Proposal for a multidisciplinary approach to the patient with morbid obesity: the St. Franciscus Hospital morbid obesity program.

Morbid obesity is a serious disease as it is accompanied by substantial co-morbidity and mortality. The prevalence is increasing to an alarming extent, in Europe as well as in the United States. In the past few decades, bariatric surgery has developed and gained importance. It currently represents the only long-lasting therapy for this group of patients, resulting in an efficient reduction in body weight and obesity-related medical conditions, mostly cardiovascular in nature. The importance of a standardized protocol, the use of selection criteria, and a multidisciplinary approach have been stressed but not yet described in detail. Therefore, in this article, the multidisciplinary approach and the treatment protocol that have been applied in our hospital for more than 20 years are set out in a detailed manner. The application of a strict protocol may help to select and follow-up motivated patients and to organize multidisciplinary research activities.

[Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse]. / Chirurgische behandeling van de rectale prolaps.

Rectal prolapse must be distinguished from anal prolapse or mucosal prolapse since the treatment differs. The only effective treatment for rectal prolapse is surgery. The fact that rectal prolapse causes severe disability and that the morbidity of the current surgical treatment is low justifies surgery even at advanced age. Moreover, the success rate is high. Ventral rectopexy seems to be the surgical technique of choice on the grounds of the anatomical advantages (preservation of rectal innervation and lifting of the middle compartment) and the results (low recurrence rates and reduction of constipation). The laparoscopic approach is just as effective as an open procedure and results in less morbidity, quicker recovery and lower medical costs.

Long-term follow-up after gastric surgery for morbid obesity: preoperative weight loss improves the long-term control of morbid obesity after vertical banded gastroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Gastric restrictive surgery in a large non-university teaching hospital has been combined with preoperative weight loss by diet. The aims of preoperative dieting were to test patient motivation, to reduce perioperative morbidity, to accustom patients to the restriction of food intake after surgery, and to increase total weight loss. This study was performed to investigate the long-term results of this approach. METHODS: 200 morbidly obese persons were operated on between 1978 and 1986 after they had lost more than 50% of their excess weight by diet. 100 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (RYGB) and, after 1983, 100 vertical banded gastroplasties (VBG) were performed. Data from medical records and data concerning present weight, complaints, food intolerance, nutritional deficiencies, and medical follow-up visits were obtained by questionnaire. RESULTS: The lowest body weight was obtained 1 year after operation with an average excess weight loss (EWL) of 78% after RYGB and 75% after VBG. Body weight gradually increased, and 7 years after surgery the average EWL was 67% after RYGB and 63% after VBG. Ten patients had died (three postoperatively after RYGB). Preoperative dieting did not decrease perioperative morbidity and mortality in comparison with other reports. CONCLUSIONS: After combined preoperative dieting and VBG, weight loss is greater than after surgery alone. No additional weight loss after preoperative dieting was observed in RYGB patients. Most patients who underwent bariatric surgery still experience nutritional, physical, and cosmetic problems 7 years after surgery.

Clinical and financial aspects of cholecystectomy: laparoscopic versus open technique.

Clinical and financial aspects of laparoscopic (LC) (n = 119) and open (OC) (n = 117) cholecystectomy are compared in a retrospective study. The number and nature of perioperative complications do not differ importantly between these techniques. In favor of LC, significant differences are observed regarding the numbers of days severe pain was suffered (mean 1.7 days versus 5.4 days), the total number of days pain was suffered (mean 7.0 days versus 12.2 days), the number of postoperative days in hospital (mean 3.1 days versus 8. 8 days), the extent of perioperative monitoring performed, and the number of days before patients could return to (every day) work (mean 12.8 days versus 34.8 days). In this study total charges for LC (hospital and professional charges) are significantly lower than the total charges for OC [means, in dutch guilders (DG) were 4425 for LC versus 9215 for OC; $1 US = 1.93 DG]. The difference is the result of fewer days of postoperative hospitalization and reduced perioperative screening for LC. Furthermore, hospital charges for LC in The Netherlands (DG 3655) are less expensive than average hospital charges reported so far (US $1894 compared to $4948). For the hospital itself, however, on an annual base LC might well be more expensive than OC because of a maximum quota-annex-budgetizing system installed by the government to keep national health care costs controllable and low. In conclusion, LC has clear advantages over OC in clinical, social, and financial respects. Unjustly, the hospital does not seem to gain financial benefit from this fact.