The four previous articles in this series addressed the myths and facts surrounding lipoedema. We have shown that there is no scientific evidence at all for the key statements made about lipoedema – which are published time and time again. The main result of this “misunderstanding” of lipoedema is a therapeutic concept that misses the mark. The patient’s real problems are overlooked.The national and especially the international response to the series, which can be read in both German and English, has been immense and has exceeded all our expectations. The numerous reactions to our articles make it clear that in other countries, too, the fallacies regarding lipoedema have led to an increasing discrepancy between the experience of healthcare workers and the perspective of patients and self-help groups, based on misinformation mostly generated by the medical profession.Parts 1 to 4 in this series of articles on the myths surrounding lipoedema have made it clear that we have to radically change the view of lipoedema that has been held for decades. Changing our perspective means getting away from the idea of “oedema in lipoedema” – and hence away from the dogma that decongestion is absolutely necessary – and towards the actual problems faced by our patients with lipoedema. Such a paradigm shift in a disease that has been described in the same way for decades cannot be left to individuals but must be put on a much broader footing. For this reason, the lead author of this series of articles invited renowned lipoedema experts from various European countries to discussions on the subject. Experts from seven different countries took part in the two European Lipoedema Forums, with the goal of establishing a consensus. The consensus reflects the experts’ shared view on the disease, having scrutinized the available literature, and having taken into account the many years of clinical practice with this particular patient group. Appropriate to the clinical complexity of lipoedema, participants from different specialties provided an interdisciplinary approach. Nearly all of the participants in the European Lipoedema Forum had already published work on lipoedema, had been involved in drawing up their national lipoedema guidelines, or were on the executive board of their respective specialty society.In this fifth and final part of our series on lipoedema, we will summarise the relevant findings of this consensus, emphasising the treatment of lipoedema as we now recommend it. As the next step, the actual consensus paper “European Best Practice of Lipoedema” will be issued as an international publication.Instead of looking at the treatment of oedema, the consensus paper will focus on treatment of the soft tissue pain, as well as the psychological vulnerability of patients with lipoedema. The relationship between pain perception and the patient’s mental health is recognised and dealt with specifically. The consensus also addresses the problem of self-acceptance, and this plays a prominent role in the new therapeutic concept. The treatment of obesity provides a further pillar of treatment. Obesity is recognised as being the most common comorbid condition by far and an important trigger of lipoedema. Bariatric surgery should therefore also be considered for patients with lipoedema who are morbidly obese. The expert group upgraded the importance of compression therapy and appropriate physical activity, as the demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects directly improve the patients’ symptoms. Patients will be provided with tools for personalised self-management in order to sustain sucessful treatment. Should conservative therapy fail to improve the symptoms, liposuction may be considered in strictly defined circumstances.The change in the view of lipoedema that we describe here brings the patients’ actual symptoms to the forefront. This approach allows us to focus on more comprehensive treatment that is not only more effective but also more sustainable than focusing on the removal of non-existent oedema.

No abstract

BLSG is a safe procedure showing similar comorbidity to conventional LSG. However, BLSG leads to a higher rate of postoperative regurgitation. Weight loss is significantly improved 3 years after surgery. Hence, additional ring implantation might be an option for increased restriction in LSG surgery.

IntroductionThe occurrence of internal hernia is not an uncommon late complication following the laparoscopic bariatric Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure. In some instances, it can be life threatening if not treated in a timely manner. Although there are numerous publications in the literature addressing internal hernia, they are mostly retrospective, and focus mainly on describing the different reconstructive orientation as far as the bowel is concerned.AimOur study aim is to address the relationship between the three basic elements of internal hernia, namely: intestinal mesentery defect, the involved intestine and herniated loop direction. Although a developed and widely accepted classification system of internal hernia has not been established yet, we hope this study can help the system to be established.Material and methodsWe studied all patients who underwent revision bariatric operations in the Freiburg and Lübeck University Hospitals (2007–2013). A single surgeon performed and documented all revision procedures for internal hernia. The post-operative follow-up period is up to 6 years. All patients with internal hernias were included whether their primary surgery was performed in our center or performed in other institutions, being referred to our center for further management. The presence of hernia defect, the type of herniated intestinal loop and the direction by which the herniated intestinal loop migrated were analyzed.ResultsTwenty-five patients with internal hernia were identified; in 2 patients more than one hernia type coexisted. The most frequent constellation of internal hernias was BP limb herniation into the Brolin space and migrating from left to right direction (28%). The highest incidence of internal hernia was found to be following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (68%); the biliopancreatic limb (BP) limb was the most commonly involved intestine (51.9%). The incidence of Petersen hernia was the highest (59.3%), and left-right direction was more common. The most common hernia direction of the biliopancreatic limb was from left to right (92.6%), but alimentary limb (AL; 57.1%) and common channel (CC; 66.7%) often favor the other course.ConclusionsThere are existing different types of internal hernias after bariatric operations including separate mesenterial spaces, various intestine parts and herniation direction. Our SDL classification system may offer a useful pathway that facilitates the understanding, and systematic approach to internal hernia, which can be used by bariatric quality registers.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Lipoedema is characterized as subcutaneous lipohypertrophy in association with soft-tissue pain affecting female patients. Recently, the disease has undergone a paradigm shift departing from historic reiterations of defining lipoedema in terms of classic edema paired with the notion of weight loss-resistant leg volume towards an evidence-based, patient-centered approach. Although lipoedema is strongly associated with obesity, the effect of bariatric surgery on thigh volume and weight loss has not been explored. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> In a retrospective cohort study, thigh volume and weight loss of 31 patients with lipoedema were analyzed before and 10–18 and ≥19 months after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Fourteen patients, with distal leg lymphoedema (i.e., with healthy thighs), who had undergone bariatric surgery served as controls. Statistical analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for patient age and initial BMI. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Adjusted initial thigh volume in patients with lipoedema was 23,785.4 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 22,316.6–25,254.1). Thigh volumes decreased significantly in lipoedema and control patients (baseline vs. 1st follow-up, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001 and <i>p</i> = 0.0001; baseline vs. 2nd follow-up, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.0001 and <i>p</i> = 0.0013). Adjusted thigh volume reduction amounted to 33.4 and 37.0% in the lipoedema and control groups at the 1st follow-up, and 30.4 and 34.7% at the 2nd follow-up, respectively (lipoedema vs. control <i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.999 for both). SG and RYGB led to an equal reduction in leg volume (operation type × time, <i>p</i> = 0.83). Volume reduction was equally effective in obese and superobese patients (weight category × time, <i>p</i> = 0.43). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> SG and RYGB lead to a significant thigh volume reduction in patients with lipoedema.