No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUNDDespite growing evidence that bariatric/metabolic surgery powerfully improves type 2 diabetes (T2D), existing diabetes treatment algorithms do not include surgical options. AIMThe 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit (DSS-II), an international consensus conference, was convened in collaboration with leading diabetes organizations to develop global guidelines to inform clinicians and policymakers about benefits and limitations of metabolic surgery for T2D. METHODSA multidisciplinary group of 48 international clinicians/scholars (75% nonsurgeons), including representatives of leading diabetes organizations, participated in DSS-II. After evidence appraisal (MEDLINE [1 January 2005-30 September 2015]), three rounds of Delphi-like questionnaires were used to measure consensus for 32 data-based conclusions. These drafts were presented at the combined DSS-II and 3rd World Congress on Interventional Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes (London, U.K., 28-30 September 2015), where they were open to public comment by other professionals and amended face-to-face by the Expert Committee. RESULTSGiven its role in metabolic regulation, the gastrointestinal tract constitutes a meaningful target to manage T2D. Numerous randomized clinical trials, albeit mostly short/midterm, demonstrate that metabolic surgery achieves excellent glycemic control and reduces cardiovascular risk factors. On the basis of such evidence, metabolic surgery should be recommended to treat T2D in patients with class III obesity (BMI ‡40 kg/m 2 ) and in those with class II obesity (BMI 35.0-39.9 kg/m 2 ) when hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled by lifestyle and optimal medical therapy. Surgery should also be considered for patients with T2D and BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m 2 if hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled despite optimal treatment with either oral or injectable medications. These BMI thresholds should be reduced by 2.5 kg/m 2 for Asian patients. CONCLUSIONSAlthough additional studies are needed to further demonstrate long-term benefits, there is sufficient clinical and mechanistic evidence to support inclusion of metabolic surgery among antidiabetes interventions for people with T2D and obesity. To date, the DSS-II guidelines have been formally endorsed by 45 worldwide medical and scientific societies. Health care regulators should introduce appropriate reimbursement policies.

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and costs of laparoscopic and open gastric bypass (GBP). Summary Background DataLaparoscopic GBP has been reported to be a safe and effective approach for the treatment of morbid obesity. The authors performed a prospective randomized trial to compare outcomes, QOL, and costs of laparoscopic GBP with those of open GBP. MethodsFrom May 1999 to March 2001, 155 patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 to 60 kg/m 2 were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n ϭ 79) or open (n ϭ 76) GBP. The two groups were similar in age, sex ratio, mean BMI, and comorbidities. Main outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative complications, percentage of excess body weight loss, and time to return to activities of daily living and work. Changes in QOL were assessed using the SF-36 Health Survey and the bariatric analysis of reporting outcome system (BAROS). Operative and hospital costs of the two operations were also compared. ResultsThere were no deaths in either group. Mean operative time was longer for laparoscopic GBP than for open GBP, but operative blood loss was less. Two (2.5%) of the 79 patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy.Median length of hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic GBP patients (3 vs 4 days). The rate of postoperative anastomotic leak was similar between groups. Wound-related complications such as infection (10.5 vs 1.3%) and incisional hernia (7.9 vs 0%) were more common after open GBP; late anastomotic stricture was less frequent after open GBP (2.6 vs 11.4%). Time to return to activities of daily living and work were shorter after laparoscopic GBP than after open GBP. Weight loss at 1 year was similar between groups. Preoperative SF-36 scores were similar between groups; however, at 1 month after surgery, laparoscopic patients had better physical conditioning, social functioning, general health, and less body pain than open GBP patients. At 6 months, the BAROS outcome was classified as good or better in 97% of laparoscopic GBP patients compared with 82% of open GBP patients. Operative costs were higher for laparoscopic GBP patients, but hospital costs were lower. ConclusionsLaparoscopic GBP is a safe and cost-effective alternative to open GBP. Despite a longer operative time, patients undergoing laparoscopic GBP benefited from less blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, and faster convalescence. Laparoscopic GBP patients had comparable weight loss at 1 year but a more rapid improvement in QOL than open GBP patients. The higher initial operative costs for laparoscopic GBP were adequately offset by the lower hospital costs.Obesity is a burgeoning healthcare problem in the United States.1 The prevalence of obesity (body mass index [BMI]Ն30 kg/m 2 ) increased from 12.0% in 1991 to 17.9% in 1998.2 This trend will likely worsen because more than 25% of American children are obese. Obesity is a wellestablished risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease,...

The prevalence of obesity, measured by body mass index, has risen to unacceptable levels in both men and women in the United States and worldwide with resultant hazardous health implications. Genetic, environmental, and behavioral factors influence the development of obesity, and both the general public and health professionals stigmatize those who suffer from the disease. Obesity is associated with and contributes to a shortened life span, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, some cancers, kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, gout, osteoarthritis, and hepatobiliary disease, among others. Weight loss reduces all of these diseases in a dose-related manner-the more weight lost, the better the outcome. The phenotype of "medically healthy obesity" appears to be a transient state that progresses over time to an unhealthy phenotype, especially in children and adolescents. Weight loss is best achieved by reducing energy intake and increasing energy expenditure. Programs that are effective for weight loss include peer-reviewed and approved lifestyle modification programs, diets, commercial weight-loss programs, exercise programs, medications, and surgery. Over-the-counter herbal preparations that some patients use to treat obesity have limited, if any, data documenting their efficacy or safety, and there are few regulatory requirements. Weight regain is expected in all patients, especially when treatment is discontinued. When making treatment decisions, clinicians should consider body fat distribution and individual health risks in addition to body mass index.