Prevalence, Indications, and Complications of Conversional Surgery After Vertical Banded Gastroplasty: A MBSAQIP Analysis.

PURPOSE: Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) was once the most popular bariatric procedure in the 1980's, with many patients subsequently requiring conversional surgery. However, knowledge regarding the prevalence and outcomes of these procedures remains limited. This study aims to determine the prevalence, indications, rate of 30-day serious complications, and mortality of conversional surgery after VBG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP database from 2020 to 2022 was conducted. Individuals undergoing conversional or revisional surgery after VBG were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day serious complications and mortality. RESULTS: Of 716 VBG conversions, the common procedures included 660 (92.1%) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and 56 (7.9%) sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The main indication for conversion was weight gain for RYGB (31.0%) and for SG (41.0%). RYGB had longer operative times than SG (223.7 vs 130.5 min, p < 0.001). Although not statistically significant, serious complications were higher after RYGB (14.7% vs 8.9%, p = 0.2). Leak rates were higher after SG (5.4 vs 3.5%) but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.4). Mortality was similar between RYGB and SG (1.2 vs 1.8%, p = 0.7). Multivariable regression showed higher body mass index, longer operative time, previous cardiac surgery and black race were independently associated with serious complications. Conversion to RYGB was not predictive of serious complications compared to SG (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.34-2.67, p = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Conversional surgery after VBG is uncommon, and the rate of complications and mortality remains high. Patients should be thoroughly evaluated and informed about these risks before undergoing conversion from VBG.

Performance of artificial intelligence in bariatric surgery: comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard in the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery textbook of bariatric surgery questions.

BACKGROUND: The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) textbook serves as a comprehensive resource for bariatric surgery, covering recent advancements and clinical questions. Testing artificial intelligence (AI) engines using this authoritative source ensures accurate and up-to-date information and provides insight in its potential implications for surgical education and training. OBJECTIVES: To determine the quality and to compare different large language models' (LLMs) ability to respond to textbook questions relating to bariatric surgery. SETTING: Remote. METHODS: Prompts to be entered into the LLMs were multiple-choice questions found in "The ASMBS Textbook of Bariatric Surgery, second Edition. The prompts were queried into 3 LLMs: OpenAI's ChatGPT-4, Microsoft's Bing, and Google's Bard. The generated responses were assessed based on overall accuracy, the number of correct answers according to subject matter, and the number of correct answers based on question type. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the number of responses per LLMs per category that were correct. RESULTS: Two hundred questions were used to query the AI models. There was an overall significant difference in the accuracy of answers, with an accuracy of 83.0% for ChatGPT-4, followed by Bard (76.0%) and Bing (65.0%). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference between the models' performance in question categories, with ChatGPT-4's demonstrating the highest proportion of correct answers in questions related to treatment and surgical procedures (83.1%) and complications (91.7%). There was also a significant difference between the performance in different question types, with ChatGPT-4 showing superior performance in inclusionary questions. Bard and Bing were unable to answer certain questions whereas ChatGPT-4 left no questions unanswered. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs, particularly ChatGPT-4, demonstrated promising accuracy when answering clinical questions related to bariatric surgery. Continued AI advancements and research is required to elucidate the potential applications of LLMs in training and education.

Bariatric Surgical Outcomes in the Elderly: A Comparison Study Between Primary and Revisional Procedures in the United Arab Emirates.

