Irina Yermilov

Pregnancy and fertility following bariatric surgery: a systematic review.

CONTEXT Use of bariatric surgery has increased dramatically during the past 10 years, particularly among women of reproductive age. OBJECTIVES To estimate bariatric surgery rates among women aged 18 to 45 years and to assess the published literature on pregnancy outcomes and fertility after surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Search of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2005) and multiple electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Controlled Clinical Trials Register Database, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effectiveness) to identify articles published between 1985 and February 2008 on bariatric surgery among women of reproductive age. Search terms included bariatric procedures, fertility, contraception, pregnancy, and nutritional deficiencies. Information was abstracted about study design, fertility, and nutritional, neonatal, and pregnancy outcomes after surgery. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Of 260 screened articles, 75 were included. Women aged 18 to 45 years accounted for 49% of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery (>50,000 cases annually for the 3 most recent years). Three matched cohort studies showed lower maternal complication rates after bariatric surgery than in obese women without bariatric surgery, or rates approaching those of nonobese controls. In 1 matched cohort study that compared maternal complication rates in women after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery with obese women without surgery, rates of gestational diabetes (0% vs 22.1%, P < .05) and preeclampsia (0% vs 3.1%, P < .05) were lower in the bariatric surgery group. Findings were supported by 13 other bariatric cohort studies. Neonatal outcomes were similar or better after surgery compared with obese women without laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery (7.7% vs 7.1% for premature delivery; 7.7% vs 10.6% for low birth weight, P < .05; 7.7% vs 14.6% for macrosomia, P < .05). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found after gastric bypass compared with nonobese controls (26.3%-26.9% vs 22.4%-20.2% for premature delivery, P = not reported [1 study] and P = .43 [1 study]; 7.7% vs 9.0% for low birth weight, P = not reported [1 study]; and 0% vs 2.6%-4.3% for macrosomia, P = not reported [1 study] and P = .28 [1 study]). Findings were supported by 10 other studies. Studies regarding nutrition, fertility, cesarean delivery, and contraception were limited. CONCLUSION Rates of many adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes may be lower in women who become pregnant after having had bariatric surgery compared with rates in pregnant women who are obese; however, further data are needed from rigorously designed studies.

Is social support associated with greater weight loss after bariatric surgery?: a systematic review

Social support may be associated with increased weight loss after bariatric surgery. The objective of this article is to determine impact of post‐operative support groups and other forms of social support on weight loss after bariatric surgery. MEDLINE search (1988–2009) was completed using MeSH terms including bariatric procedures and a spectrum of patient factors with potential relationship to weight loss outcomes. Of the 934 screened studies, 10 reported on social support and weight loss outcomes. Five studies reported on support groups and five studies reported on other forms of social support (such as perceived family support or number of confidants) and degree of post‐operative weight loss (total n = 735 patients). All studies found a positive association between post‐operative support groups and weight loss. One study found a positive association between marital status (being single) and weight loss, while three studies found a non‐significant positive trend and one study was inconclusive. Support group attendance after bariatric surgery is associated with greater post‐operative weight loss. Further research is necessary to determine the impact of other forms of social support. These factors should be addressed in prospective studies of weight loss following bariatric surgery, as they may represent ways to improve post‐operative outcomes.

Does weight loss immediately before bariatric surgery improve outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Preoperative weight loss before bariatric surgery has been proposed as a predictive factor for improved patient compliance and the degree of excess weight loss achieved after surgery. In the present study, we sought to determine the effect of preoperative weight loss on postoperative outcomes. METHODS A search of MEDLINE was completed to identify the patient factors associated with weight loss after bariatric surgery. Of the 909 screened reports, 15 had reported on preoperative weight loss and the degree of postoperative weight loss achieved. A meta-analysis was performed that compared the postoperative weight loss and perioperative outcomes in patients who had lost weight preoperatively compared to those who had not. RESULTS Of the 15 articles (n = 3404 patients) identified, 5 found a positive effect of preoperative weight loss on postoperative weight loss, 2 found a positive short-term effect that was not sustained long term, 5 did not find an effect difference, and 1 found a negative effect. A meta-analysis revealed a significant increase in the 1-year postoperative weight loss (mean difference of 5% EWL, 95% confidence interval 2.68-7.32) for patients who had lost weight preoperatively. A meta-analysis of other outcomes revealed a decreased operative time for patients who had lost weight preoperatively (mean difference 23.3 minutes, 95% confidence interval 13.8-32.8). CONCLUSION Preoperative weight loss before bariatric surgery appears to be associated with greater weight loss postoperatively and might help to identify patients who would have better compliance after surgery.

