Nutritional Complications After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out involving studies that compared the nutritional complications of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB); these included the incidence of malnutrition as well as deficiencies of other nutritional elements, such as total protein, albumin, calcium and iron. A comprehensive search strategy was implemented in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Effect sizes included the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), as well as mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs of the percentage total weight loss (%TWL) and excess weight loss percentage (%EWL). Thirteen studies were included (12,964 patients, 66.27% females, 53.82% underwent OAGB). At the longest follow-up period (≥3 years), OAGB was associated with significantly higher %TWL (MD=5.41%, 95%CI, 1.52 to 9.29) and %EWL (MD=13.81%, 95%CI, 9.60 to 18.02) compared to RYGB. However, OAGB procedures were associated with malnutrition (OR=3.00, 95%CI, 1.68 to 5.36, p<0.0001), hypoalbuminemia (OR=2.38, 95%CI, 1.65 to 3.43, p<0.0001), hypoproteinemia (OR=1.85, 95%CI, 1.09 to 3.14, p=0.022), anemia (OR=1.38, 95%CI, 1.08 to 1.77, p=0.011), and hypocalcemia (OR=1.78, 95%CI, 1.01 to 3.12, p=0.046). On subgroup analyses, the proportions of anemia and hypoalbuminemia remained significantly higher at longer follow-up periods and in studies published in Asia. Despite the favorable weight loss profile, the unfavorable nutritional consequences of OAGB merits further investigations to explore the malabsorptive element, ethnic variation, and the role of biliopancreatic limb length.

The Impact of Drain and Reinforcement on the Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery: A Prospective Study.

Purpose We aimed to investigate the impact of reinforcement and abdominal drains on the outcome of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Methods The present study was a prospective study that included obese patients scheduled to undergo LSG. Patients were assigned to receive drain, reinforcement, or both according to the surgeon's preference and followed up for one month after surgery. The present study's primary outcome was the identification of the association between intraoperative drain/reinforcement and the incidence of postoperative complications. Results A total of 125 (20.3%) patients received intraoperative drains. The proportion of postoperative morbidity was comparable between the drain and non-drain groups (3.2% versus 1.6%; p = 0.25). Patients in the drain group had similar incidence of blood transfusion (2.4% versus 1.7% in non-drain group; p = 0.43) and postoperative leakage (0.8% versus 0.2% in non-drain group; p = 0.36). The incidences of blood transfusion (p = 0.56) and reoperation (p = 0.98) were comparable between the drain and non-drain groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the drain and non-drain groups regarding postoperative mortality and wound infection (p > 0.05). On the other hand, 440 (71.3%) patients received reinforcement. The proportion of postoperative morbidity was comparable between the reinforcement and non-reinforcement groups (1.6% versus 2.8%, p = 0.07). Patients in the reinforcement group were less likely to develop postoperative bleeding (0.7% versus 4% in the non-reinforcement group; p = 0.004), while no significant difference was detected in terms of postoperative leakage (p = 0.33) and in-hospital mortality. Conclusion In conclusion, abdominal drainage did not reduce the complications of LSG patients. Reinforcement has some role in controlling the bleeding but not leaks. Both techniques did not significantly impact the mortality rate. In the future, additional, large randomized trials are needed to examine the gastrointestinal-related quality of life.