PURPOSE: Data reported on comparing primary and revisional procedures in the elderly is still limited. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between primary and revisional bariatric surgery in a cohort of older patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients ≥ 60 years old were divided into two cohorts, primary surgery cohort (PSC) and revisional surgery cohort (RSC). Baseline and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included (34 PSC and 24 RSC) in the study. Forty-two (25 PSC and 17 RSC) 72.4% were female. The mean age was 64 (± 3.3 years) in the PSC and 65 (± 4.2 years) in the RSC, the median initial BMI was 46.7 and 47.4 kg/m2 (p < 0.848), respectively. The mean hospital stay was (3 PSC vs. 5 RSC, p < 0.022) days. Readmissions occurred in (1 PSC vs. 3 RSC, p = 0.158) patients within 30 days of discharge. Postoperative major complications included (1 PSC vs. 5 RSC, p < 0.0278) patients. Reoperations were reported in (0 PSC vs. 3 RSC, p < 0.034) patients. Patients who underwent surgery for weight management, the initial mean BMI was (46.7 PSC vs. 47.4 RSC kg/m2, p = 0.848). At 12-months post-procedure, the mean BMI was (34.3 PSC vs. 37.7 RSC kg/m2, p = 0.372) and (23.7 PSC vs. 19.1 RSC, p = 0.231) %TBWL. The mean overall follow-up was (12.4 PSC vs. 27.5 RSC, p < 0.004) months, and one unrelated death (cancer) was reported in the RSC. CONCLUSION: PSC and RSC are effective in the elderly, however postoperative complications occurred more often in the RSC group.

The Effects of Post-Surgical Pregnancy on Weight Loss Trajectories after Bariatric Surgery: Are Initial Weight and Age Prognostic Factors?

Introduction: A substantial percentage of patients undergoing bariatric surgery are of childbearing age. Pregnancy outcomes after bariatric surgery are known. However, there are limited data on the impact of pregnancy on weight loss after surgery. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the effects of pregnancy on post-bariatric surgery weight loss trajectories (WLTs) and to determine the association with age and initial weight. Methods: All who had primary bariatric surgeries (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve) between September 2015 and July 2020 were classified into two groups: post-surgery gravid (GG) and post-surgery non-gravid (NG). WLTs were examined using a random intercept mixed-effects model with repeated measures nested within patients. The post-surgery/pre-gravid time phase (PoPG) was modelled using a third-degree polynomial. For GG, two third-degree spline functions modelled the post-surgery while gravid (PoWG) and post-partum (PoPP) time phases. Age and initial weight were used to control for pre-existing differences during PoPG. Weight differences at 6 months PoPP were examined by applying general linear hypothesis testing to the mixed-model results. Results: A total of 508 patients were included, 20 in GG and 488 in NG. The mean age at surgery was 33 years in GG and 37 years in NG. The mean initial BMI was 47 kg/m2 and 43 kg/m2, respectively. During PoPG, adjusted average weight in both groups follows the path across time. For GG, weight decreases and then increases during PoWG. For GG during PoPP, weight immediately decreases after delivery and then increases over time to levels similar to NG. Weight differences at 6 months PoPP for GG and NG were not statistically different. Older age was associated with reduced weight loss during PoPG by Baseline Age, while higher initial weight was associated with increased weight loss during PoPG by Baseline Weight. In both instances, these effects attenuate over time. Conclusions: This model indicates that pregnancy following bariatric surgery affects WLT during PoWG and PoPP, and no difference in weight is expected after 6 months post-gravid. Age and initial weight could be considered prognostic factors during PoPG. Patients wishing to conceive should undergo preconception counselling and be advised to avoid pregnancy during the period of rapid weight loss. They also should be informed that WLT may vary during pregnancy and early post-partum.

Harnessing artificial intelligence in bariatric surgery: comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard in generating clinician-level bariatric surgery recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The formulation of clinical recommendations pertaining to bariatric surgery is essential in guiding healthcare professionals. However, the extensive and continuously evolving body of literature in bariatric surgery presents considerable challenge for staying abreast of latest developments and efficient information acquisition. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to streamline access to the salient points of clinical recommendations in bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: The study aims to appraise the quality and readability of AI-chat-generated answers to frequently asked clinical inquiries in the field of bariatric and metabolic surgery. SETTING: Remote. METHODS: Question prompts inputted into AI large language models (LLMs) and were created based on pre-existing clinical practice guidelines regarding bariatric and metabolic surgery. The prompts were queried into 3 LLMs: OpenAI ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Bing, and Google Bard. The responses from each LLM were entered into a spreadsheet for randomized and blinded duplicate review. Accredited bariatric surgeons in North America independently assessed appropriateness of each recommendation using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores of 4 and 5 were deemed appropriate, while scores of 1-3 indicated lack of appropriateness. A Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score was calculated to assess the readability of responses generated by each LLMs. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs in their 5-point Likert scores, with mean values of 4.46 (SD .82), 3.89 (.80), and 3.11 (.72) for ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing (P < .001). There was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs in the proportion of appropriate answers, with ChatGPT-4 at 85.7%, Bard at 74.3%, and Bing at 25.7% (P < .001). The mean FRE scores for ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing, were 21.68 (SD 2.78), 42.89 (4.03), and 14.64 (5.09), respectively, with higher scores representing easier readability. CONCLUSIONS: LLM-based AI chat models can effectively generate appropriate responses to clinical questions related to bariatric surgery, though the performance of different models can vary greatly. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting clinical information provided by LLMs, and clinician oversight is necessary to ensure accuracy. Future investigation is warranted to explore how LLMs might enhance healthcare provision and clinical decision-making in bariatric surgery.

