Search

Background Bariatric surgery in patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 is a challenging task. The aim of this study was to address main issues regarding perioperative management of these patients by using a worldwide survey. Methods An online 48-item questionnaire-based survey on perioperative management of patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2 was ideated by 15 bariatric surgeons from 9 different countries. The questionnaire was emailed to all members of the International Federation of Surgery for Obesity (IFSO). Responses were collected and analyzed by the authors. Results 789 bariatric surgeons from 73 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (89.9%) believed that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) on patients with BMI over 50 kg/m2 should only be performed by expert bariatric surgeons. Half of the participants (55.3%) believed that weight loss must be encouraged before surgery and 42.6% of surgeons recommended an excess weight loss of at least 10%. However, only 3.6% of surgeons recommended the insertion of an Intragastric Balloon as bridge therapy before surgery. Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) was considered the best choice for patients younger than 18 or older than 65 years old. SG and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass were the most common procedures for individuals between 18 and 65 years. Half of the surgeons believed that a 2-stage approach should be offered to patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, with SG being the first step. Postoperative thromboprophylaxis was recommended for 2 and 4 weeks by 37.8% and 37.7% of participants, respectively. Conclusion This survey demonstrated worldwide variations in bariatric surgery practice regarding patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m2. Careful analysis of these results is useful for identifying several areas for future research and consensus building.

In laparoscopy, it often is the case that port sites are enlarged for specimen extraction. This leads to higher risk of trocar site complications, such as infection or incisional hernia. Natural orifice surgery (NOTES) is beneficial for minimizing these complications, and this is emphasized when the extracted specimen is of large volume. We have been using transgastric technique for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Of these transgastric operations, we focus on the one with relatively large-organ extraction: LSG with transoral remnant extraction (TORE). We describe the details and feasibility of this procedure and compare the outcomes to conventional LSG. All patients undergoing LSG were considered candidates for TORE and were consented for this procedure if interested after an informed discussion. Eighteen LSGs with TORE (TORE group) and ten conventional LSGs (non-TORE group) were performed from August 2010 to March 2011. We retrospectively compared these two groups for the age, sex, preoperative body mass index, operating room time, hospital stay, excess weight loss (EWL), and trocar site complications. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with TORE consists of conventional LSG and transgastric retrieval of the resected stomach. The procedure exceeds exactly the same manner as conventional LSG until the initial stapling of the stomach. For TORE, the gastrectomy is initiated 5 cm proximal to the pylorus than usual LSG to save the space for the gastrotomy used for specimen retrieval. After the gastrectomy is completed, the full thickness of the distal most part of the staple line is incised open as wide as 2 cm by using electric cautery or ultrasonic dissector. A flexible upper endoscope, which has been in the stomach already as a bougie for gastrectomy, is then guided into the peritoneal cavity through the gastrotomy. The specimen is grasped endoscopically with a snare and extracted transorally. Following this, the gastrotomy is closed laparoscopically. The final shape of the gastric sleeve is identical to the one of conventional LSG. There was no significant difference between the TORE and the non-TORE group for patients’ profile, operating room time, hospital stay, and EWL. Neither group has experienced perioperative complications. All specimens were extracted readily and safely in the TORE group. Of the ten cases in the non-TORE group, four required extension of the trocar site. No trocar site complications were found in the TORE group, whereas the extended trocar site developed panniculitis in two cases of the non-TORE group; one required panniculectomy for refractory induration. TORE can be safely and easily performed by surgeons with laparoscopic and endoscopic skill, and with commonly available instruments. While producing identical outcomes, our initial experience with the TORE technique demonstrates an advantage over traditional LSG, because it minimizes trocar site complications. Transgastric organ extraction is potentially applicable to other large-organ extractions in laparoscopic surgery without excessive risk or resources. Larger case volume and longer follow-up period is awaited.