Efficiency and safety of single anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass in the treatment of obesity and associated comorbidities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The Single Anastomosis Sleeve Ileal (SASI) bypass is a new bariatric surgery corresponding to an adaptation of the Santoro approach, consisting of a sleeve gastrectomy (SG) followed by loop gastroileostomy. Therefore, we aimed to systematically assess all the current literature on SASI bypass in terms of safety, weight loss, improvement in associated comorbidities, and complications. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). We performed a meta-analysis of risk ratios and mean differences to compare surgical approaches for excessive weight loss, improvement/remission in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension (HT), dyslipidemia (DL), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and complications. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis and four in the quantitative analysis, comparing SASI bypass with SG and One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB). A comparison between Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) and SASI bypass could not be performed. Compared to SG, the SASI bypass was associated with improved weight loss (MD = 11.32; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) [7.89;14.76]; p < 0.0001), and improvement or remission in T2DM (RR = 1.35; 95%CI [1.07;1.69]; p = 0.011), DL (RR = 1.41; 95%CI [1.00;1.99]; p = 0.048) and OSA (RR = 1.50; 95%CI [1.01;2.22]; p = 0.042). No statistically significant differences in any of the assessed outcomes were observed when compared with OAGB. When compared to both SG and OAGB, the complication rate of SASI was similar. CONCLUSION: Although studies with longer follow-up periods are needed, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that SASI bypass has a significant effect on weight loss and metabolic variables. Variations in outcomes between studies reinforce the need for standardization.

Preoperative risk factors for early postoperative bleeding after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Although bariatric surgery is an effective intervention for obesity, it comes with risks such as early postoperative bleeding (EPB). Identifying preoperative risk factors for this complication can help patients' risk stratification and optimization. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to find predictors for early postoperative bleeding after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until November 2023. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to explore preoperative risk factors associated with early postoperative bleeding after RYGB. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by leave-one-out analyses. RESULTS: 23 studies were included, comprising 232,488 patients. Male gender (meta-analytical RR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.21-1.66, I2 = 18%, Q Cochran test p-value = 0.29) and revisional surgery (meta-analytical RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.12-1.62, I2 = 22%, Q Cochran test p = 0.21) were associated with higher risk of EPB. On average, patients with EPB were older than the remainder (MD for the mean age = 2.82 years, 95%CI = 0.97-4.67, I2 = 0.00%, Q Cochran test p = 0.46). Except for hypertension (meta-analytical RR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.02-1.73, I2 = 66%, Q Cochran test p < 0.0001), comorbidities were not associated with a higher risk of EPB. CONCLUSION: Preoperative risk factors, including age, gender, hypertension, and revisional bariatric surgery, are associated with early postoperative bleeding after RYGB. Further primary studies, with higher methodological quality, are required to detail more risk factors.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy as revisional bariatric procedures after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The frequency of revisional bariatric surgery is increasing, but its effectiveness and safety are not yet fully established. The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of primary (pRYGB and pSG) and revisional bariatric surgeries (rRYGB and rSG). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study assessing all patients submitted to primary and revisional (after a failed AGB) RYGB and SG in 2019. Each patient was followed-up at 6 months and 12 months after surgery. We compared pRYGB vs. rRYGB, pSG vs. rSG and rRYGB vs. rSG on weight loss, surgical complications, and resolution of comorbidities. RESULTS: We assessed 494 patients, of which 18.8% had undergone a revisional procedure. Higher weight loss at 6 and 12 months was observed in patients undergoing primary vs. revisional procedures. Patients submitted to rRYGB lost more weight than those with rSG (%EWL 12 months = 82.6% vs. 69.0%, p < 0.001). Regarding the resolution of obesity-related comorbidities, diabetes resolution was more frequent in pRYGB than rRYGB (54.2% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.038). Also, 41.7% of the patients who underwent rRYGB had dyslipidemia resolution vs. 0% from the rSG group (p = 0.035). Dyslipidemia resolution was also more common in pSG vs. rSG (68.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.001). No significant differences in surgical complications were found. CONCLUSION: Revisional bariatric surgery is effective and safe treating obesity and related comorbidities after AGB. Primary procedures appear to be associated with better weight loss outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the role of revisional bariatric surgery.

Risk and Prophylactic Management of Gallstone Disease in Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and A Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and management of gallstone disease (GD) in bariatric patients, including the role of routine prophylactic concomitant cholecystectomy (CCY), are still a matter of debate. This study aims to assess the risk of de novo GD in patients undergoing bariatric surgery (BS) and their predictive factors, as well as mortality and morbidity in prophylactic CCY compared to BS alone. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science until April 2021. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to estimate the risk of GD development after BS and the morbidity and mortality associated with BS alone versus BS + prophylactic CCY. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: The risk of de novo post bariatric GD was 20.7% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] = 13.0-29.7%; I2 = 75.4%), and that of symptomatic GD was 8.2% ([95% CrI] = 5.9-11.1%; I2 = 66.9%). Pre-operative average BMI (OR = 1.04; 95% CrI = 0.92-1.17) and female patients' proportion (OR = 1.00; 95% CrI = 0.98-1.04) were not associated with increased risk of symptomatic GD. BS + prophylactic CCY was associated with a 97% probability of a higher number of postoperative major complications compared to BS alone (OR = 1.74, 95% CrI = 0.97-3.55; I2 = 56.5%). Mortality was not substantially different between the two approaches (OR = 0.79; 95% CrI = 0.03-3.02; I2 = 20.7%). CONCLUSION: The risk of de novo symptomatic GD after BS is not substantially high. Although mortality is similar between groups, odds of major postoperative complications were higher in patients submitted to BS + prophylactic CCY. It is still arguable if prophylactic CCY is a fitting approach for patients with a preoperative lithiasic gallbladder.