Bariatric Surgery Outcomes in Patients with Severe Obesity Compared to Patients with Non-Severe Obesity at A New Institution in The United Arab Emirates.

Background: Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for weight loss, but a higher body mass index (BMI) may lead to higher postoperative complication rates. This study aims to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes between UAE patients with severe obesity (SO) [BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2] and non-severe obesity (NSO) [BMI < 50 kg/m2] undergoing primary bariatric surgery. Methods: From September 2015 to July 2019, 542 patients, 94 SO (56.5 ± 6.2 kg/m2) and 448 NSO (41.8 ± 4.1 kg/m2), were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Patients with SO were younger (33.8 ± 13.4 vs. 37.0 ± 11.5 years, p = 0.02) but otherwise had similar demographic characteristics. Their rates of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (39.4% SO vs. 44.4% NSO, p = 0.37) and sleeve gastrectomy (60.6% vs. 55.6%, p = 0.37) were similar. There were no differences between perioperative complications (6.4% SO vs. 5.8% NSO, p = 0.83), major postoperative complications (5.3% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.42), readmissions (5.3% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.36), or reoperations (3.2% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.78). There were no mortalities. Their total body weight loss was comparable at 12 months (28.1 ± 10.2% vs. 29.0 ± 7.7%, p = 0.58). Conclusions: Although a higher BMI may pose operative challenges, UAE patients with SO do not have worsened outcomes in bariatric surgery, demonstrating similarly low morbidity to patients with NSO, and similar rates of improvement in their BMI.

Safety of limb lengthening after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) effectively treats severe obesity, but some patients may require revisional surgery like limb lengthening (LL) for postoperative weight gain. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare 30-day serious complications and mortality rates between LL and primary RYGB, given limited safety data on LL. METHODS: Patients who underwent LL and RYGB were identified from the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP databases, the only years in which LL data were available. Baseline characteristics and 30-day rates of serious complications and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 86,990 patients underwent RYGB and 455 underwent LL. Patients undergoing RYGB were younger (44.4 versus 49.8 yr, P < .001), had a higher body mass index (BMI) (45.5 versus 41.8 kg/m2, P < .001) and higher rates of comorbidities including diabetes (30.0 versus 13.6%, P < .001). RYGB and LL had similar operative duration (125.3 versus 123.2 min, P = .5). There were no statistical differences between cohorts for length of stay (LOS) (1.6 RYGB versus 1.6 LL d, P = .6). After LL, there were higher 30-day rates of reoperation (3.3 versus 1.9%, P = .03) and deep surgical site infections (1.3 versus .5%, P = .03) compared to RYGB. There were no differences in overall serious complications (5.1 LL versus 5.0% RYGB, P = 1.0) and mortality (.2 LL versus .1% RYGB, P = .5). Multivariable logistic regression adjustment found that previous venous thromboembolism was associated with serious complications after LL. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to primary RYGB, LL has a favorable safety profile with similar 30-day rates of serious complications and mortality.

Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass.