The benefit of adding lidocaine to ketamine during rapid sequence endotracheal intubation in patients with septic shock: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with septic shock commonly require endotracheal intubation under general anaesthesia in the operating theatre, the emergency department, and the intensive care unit. Hypotension is a serious complication after induction of general anaesthesia, especially in patients with circulatory failure. No randomised controlled trials had previously investigated protocols for induction of anaesthesia in septic shock patients. The aim of the current work is to compare two protocols, lidocaine-ketamine combination versus ketamine full-dose for rapid-sequence endotracheal intubation in patients with septic shock. METHODS: Forty-four adult patients, with septic shock, scheduled for emergency surgical intervention were enrolled in this randomised, double-blinded, controlled study. Patients were randomised to receive either 1 mg/kg ketamine (ketamine group, n = 22) or 0.5 mg/kg ketamine plus 1 mg/kg lidocaine (ketamine-lidocaine group, n = 22) for induction of anaesthesia in addition to 0.05 mg/kg midazolam (in both groups). Our primary outcome was the mean arterial pressure (MAP). Other outcomes included frequency of post-induction hypotension, heart rate, and cardiac output. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were available for final analysis. The average MAP reading in the first 5 min post-induction was higher in ketamine-lidocaine group than in the ketamine group {82.8 ± 5.6 mmHg and 73 ± 10.2 mmHg, P < 0.001}. Furthermore, the incidence of post-intubation hypotension was lower in the ketamine-lidocaine group than in the ketamine group {1 patient (5%) versus 17 patients (77%), P < 0.001}. The ketamine-lidocaine group showed higher MAP in almost all the readings after induction compared to ketamine group. Other haemodynamic variables including cardiac output and heart rate were comparable between both study groups. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine-ketamine combination showed less incidence of hypotension compared to ketamine full-dose when used for rapid-sequence endotracheal intubation in patients with septic shock. REGISTRATION URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844984?cond=NCT03844984&rank=1.

Modified-ramped position: a new position for intubation of obese females: a randomized controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation requires optimum position of the head and neck. In obese females, the usual ramped position might not provide adequate intubating conditions. We hypothesized that a new position, termed modified-ramped position, during induction of anesthesia would facilitate endotracheal intubation through bringing the breasts away from the laryngoscope and would also improve the laryngeal visualization. METHODS: Sixty obese female patients scheduled for general anesthesia were randomly assigned into either ramped or modified-ramped position during induction of anesthesia. In the ramped position (n = 30), the patient head and shoulders were elevated to achieve alignment of the sternal notch and the external auditory meatus; while in the modified-ramped position (n = 30), the patient shoulders were elevated using a special pillow, and the head was extended to the most possible range. Our primary outcome was the incidence of failed laryngoscopic insertion in the oral cavity (the need for patient repositioning). Other outcomes included time till vocal cord visualization, time till successful endotracheal intubation, difficulty of the mask ventilation, and Cormack-Lehane grade for laryngeal view. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (47%) in ramped group required repositioning to facilitate introduction of the laryngoscope in the oral cavity in comparison to one patient (3%) in the modified-ramped position (p < 0.001). Modified-ramped position showed lower incidence of difficult mask ventilation, shorter time for glottic visualization, and shorter time for endotracheal tube insertion compared to the ramped position. The Cormack-Lehane grade was better in the modified-ramped position. CONCLUSION: Modified-ramped position provided better intubating conditions, improved the laryngeal view, and eliminated the need for repositioning of obese female patients during insertion of the laryngoscope compared to ramped position. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: NCT03640442. Date: August 2018.

Accuracy and trending of non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure monitoring at the wrist in obese patients.

BACKGROUND: In obese patients, non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in the arm is difficult due to the arm size and morphology. We compared the non-invasive oscillometric wrist blood pressure measurement with the arm and forearm in obese patients monitored with invasive radial blood pressure (reference standard). METHODS: This prospective observational study included adult obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. Non-invasive blood pressure was measured at the arm, upper forearm and wrist of one upper extremity, while invasive blood pressure was simultaneously measured through a radial arterial catheter in the contralateral upper extremity. The accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure reading at each site was evaluated for absolute and trending values using the Bland-Altman analysis and Spearman's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: In 40 patients, 262, 259, and 263 pairs of non-invasive blood pressure readings were obtained from the arm, forearm, and wrist sites, respectively. As primary outcome, the correlation coefficient for systolic blood pressure was higher for the wrist (0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.9-0.94]) than for the arm (0.74, 95% CI [0.68-0.79]) and the forearm (0.71, 95% CI [0.64-0.76]) (P<0.05). The non-invasive systolic wrist blood pressure showed the least mean bias and the narrowest limits of agreement (-0.3±7.6mmHg) when compared with forearm (4.3±16) and arm measurements (14.2±13.6) (P<0.05). For trending values, the correlation coefficient was the highest at the wrist. CONCLUSION: In obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, non-invasive blood pressure measured at the wrist showed the highest accuracy in comparison with the arm and forearm.