for comparison of results was identified by the NIH Consensus Conference panelists as one of the key problems in evaluating reports in the surgical treatment of severe obesity. The analysis of outcomes after bariatric surgery should include weight loss, improvement in comorbidities related to obesity, and quality-of-life (QOL) assessment. Definitions of success and failure should be established and the presentation of results standardized. METHODS: A survey among experienced bariatric surgeons was conducted to study the reporting of results. The concept of evaluating outcomes by using a scoring system was introduced in 1997 and has now been refined further. Psychologists with expertise in bariatrics were asked to recommend a disease-specific instrument to analyze QOL after surgery. RESULTS: The system defines five outcome groups (failure, fair, good, very good, and excellent), based on a scoring table that adds or subtracts points while evaluating three main areas: percentage of excess weight loss, changes in medical conditions, and QOL. To assess changes in QOL after treatment, this method incorporates a specifically designed patient questionnaire that addresses self-esteem and four daily activities. Complications and reoperative surgery deduct points, thus avoiding the controversy of considering reoperations as failures. CONCLUSIONS: The Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS) analyzes outcomes in a simple, objective, unbiased, and evidence-based fashion. It can be adapted to evaluate other forms of medical intervention for the control of obesity. This method should be considered by international organizations for the adoption of standards for the outcome assessment of bariatric treatments, and for the comparison of results among surgical series. These standards could also be used to compare the long-term effects of surgery with nonoperative weight loss methods.