BACKGROUND: Adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are frequently converted to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to weight recurrence or band complications. Such conversions carry a higher-risk than primary procedures. Some patients undergo two conversions-from AGB to SG, and subsequently from SG to RYGB. This presents a unique situation with limited literature on indications and complication rates associated with these double conversions. METHODS: We examined the 2020-2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use File to evaluate conversions from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. Patient and operative characteristics, along with outcomes, were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: We identified 276 patients who underwent a conversion from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. The primary reason for the second conversion (SG to RYGB) was gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) at 55.1%, followed by inadequate weight loss or weight regain (IWL/WR) at 36.9%. The remaining reasons included dysphagia, nausea, vomiting, or others. Patients converted for IWL/WR demonstrated a higher baseline body mass index and prevalence of sleep apnea compared to other cohorts (both p < 0.001). Meanwhile, patients in the "other reasons" group had the highest rate of open surgical approaches (9.1%) and concurrent lysis of adhesions (p = 0.001 and p = 0.022), with correspondingly higher rates of anastomotic leak, reoperations, serious complications, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing double conversions (AGB to SG to RYGB) do so primarily for GERD or IWL/WR. Further research is required to better define the optimal primary operation for each patient, aiming to reduce the necessity for multiple conversions.

Hiatal hernia repair after previous laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic hiatal hernia (HH) with pouch migration after previous laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is an uncommon complication, with limited extant evidence for the utility of surgical repair. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presentation and resolution of symptoms in patients with HH repair after previous RYGB. SETTING: Multicenter University Hospital. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted from 2010 to 2022. Patients with prior RYGB who were undergoing subsequent isolated HH repair were included. Patients undergoing incidental HH repair during concomitant revisional bariatric surgery were excluded. Baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were evaluated and presented as medians (25th-75th percentile). RESULTS: Forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. The time from RYGB to HH repair was 59 months (39-88). Body mass index at HH repair was 31 kg/m2 (27-39). The most common presenting symptoms of hernia were dysphagia (52%), gastric reflux (39%), and abdominal pain (36%). All HH repairs were completed with a minimally invasive approach (98% laparoscopic, 2% robotic). Nonabsorbable suture was used in 98% of patients, with bioabsorbable mesh in 30%. At a median 28-day (12-117) follow-up, 70% of patients reported full symptom resolution and 23% partial resolution. At follow-up, 2 patients had radiologic HH recurrence, with 1 requiring reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of isolated HH repair for symptomatic pouch migration after previous RYGB. Common presenting symptoms are dysphagia and reflux, and surgical repair yields a high rate of symptom resolution in the short term. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the durability of this intervention.

Revisional Procedures after Sleeve Gastrectomy for Weight Recurrence or Inadequate Weight Loss: An Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of conversional bariatric procedures after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for weight recurrence (WR) or inadequate weight loss (IWL) is debated due to limited evidence. Conversion options include Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS). We aimed to compare serious complications and mortality rates between these procedures within 30 days. METHODS: Using the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP databases, we identified patients who underwent a conversion from SG to RYGB, SADI, or BPD-DS. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to assess predictors of 30-day complications and mortality. RESULTS: Among 7388 patients (77.6% RYGB, 8.7% SADI, 13.7% BPD-DS), those undergoing SADI and BPD-DS had higher preoperative body mass index. Conversion reasons included WR (63.0%) and IWL (37.0%). SADI and BPD-DS patients had longer operative times (p < 0.001) and higher leak rates (p = 0.001). Serious complications, reoperations, readmissions, and 30-day mortality were similar across groups. Conversion procedure type was not an independent predictor of complications. CONCLUSION: RYGB was the most performed conversional procedure after SG. The study indicated a similar safety profile for revisional RYGB, SADI, and BPD-DS, with comparable 30-day complications and mortality rates. However, SADI and BPD-DS patients had longer operative time and higher leak rates.

Primary single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) versus sleeve gastrectomy to SADI conversions: a comparison study of prevalence and safety.