Appropriateness Criteria for Bariatric Surgery: Beyond the NIH Guidelines

Careful selection of bariatric patients is critical for successful outcomes. In 1991, the NIH first established patient selection guidelines; however, some surgeons operate on individuals outside of these criteria, i.e., extreme age groups. We developed appropriateness criteria for the spectrum of patient characteristics including age, BMI, and severity of eight obesity‐related comorbidities. Candidate criteria were developed using combinations of patient characteristics including BMI: ≥40 kg/m2, 35–39, 32–34, 30–31, <30; age: 12–18, 19–55, 56–64, 65+ years old; and comorbidities: prediabetes, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, sleep apnea, venous stasis disease, chronic joint pain, and gastroesophageal reflux (plus severity level). Criteria were formally validated on their appropriateness of whether the benefits of surgery clearly outweighed the risks, by an expert panel using the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi method. Nearly all comorbidity severity criteria for patients with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 or BMI = 35–39 kg/m2 in intermediate age groups were found to be appropriate for surgery. In contrast, patients in the extreme age categories were considered appropriate surgical candidates under fewer conditions, primarily the more severe comorbidities, such as diabetes and hypertension. For patients with a BMI of 32–34, only the most severe category of diabetes (Hgb A1c >9, on maximal medical therapy), is an appropriate criterion for those aged 19–64, whereas many mild to moderate severity comorbidity categories are “inappropriate.” There is overwhelming agreement among the panelists that the current evidence does not support performing bariatric surgery in lower BMI individuals (BMI <32). This is the first development of appropriateness criteria for bariatric surgery that includes severity categories of comorbidities. Only for the most severe degrees of comorbidities were adolescent and elderly patients deemed appropriate for surgery. Patient selection for bariatric procedures should include consideration of both patient age and comorbidity severity.

Using breast cancer quality indicators in a vulnerable population

Adherence to quality indicators may be especially important to disease‐specific outcomes for uninsured, vulnerable patients. The objective of this study was to measure adherence to National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality (NICCQ) breast cancer quality indicators in a public hospital and compare performance to published rates in a previously collected 5‐city cohort.

Patient behaviors associated with weight regain after laparoscopic gastric bypass

SUMMARY BACKGROUND Patients undergoing gastric bypass lose substantial weight, but 20% regain weight starting at 2 years after surgery. Our objective was to identify behavioral predictors of weight regain after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). METHODS We retrospectively surveyed 197 patients for factors predictive of weight regain (≥15% from lowest weight to weight at survey completion). Consecutive patients who had bariatric surgery from 1/2003 through 12/2008 were identified from an existing database. Response rate was 76%, with 150 patients completing the survey. RESULTS Follow-up after LRYGB was 45.0 ± 12.7 months, 22% of patients had weight regain. After controlling for age, gender, and follow-up time, factors associated with weight regain included low physical activity (odds ratio (OR) 6.92, P = 0.010), low self-esteem (OR 6.86, P = 0.008), and Eating Inventory Disinhibition (OR 1.30, P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS Physical activity, self-esteem, and maladaptive eating may be associated with weight regain after LRYGB. These factors should be addressed in prospective studies of weight loss following bariatric surgery, as they may identify patients at risk for weight regain who may benefit from tailored interventions.

Are 12 Nodes Needed to Accurately Stage T1 and T2 Colon Cancers

Evaluation of 12 lymph nodes has been mandated to prevent colon cancer understaging. Given that the probability of node metastases is largely associated with T-stage, are <12 nodes substandard for T1 and T2 lesions? We evaluated if survival for T1 and T2 tumors varies by nodes examined. In SEER, 61,237 patients undergoing colon cancer resection were identified. For each T-stage, 5-year survival rates were compared for node-negative cancers by using stepwise node cut-point comparisons (4 nodes, <4, etc.). Survival impact was determined by log-rank test and hazard regression. For T1 tumors, 4 nodes had 24% lower hazard of death compared to <4. For T2 tumors, 10 nodes had the biggest survival impact, 15% lower hazard of death. In conclusion, the number of nodes to stage T1 and T2 lesions may be <12.