Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass vs Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy in the Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Obesity's associated comorbidities and treatment costs have risen significantly, highlighting the importance of early weight loss strategies. Bariatric surgeries like Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) have been effective in promoting weight loss and improving type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> The aim was to determine whether Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is more effective than vertical sleeve gastrectomy in the remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).</br> <b><br>Methods:</b> A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. A literature search was performed in the databases Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Medline/Ovid. A total of 1323 results were identified; after screening, 14 articles were selected and included in the systematic review. Primary and secondary outcomes were measured by RR with a 95% CI.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The primary outcome of T2DM remission was 15% in favor of VSG (RR: 1.15, [95% CI: 1.04-1.28]). For secondary outcomes, hypertension remission was 7% in favor of VSG (RR: 1.07, [95% CI: 1.00-1.16]). Remission of dyslipidemia was 16% in favor of VSG (RR: 1.16, [95% CI: 1.06-1.26]). BMI after surgery was in favor of RYGB (MD: -1.31, [95% CI: -1.98 to -0.64]). For weight loss, the results favored VSG (MD: 6.50, [95% CI: 4.99-8.01]). In relation to total cholesterol, they were 65% favorable for RYGB (MD: -0.35, [95% CI: -0.46 to -0.24]), with a value of p <0.05. For LDL values, our results were 69% favorable for RYGB (MD: -0.31, [95% CI: -0.45 to -0.16]), p <0.01 value.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is more effective in T2DM remission, hypertension remission, dyslipidemia remission, and weight loss compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is more effective at lowering BMI, total cholesterol, LDL, and TG compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.</br>.

LAPAROSCOPIC SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC ROUX-EN-Y GASTRIC BYPASS FOR WEIGHT LOSS IN OBESE PATIENTS: WHICH IS MORE EFFECTIVE? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective option to reduce weight in morbid obesity patients. The techniques most employed are the restrictive surgery laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), surgical procedures of intestinal malabsorption, and both types (restrictive and intestinal malabsorption) such as the Roux-en-Y laparoscopic gastric bypass (RYLGB). AIMS: To determine if LSG is more effective than RYLGB for weight loss. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out, including five clinical trials and sixteen cohorts comparing LSG versus RYLGB in weight loss and secondary outcomes: resolution of comorbidities, postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life. RESULTS: Excess weight loss was 10.2% (mean difference [MD] 10.2; 95%CI -10.14; -9.90) higher in patients undergoing LSG than in patients submitted to RYLGB. Diabetes mellitus type 2 was resolved in 17% (relative risk [RR] 0.83; 95%CI 0.77-0.90) of cases, more significantly after LSG, arterial hypertension in 23% (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.69-0.84), and dyslipidemia in 17% (RR 0.83; 95%CI 0.77-0.90). Postoperative complications were 73% higher in patients undergoing RYLGB (MD 0.73; 95%CI 0.63-0.83). The operative time was 35.76 minutes shorter in the LSG (MD -35.76; 95%CI -37.28; -34.24). Finally, the quality of life improved more in patients operated by LSG (MD 0.37; 95%CI -0.48; -0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that LSG could be more effective than RYLGB in reducing the percentage of excess weight, comorbidities, postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and in improving quality of life.

Post-COVID cholangiopathy: A narrative review.

Since the spread of the first cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection much progress has been made in understanding the disease process. However, we are still facing the complications of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Multiple sequelae may appear as a consequence of acute infection. This set of entities called post-COVID-19 syndrome involves a wide variety of new, recurrent or persistent symptoms grouped together as a consequence of the acute disease process. One of those that has attracted the most attention is the liver and bile duct involvement called post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy. This is characterized by elevation of liver markers such as alkaline phosphatase, bilirubin and transaminases as well as alterations in the bile ducts in imaging studies. Thus, a narrative review of the cases reported until the end of 2021 was carried out. From the findings found, we concluded that patients who have had COVID-19 or during the process have required hospitalization should remain under follow-up for at least 6 months by a multidisciplinary team.

Complicated acute appendicitis with compromised appendiceal base: A review of surgical strategies.

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent emergencies in hospitals around the world; it requires early surgical treatment in complicated cases. One of the challenges that the surgeon faces during appendectomy is when the base of the appendix is compromised by either a perforation or gangrene. To show the surgical strategies that have been reported, as well as the complications associated with a compromised appendicular base in a complicated acute appendicitis.</br> <b><br>Methods:</b> A bibliographic search was carried out in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search expression ("appendiceal stump closure" OR "Closure of the appendiceal stump" OR "Management of appendiceal stump") was used to search for articles. The inclusion criteria were observational studies (case reports, case series, or cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort studies).</br> <b><br>Discussion:</b> Different techniques have been reported for the treatment of a compromised appendicular base. Among the most used are primary closure, partial resection of the cecum, cecostomy tube, ileocecectomy, and right hemicolectomy. The most frequent complications are surgical site infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, intestinal obstruction, and others.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> The appendicular base, compromised by necrosis or perforation, requires adequate treatment in order to prevent dehiscence of the appendicular stump sutures and fecal peritonitis. A number of surgical options have been reported.</br>.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass for weight loss in obese patients: which is more effective? a systematic review and meta-analysis / Gastrectomia vertical laparoscópica versus by-pass gástrico na perda de peso em pacientes obesos: qual é mais efetiva? uma revisão sistemática