BACKGROUND: Conversion from sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) is becoming increasingly common, but data regarding safety is of these conversions is scarce. As such, the objective of this study was to compare the 30-day rate of serious complications and mortality of primary SADI (p-SADI-S) with SG to SADI (SG-SADI) conversions. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the MBSAQIP database. Patients undergoing p-SADI-S and SG-SADI were included. Data collection was limited to 2020 and 2021. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed between groups to determine if SG-SADI was an independent predictor of 30-day serious complications or mortality. RESULTS: A total of 783 patients were included in this study, 488 (62.3%) underwent p-SADI-S and 295 (37.6%) underwent SG-SADI. The mean body mass index (BMI) at the time of surgery was lower in the SG-SADI cohort (45.1 vs 51.4 kg/m2, p < 0.001). Indications for revision in the SG-SADI cohort included weight recurrence (50.8%), inadequate weight loss (41.0%), other (3.0%), GERD (2.7%), and persistent comorbidities (2.5%). SG-SADI had longer operative times (156.7 vs 142.1 min, p < 0.001) and was not associated with a higher rate of serious complications (5.7 vs 6.9%, p = 0.508) compared to p-SADI-S. p-SADI-S was associated with a higher rate of pneumonia (1.2 vs 0.0%, p < 0.001), and SG-SADI was not correlated with higher rates of reoperation (3.0 vs 3.2%, p = 0.861), readmission (5.4 vs 5.5%, p = 0.948) and death (0.0 vs 0.2%, p = 0.437). On multivariable analysis, SG-SADI was not independently predictive of serious complications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.52, p = 0.514) when adjusting for age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, and operative time. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SG-SADI is high, representing 37.6% of SADI-S procedures. Conversion from sleeve to SADI, is safe, and as opposed to other studies of revisional bariatric surgery, has similar 30-day complication rates to primary SADI-S.

One- versus two-stage conversions of adjustable gastric bands: an analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are converted at high rates to secondary bariatric procedures. The available literature on the safety of converting in 1- versus 2-stage processes has not included large databases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of a 1- versus 2-stage conversion of AGB. SETTING: Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), United States. METHODS: The MBSAQIP database for the years 2020 and 2021 was evaluated. One-stage AGB conversions were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and database variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine whether 1- or 2-stage conversions were associated with 30-day serious complications. RESULTS: There were 12,085 patients who underwent conversion from previous AGB to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (63.0%) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (37.0%), of whom 41.0% underwent conversion in 1 stage and 59.0% in 2 stages. Patients who underwent 2-stage conversions had higher body mass indexes. Rates of serious complications were higher for patients undergoing RYGB compared with SG (5.2% versus 3.3%, P < .001) but were similar between 1-stage and 2-stage conversions in both cohorts. In both cohorts, there were similar rates of anastomotic leaks, postoperative bleeding, reoperation, and readmissions. Mortality was rare and similar between conversion groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in outcomes or complications in 30 days between 1- and 2-stage conversions of AGB to RYGB or SG. Conversions to RYGB have higher complication and mortality rates than to SG, but there was no statistically significant difference between staged procedures. One- and 2-stage conversions from AGB are equivalent in safety.

Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Indications, Prevalence, and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) frequently requires conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or weight recurrence. Current evidence evaluating the safety of conversion from SG to RYGB and its indications is limited to single centers. METHODS: The objective was to determine the rate of serious complications and mortality of conversion of SG to RYGB (SG-RYGB) compared to primary RYGB (P-RYGB). This was a retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP database which includes 30-day outcomes. Individuals undergoing P-RYGB or SG-RYGB were included. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine if revisional surgery was an independent predictor of serious complications or mortality. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021, 84,543 (86.3%) patients underwent P-RYGB and 13,432 (13.7%) underwent SG-RYGB. SG-RYGB cohort had lower body mass index, lower rates of diabetes and hypertension, and higher rates of GERD. GERD was the most common indication for revision (55.3%) followed by weight regain (24.4%) and inadequate weight loss (12.7%). SG-RYGB had longer operative times (145 vs. 125 min, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of serious complications (7.2 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). This included higher rates of anastomotic leak (0.5 vs. 0.4%, p = 0.002), bleeding (2.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), and reoperation (3.0 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) but not death (0.1 vs. 0.1%, p = 0.385). On multivariable analysis, SG-RYGB was independently predictive of serious complications (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.32, p < 0.001) but not mortality (p = 0.316). CONCLUSIONS: While SG-RYGB is safe with a low complication rate, SG-RYGB was associated with a higher rate of serious complications compared to P-RYGB.

