Safety and Effectiveness of Two Different Fluid-Filled Intragastric Balloons: A Single Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare weight loss and safety outcomes of two different commonly available fluid-filled intragastric balloons (IGBs) used for weight loss. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of adult patients who underwent IGB insertion between July 2020 and November 2021 in a single private clinic in Kuwait. The patient either received the Elipse™ or Orbera365™ balloon and was followed until the end of treatment. RESULT: A total of 358 patients were included, of which 265 and 93 each received the Elipse and Orbera365 balloons, respectively. The mean age of patients was 32.8 (SD 9), the mean body mass index (BMI) was 35 kg/m2 (SD 4.8), and 72.1% of patients were female. In the Elipse group, 254 patients completed treatment, and 84 patients completed the treatment with Orbera365. Weight loss outcomes were measured at the end of treatment: 4 months after Elipse insertion, and 12 months after Orbera365 insertion. Interim 4 months weight loss outcomes were also measured for the Orbera365 balloon. Patients in the Orbera365 group had significantly better total body weight loss (%TBWL, 14.7 kg [SD 8.9]) compared to the Elipse group (%TBWL 10 kg, [SD 5.6], p ≤ 0.0001) at the end of treatment, while there was no difference in weight loss outcomes between the two balloons at 4 months. There were more complications requiring premature balloon removal in the Orbera365 group (9.7%) compared to the Elipse group (3.4%). CONCLUSION: IGBs provide significant weight loss with an acceptable safety profile. The Orbera365 ballon shows better weight loss outcomes compared to the Elipse, likely due to longer duration of treatment. However, there was a higher rate of complications requiring premature balloon removal in the Orbera365 group. Studies with larger patient cohort is needed to verify the findings of this study.

The Safety and Efficacy of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revision for Sleeve Gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Failure of sleeve gastrectomy poses a potential challenge for surgeons as variable options exist for revision. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a potential revisional option, and in this study, we sought to determine the safety and efficacy of OAGB post sleeve gastrectomy. METHOD: Prospective study on our initial experience with a consecutive group of patients who underwent OAGB as a revisional surgery for sleeve gastrectomy in the period between January 2015 and December 2018 was carried out. Morbidity and mortality data were recorded as well as the effect on comorbidities and weight loss. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients underwent OAGB as a revision of sleeve gastrectomy. The average weight prior to OAGB was 112 ± 24.6 kg. The minimum weight they have reached after is 85 ± 21.3 kg after a duration of 19 ± 9.2 months. Percentage of total weight loss (TWL%) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively was found to be 7.6%, 9.8%, 14.1%, and 28.8%, respectively. TWL% on the last day of follow-up was 24%. Two patients had marginal ulcers, in which one had a perforation. CONCLUSION: OAGB is safe and effective for weight regain post sleeve gastrectomy.

Laparoscopy in Acute Care Surgery: Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer.

INTRODUCTION: The use of laparoscopic management as a first choice for the treatment of duodenal perforation is gaining ground but is not routine in many centers. In this report, we aim to report our experience with laparoscopy as the first approach for the repair of duodenal perforation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients during our initial experience with the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of duodenal perforation between 2009 and 2013. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients underwent management of duodenal perforation. Laparoscopy was attempted initially in 76 patients (76%) and completed in 64 patients (64%). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (mean 2.6) than in the open group (mean 3.1) (p = 0.008). Complications developed in 14 patients (20%). There was a tendency towards fewer admissions to intensive care, less acute kidney injuries, and less acute respiratory distress syndrome in the laparoscopic group. In patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, the chances of uneventful recovery were 4.3 times higher than in those patients who underwent open surgery (95% CI 1.3-13.5, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and can be utilized as a routine approach for the treatment of this pathology.