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective option to reduce weight in morbid obesity patients. The techniques most employed are the restrictive surgery laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), surgical procedures of intestinal malabsorption, and both types (restrictive and intestinal malabsorption) such as the Roux-en-Y laparoscopic gastric bypass (RYLGB). AIMS: To determine if LSG is more effective than RYLGB for weight loss. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out, including five clinical trials and sixteen cohorts comparing LSG versus RYLGB in weight loss and secondary outcomes: resolution of comorbidities, postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life. RESULTS: Excess weight loss was 10.2% (mean difference [MD] 10.2; 95%CI -10.14; -9.90) higher in patients undergoing LSG than in patients submitted to RYLGB. Diabetes mellitus type 2 was resolved in 17% (relative risk [RR] 0.83; 95%CI 0.77-0.90) of cases, more significantly after LSG, arterial hypertension in 23% (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.69-0.84), and dyslipidemia in 17% (RR 0.83; 95%CI 0.77-0.90). Postoperative complications were 73% higher in patients undergoing RYLGB (MD 0.73; 95%CI 0.63-0.83). The operative time was 35.76 minutes shorter in the LSG (MD -35.76; 95%CI -37.28; -34.24). Finally, the quality of life improved more in patients operated by LSG (MD 0.37; 95%CI -0.48; -0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that LSG could be more effective than RYLGB in reducing the percentage of excess weight, comorbidities, postoperative complications, operative time, hospital stay, and in improving quality of life.

RESUMO RACIONAL: A cirurgia bariátrica é a opção mais eficaz para reduzir o peso em pacientes com obesidade mórbida. Três técnicas são mais empregadas: gastrectomia vertical laparoscópica (LSG), procedimentos cirúrgicos de má absorção intestinal e ambos os tipos, má absorção intestinal e restritiva, e bypass laparoscópico em Y-Roux (RYLGB). OBJETIVOS: Determinar a eficácia da LSG versus RYLGB na perda de peso. MÉTODOS: Uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise foi realizada incluindo cinco ensaios clínicos e dezesseis coortes comparando LSG versus RYLGB na perda de peso e resultados secundários, resolução de comorbidades, complicações pós-operatórias, tempo operatório, permanência hospitalar e melhora da qualidade de vida. RESULTADOS: A perda de excesso de peso foi 10,2% (diferença média (MD) 10,2; IC95% -10,14; -9,90) maior em pacientes submetidos a LSG do que em pacientes operados com RYLGB. Diabetes mellitus tipo 2 foi resolvido em 17% (risco relativo (RR) 0,83; IC95% 0,77-0,90), hipertensão arterial em 23% (RR 0,77; IC95% 0,69-0,84), dislipidemia em 17% (RR 0,83; IC95% 0,77-0,90), mais significativos após LSG. As complicações pós-operatórias foram 73% maiores em pacientes submetidos a RYLGB (MD 0,73; IC95% 0,63-0,83). O tempo operatório foi 35,76 minutos menor na LSG (MD -35,76; IC95% -37,28; -34,24). Finalmente, a qualidade de vida melhorou mais no LSG (MD 0,37; IC95% -0,48; -0,26). CONCLUSÕES: LSG é muito eficaz na redução do excesso de peso, comorbidades, complicações pós-operatórias, tempo e melhora na qualidade de vida.

ERICVA Risk Scale simplified as a predictor of amputation in critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that simplified ERICVA (Valladolid Critical Limb Ischaemia Risk Scale) is useful in predicting amputation in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLI) after one year of revascularization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed. We analyzed the medical records of 93 patients over the age of 35 with the diagnosis of CLI who were treated in the Department of Internal Medicine, Orthopedics or in the Cardiovascular Surgery Unit of the Víctor Lazarte Echegaray Hospital and the High Complexity Virgen de La Puerta Hospital during the period 2015-2018. The simplified ERICVA score was determined in patients before surgical and endovascular revascularization. We included 31 patients who scored 2 or more points in the exposed group and 62 patients who scored less than 2 points in the group not exposed to amputation risk. The collected data was analyzed with the statistical program SPSS where the Relative Risk and significance was obtained with Pearson's Chi-square. The multivariate analysis was also carried out in order to obtain the adjusted relative risk. RESULTS: It was identified that the simplified ERICVA score greater than or equal to 2 points was more frequent in those who underwent amputation (90.3%) compared to patients who did not undergo amputation (4.8%), increasing the risk of amputation in those patients with CLI who underwent revascularization (RR: 18.67, P<0.001). It was also possible to identify that within the group of patients that showed a high risk of amputation according to the ERICVA scale, they had a higher risk of major amputation (RR: 9.32, P<0.001) as opposed to the risk of minor amputation (RR: 1, 89, P=0.193). Among the items of the simplified ERICVA scale, the preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and hematocrit were significantly higher in the group of amputated patients (P<0.001). In addition, it was possible to identify that the score greater than or equal to 2 was independently associated with the risk of amputation in patients revascularized with CLI (RR: 13.5, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In our patient population, the simplified ERICVA scale is useful in predicting major and minor amputation in critical limb ischemia after revascularization. The present data showed that the patients who had a simplified ERICVA score greater than or equal to 2 had a higher risk of major amputation compared to the risk of minor amputation. However, it is important to highlight that the impact on the prediction of minor amputation is greater because in some circumstances major amputation can appear as a complication of CLI.