Cross-Sectional Study Of The Association Between Skin Tags And Vascular Risk Factors In A Bariatric Clinic-Based Cohort Of Irish Adults With Morbid Obesity

Objective: Skin tags are associated with an insulin resistant phenotype but studies in White Europeans with morbid obesity are lacking. We sought to determine whether the presence of cervical or axillary skin tags was associated with increased cardiovascular risk in Irish adults with morbid obesity. We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients attending our Irish regional bariatric centre with a BMI ≥40 kgm-2(or ≥35 kgm-2 with co-morbidities). We compared anthropometric and metabolic characteristics in those with versus without skin tags. Results: Of 164 patients, 100(31 male, 37 with type 2 diabetes, 36 on lipid lowering therapy, 41 on antihypertensive therapy) participated. Mean age was 53.7±11.3 (range 31.1-80)years. Cervical or axillary tags were present in 85 patients. Those with tags had higher systolic blood pressure 138.0±16.0 versus 125.1±8.3 mmHg, p=0.003) and HbA1c(46.5±13.2 versus 36.8±3.5 mmol/mol, p=0.017). Tags were present in 94.6% of patients with diabetes, compared to 79.4% of those without diabetes(p=0.039). Antihypertensive therapy was used by 45.8% of patients with skin tags compared to 13.3% without tags (p=0.018). In bariatric clinic attenders skin tags were associated with higher SBP and HbA1c and a higher prevalence of diabetes and hypertension, consistent with increased vascular risk, but lipid profiles were similar.

What are the implications of withholding total joint arthroplasty in the morbidly obese?

Aims The aim of this study was to observe the implications of withholding total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in morbidly obese patients Patients and Methods A total of 289 morbidly obese patients with end-stage osteoarthritis were prospectively followed. There were 218 women and 71 men, with a mean age of 56.3 years (26.7 to 79.1). At initial visit, patients were given information about the risks of TJA in the morbidly obese and were given referral information to a bariatric clinic. Patients were contacted at six, 12, 18, and 24 months from initial visit. Results The median body mass index (BMI) at initial visit was 46.9 kg/m2 (interquartile range (IQR) 44.6 to 51.3). A total of 82 patients (28.4%) refused to follow-up or answer phone surveys, and 149 of the remaining 207 (72.0%) did not have surgery. Initial median BMI of those 149 was 47.5 kg/m2 (IQR 44.6 to 52.5) and at last follow-up was 46.7 kg/m2 (IQR 43.4 to 51.2). Only 67 patients (23.2%) went to the bariatric clinic, of whom 14 (20.9%) had bariatric surgery. A total of 58 patients (20.1%) underwent TJA. For those 58, BMI at initial visit was 45.3 kg/m2 (IQR 43.7 to 47.2), and at surgery was 42.3 kg/m2 (IQR 38.1 to 46.5). Only 23 patients (39.7%) of those who had TJA successfully achieved BMI < 40 kg/m2 at surgery. Conclusion Restricting TJA for morbidly obese patients does not incentivize weight loss prior to arthroplasty. Only 20.1% of patients ultimately underwent TJA and the majority of those remained morbidly obese. Better resources and coordinated care are required to optimize patients prior to surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):28–32

Laparoscopic Removal of Angelchik Prosthesis Followed by Interval Sleeve Gastrectomy

Introduction. The Angelchik prosthesis (AP) is a historic antireflux device which consists of a C-shaped silicone ring placed around the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and secured by Dacron tape. We present a rare experience with an AP and its impact on bariatric surgical outcomes. Case. Our patient is a 66-year-old woman who had an open antireflux procedure with an AP in 1987. She presented to a bariatric clinic for consideration of bariatric surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity and associated comorbidities. She also reported significant problems with reflux and dysphagia. After an appropriate work-up, an AP was identified at her GEJ. She was taken to the operating room for laparoscopic removal with planned interval laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Intraoperatively, the AP was identified around the GEJ; after extensive adhesiolysis, the prosthesis was removed. Postoperatively, in order to determine if the AP had caused any lasting esophageal motility problems, the patient underwent a high-resolution esophageal manometry which demonstrated normal esophageal motility. Interval laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was performed safely 9 weeks later. Conclusion. Although rarely used, it is still possible to encounter an Angelchik prosthesis in practice. General and bariatric surgeons need to be aware of this rare device and understand how to manage its related complications.