Bariatric endoscopy: from managing complications to primary metabolic procedures.

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic and is the second leading cause of preventable death. The approach to treating obesity involves a multidisciplinary approach including lifestyle interventions, pharmacological therapies, and bariatric surgery. Endoscopic interventions are emerging as important tools in the treatment of obesity with primary and revisional bariatric endoscopic therapies. These include intragastric balloons, aspiration therapy, suturing and plication, duodenal-jejunal bypass liners, endoscopic duodenal mucosal resurfacing, and incisionless magnetic anastomosis systems. Endoscopic interventions have also demonstrated efficacy in treating complications of bariatric surgery. Approaches include stenting, endoscopic internal drainage, and endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure. This review aimed to discuss the current endoscopic procedures used as primary and revisional bariatric therapy including those used for managing bariatric surgical complications.

Predicting serious complications following bariatric surgery in geriatric patients: development of the GeriBari scoring tool using the MBSAQIP database.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric patients have a greater risk of complications after bariatric surgery. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to predict serious complications in geriatric patients after minimally invasive bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: To develop a predictive model, GeriBari, for serious complications in geriatric patients after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Multiple accredited bariatric surgery centers in the United States and Canada. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, which collects 30-day bariatric surgery outcomes from 868 accredited centers. Geriatric patients defined as those ≥65 years old who underwent primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) were included. Characteristics associated with serious complications were identified using univariate and multivariable analyses. A predictive model, GeriBari, was derived using a forward selection algorithm from operative years 2015, 2017, and 2019. GeriBari's robustness was tested against a validation cohort of subjects from operative years 2016 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 40,199 geriatric patients underwent LRYGB (27.7%) or LSG (72.3%). Overall, 1866 (4.6%) experienced a complication, which included bleeding (1.6%), reoperation (1.6%), reintervention (1.3%), unplanned intubation (.4%), and pneumonia (.4%). Mortality was higher in the geriatric patients than that in younger patients (.27% versus .08%). GeriBari consists of 12 factors that predicted serious complications and stratified individuals into high- (>6%) and low-risk (<6%) groups. This tool accurately predicted events in the validation cohort with sensitivity of 46.0% and specificity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: GeriBari enables preoperative risk stratification for 30-day serious complications in geriatric patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Stratifying low- and high-risk geriatric patients for adverse events allows for informed clinical decision-making prior to bariatric surgery.

The Effect of Covid-19 Pandemic on Current and Future Endoscopic Personal Protective Equipment Practices: A National Survey of 77 Endoscopists.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness about the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). We aimed to study and compare PPE practices among Canadian endoscopists before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A 74-item questionnaire was emailed from June 2020 to September 2020 to practicing endoscopists in Canada. Survey questions collected basic demographics and differences between PPE practices pre- and post-COVID-19. PPE practices were categorized into four endoscopic procedure types including upper or lower endoscopy and diagnostic or interventional. Outcomes for specific procedures were reported as rates, with ranges shown when evaluating all procedure types together. Results: A total of 77 respondents completed the survey with the majority of respondents aged 40 to 49 (44%) and identifying as Gastroenterologists (70%). Gender was evenly split (49% females versus 51% males). In the pre-pandemic era, the majority of endoscopists wore gowns (91 to 94%) and all endoscopists wore gloves (100%). However, the majority of endoscopists did not wear surgical masks (21 to 31%), face shields (13 to 34%), eye protection (13 to 21%), hair protection (11 to 13%), or N95 respirators (2 to 3%). In the post-pandemic era, more surgeons plan on wearing face shields (33 to 47%, P = 0.001 to 0.045), goggles (38.5 to 58.7%, P < 0.001), hair protection (33 to 36%, P = 0.011 to 0.024), and a trend suggests more surgeons will wear surgical masks (51 to 61%, P = 0.163 to 0.333). More endoscopists also plan on wearing N95 respirators during lower endoscopy (6 to 7%, P < 0.005). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the attitudes of many endoscopists regarding future PPE use in routine endoscopy. Ongoing studies are needed to inform new post-pandemic PPE consensus guidelines.