Search

Background: Obesity is an increasing disease worldwide. Bariatric surgery is the only effective therapy to induce sufficient long-term weight loss for morbidly obese patients. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) is the gold standard surgical technique. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) is a new promising bariatric procedure which has the advantage of maintaining an intact gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of both techniques. Our hypothesis is that LSG has a similar percentage excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) after 5 years compared to LRYGB. Methods/Design: The Sleeve Bypass Trial is a randomized multicentre clinical trial: patients eligible for bariatric surgery are randomized to either LSG or LRYGB. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) = 40 kg/m² or BMI 35 kg/m² with obesity related comorbidity (T2 DM, sleep apnoea, hypertension) are eligible for randomization. At randomization patients are stratified for centre, sex, T2 DM and BMI ≥ = 50 kg/m². A total number of 620 patients will be enrolled and equally (1:1) randomized to both treatment arms. Only surgeons experienced in both operation techniques will participate in the Sleeve Bypass trial. The primary endpoint is the 5-year weight loss (%EBMIL) of LSG and LRYGB. Secondary endpoints are resolution of obesity related comorbidity, complications, revision bariatric surgery and quality of life (QOL) defined in various questionnaires. Discussion: Long-term %EBMIL between the two treatment strategies used to be in favour of LRYGB, but more recent results throughout the world show similar %EBMIL in both techniques. If weight loss is comparable, obesity-related comorbidity and QOL after bariatric procedures should be taken into account when deciding on which surgical technique is to be preferred for certain subgroups in the future. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register: NTR 4741. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing numbers of morbid obese patients has led to increased numbers of bariatric procedures. Fast-track protocols are being developed to enhance the available resources, while maintaining a safe procedure. Reported results on safety merely apply to a mixed bariatric population. The objective was to evaluate safety and efficiency of the fast-track principles in patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy., Methods: Retrospective observational study including patients undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy at the Obesity Centre of the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Conventional perioperative care (CC) (2008-2011) versus a fast-track protocol (FT) (2011-2013), using short-acting anesthetic agents, a multi-modal pain protocol to reduce opioids, and early mobilization. The main parameters for safety were intraoperative, early and late postoperative complications. Procedure time and hospital stay were used to evaluate efficiency., Results: This study included 805 patients, 494 patients were subjected to the conventional care and 318 patients to fast-track protocol. A reduction of median operation time from 60 (CC) to 40 minutes (FT) (P<0.001) and a reduction in median length of hospital stay from three to two days (P=0.001), with a significant reduction in early postoperative complications (9.9% [CC] vs. 5% [FT], P=0.016) was achieved. The amount of late complications was comparable for both groups (5.1% [CC] vs. 4.4% [FT] [P=0.738])., Conclusions: Implementation of a fast-track protocol for sleeve gastrectomy is safe and efficient. It effectively reduces operation time and length of hospital stay, while improving postoperative outcome. This pleads for standard implementation of the fast-track protocol in sleeve gastrectomy.

Background: Bariatric surgery durations vary considerably because of differences in surgical procedures and patient factors. We studied the effects on patient outcomes, teamwork and safety climate, and procedure durations resulting from working with operating room (OR) teams that remain fixed for the day instead of OR teams that vary during the day., Methods: Data were collected in 2 general teaching hospitals, consisting of patientrelated demographic and intraoperative data and of staffrelated survey data on team work and safety climate. The procedure durations of fixed and conventional OR teams were analyzed by comparison of means tests and by regression methods to control for the effects of surgeon, surgical experience, and procedure type., Results: For both hospitals, we obtained the following 4 results for working on bariatric procedures with OR teams that remained fixed for the day. First, patient outcomes did not worsen. Second, teamwork and safety climate (both measured on a 5-point scale) improved significantly, for teamwork + 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 1.18) and for safety climate + 0.75 (95% CI, 0.40 to 1.11). Third, the procedures were performed significantly faster, as both the mean and the SD of procedure durations decreased. After correcting for learning effects, the average reduction of durations was 10.8% (99% CI, 5.0% to 15.3%, or 4 to 13 minutes). This gain was mainly realized for surgical time (12%; 99% CI, 5% to 18%, or 3 to 11 minutes). The effect on peripheral time, defined as procedure time minus surgical time, is not significant (3%; 99% CI, -6% to 12%, or -1 to 3 minutes). Fourth, additional gains were obtained by performing the same type of procedure multiple times within the same day (5% per every next procedure of the same type; 99% CI, 3% to 7%, or 3 to 6 minutes)., Conclusions: Working with fixed teams in bariatric surgery reduced procedure durations and improved teamwork and safety climate, without adverse effects on patient outcomes.