Is Sleeve Gastrectomy as Effective in Older Patients as in Younger Patients? A Comparative Analysis of Weight Loss, Related Comorbidities, and Medication Requirements.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in the older population has been the subject of ongoing debate but several studies have recently demonstrated its short-term advantages in this age group. It is not yet clear, however, whether these benefits are long-lasting. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with morbid obesity who underwent laparoscopy sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). These patients were divided into two groups: those above 60 years of age (older group) and those of 60 years or under (younger group). Variables evaluated included demographics and anthropometrics data, comorbidities, and daily medication requirements. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two patients underwent LSG, 57 in the older group and 195 in the younger group. Outcomes related to weight loss in the older subjects were modest compared to those in the younger population (older group %EWL 41.6 vs younger group %EWL 51.1, p < 0.05, older group %TWL 24.9% vs younger group %TWL 25.2%, p < 0.05). During follow-up, both older and younger patients showed an improvement in all the comorbidities: hypertension (older 82.5% vs 38.1%, younger 52.6% vs 29.2%, p < 0.05), type 2 diabetes mellitus (older 38.6% vs 27.3%, 34.9% vs 23.9%, p < 0.05), hyperlipidemia (older 75.4% vs 42.9%, younger 35.9% vs 21.1%, p < 0.05), and OSAHS (older 57.9% vs 30%, younger 40.4% vs 7.1%, p < 0.05). The average number of daily medications used to manage comorbidities decreased in both groups. CONCLUSION: LSG in older patients is effective in terms of weight loss, improvement of comorbidities, and lower daily medication requirements up to 5 years of follow-up.

Prone Versus Supine Position in Abdominoperineal Resection: Outcomes in the Laparoscopic Era.

Background: It is unclear whether the supine or prone approach for abdominoperineal resection (APR) influences outcomes. Methods: In a retrospective study of patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative laparoscopic APR from 2005 to 2018, we compared perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival between the two approaches. Results: We recruited 123 patients (58 for the supine group and 65 for the prone group), with a median age of 72 (41-93) years. Mean follow-up was 67.4-45.7 months (28-169) in the supine group and 47.8-30.9 months (13-158) in the prone group (P = .026). Duration of surgery was longer in the prone group at 237 ± 52.3 minutes versus 210 ± 56.6 minutes in the supine group (P = .007). The incidence of tumor perforation during surgery was 9% in the supine group versus 3% in the prone group (P = .208). The incidence of perineal wound infection did not differ significantly between groups (supine 22% versus prone 20%, P = .93). The mesorectum was incomplete in 25% cases in the supine group and 14% cases in the prone group (P = .175). Circumferential resection margin positivity was 21% in the supine group and 14% in the prone group (P = .374). Local and distant recurrence was higher in patients with adenocarcinoma in the supine group at 10% and 31% versus 4% and 17% in the prone group (P = .177). Overall survival was higher in the prone group: 4% of patients died due to disease progression compared with 24% in the supine group (P = .034). Conclusions: Our results suggest that morbidity is similar with both laparoscopic techniques, but long-term outcomes seem better with the prone approach.