Weight regain after bariatric surgery: a systematic literature review and comparison across studies using a large reference sample

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 1133-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy C. King ◽  
Amanda S. Hinerman ◽  
Anita P. Courcoulas
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 2193-2193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Doble ◽  
◽  
Sarah Wordsworth ◽  
Chris A. Rogers ◽  
Richard Welbourn ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A388
Author(s):  
J.F Vasconcellos ◽  
R.A. Fernandes ◽  
M. Takemoto ◽  
L.M. Amaral ◽  
M.A. Silva ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243096
Author(s):  
Khalid Al-Rubeaan ◽  
Cindy Tong ◽  
Hannah Taylor ◽  
Karl Miller ◽  
Thao Nguyen Phan Thanh ◽  
...  

Background With obesity prevalence projected to increase, the demand for bariatric surgery will consequently rise. Enhanced recovery programmes aim for improved recovery, earlier discharge, and more efficient use of resources following surgery. This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the evidence available on the effects of enhanced recovery programmes after three common bariatric procedures: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). Methods MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched for studies published in 2012–2019 comparing outcomes with enhanced recovery programmes versus conventional care after bariatric surgery in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Data were extracted and meta-analyses or descriptive analyses performed when appropriate using R. Results Of 1152 screened articles, seven relevant studies including 3592 patients were identified. Six reported outcomes for 1434 patients undergoing LRYGB; however, as only individual studies reported on LSG and OAGB these could not be included in the analyses. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly shorter mean duration of hospital-stay for LRYGB enhanced recovery programmes than conventional care (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.34 days [-2.01, -0.67]; p<0.0001), supported by sensitivity analysis excluding retrospective studies. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [0.84, 2.28]; p = 0.2010). Complication rates were inconsistently reported by Clavien-Dindo grade, but descriptive analysis showed generally higher low-grade rates for enhanced recovery programmes; the trend reversed for high-grade complications. Reoperation rates were rarely reported; no significant differences were seen. Conclusion These results support enhanced recovery programmes allowing shorter inpatient stay without significant differences in readmission rate following LRYGB, although complication and reoperation rate comparisons were inconclusive. Further research is needed to fill current data gaps including the lack of studies on LSG and OAGB.


Author(s):  
Narriane Chaves Pereira de Holanda ◽  
Ingrid de Lima Carlos ◽  
Caio Chaves de Holanda Limeira ◽  
David Cesarino de Sousa ◽  
Fábio Antônio Serra de Lima Junior ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 533-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata H. Benjamin ◽  
Sarah Littlejohn ◽  
Laura E. Mitchell

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 1544-1556 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bellicha ◽  
C. Ciangura ◽  
C. Poitou ◽  
P. Portero ◽  
J.- M. Oppert

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 184-191
Author(s):  
Sean Wharton ◽  
Elham Kamran ◽  
Mahnoor Muqeem ◽  
Amina Khan ◽  
Rebecca A. G. Christensen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document