Introduction and PurposeMorbid obesity together with obesity-related diseases has a negative impact on the quality of life. The aim of the study was to assess the quality of life amongst patients with morbid obesity as well as the impact of bariatric treatment on body weight and obesity-related diseases in addition to conducting an analysis of changes in the quality of life after surgical treatments, in the context of the surgical procedure type and degree of body weight loss.Material and MethodsSixty-five patients were treated for morbid obesity. The sample group consisted of 34 patients treated with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and 31 persons qualified for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The average body weight before the procedure was 146.2 kg. In the sample group, 89 % of persons qualified for the surgical treatments were diagnosed with hypertension and 52 % persons that were operated on were diagnosed with diabetes type 2 before the surgical procedure. Before commencement of the surgical treatment, the quality of life was assessed, which in both groups qualified for given types of bariatric procedures was considerably low.Results and ConclusionsPercentage excessive weight loss (%EWL) was 58.8 %. No significant differences in body weight loss were noted between the two types of procedures. Improvement was observed in the treatment of obesity-related diseases. Also, the quality of life was enhanced significantly. No differences were noted in terms of the quality of life improvement between particular types of surgical procedures. No significant differences were observed during the analysis of body weight loss impact on the quality of life improvement.

Summary Background 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03471494 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

There is evidence that implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols into colorectal surgery reduces complication rate and improves postoperative recovery. However, most published papers on ERAS outcomes and length of stay in hospital (LOS) include patients undergoing open resections. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the factors affecting recovery and LOS in patients after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer combined with ERAS protocol. One hundred and forty-three consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection were prospectively evaluated. They were divided into two subgroups depending on their reaching the targeted length of stay—LOS (75 patients in group 1—≤4 days, 68 patients in group 2—>4 days). A univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess for factors (demographics, perioperative parameters, complications and compliance with the ERAS protocol) independently associated with LOS of 4 days or longer. The median LOS in the entire group was 4 days. The postoperative complication rate was higher (18.7 vs. 36.7 %), and the compliance with ERAS protocol was lower (91.2 vs. 76.7 %) in group 2. There was an association between the pre- and postoperative compliance and the subsequent complications. In uni- and multivariate analysis, the lack of balanced fluid therapy (OR 3.87), lack of early mobilization (OR 20.74), prolonged urinary catheterization (OR 4.58) and use of drainage (OR 2.86) were significantly associated with prolonged LOS. Neither traditional patient risk factors nor the stage of the cancer was predictive of the duration of hospital stay. Instead, compliance with the ERAS protocol seems to influence recovery and LOS when applied to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

We believe that CHO-loading is not clinically justified in case of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No effect on the levels of glucose, insulin resistance and cortisol was observed. Even though such procedure is safe, in our opinion there is no clinical benefit from CHO-loading prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

IntroductionThe goal of modern medical treatment is to provide high quality medical care in a cost-effective environment.AimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery combined with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (ERP) in Poland.Material and methodsWe designed a single-centre, case-matched study. Economic and clinical data were collected in 3 groups of patients (33 patients in each group): group 1 – patients undergoing laparoscopy with ERP; group 2 – laparoscopy without ERP; group 3 – open resection without ERP. An independent administrative officer, not involved in the treatment process, matched patients for age, sex and type of resection. Primary outcome was cost analysis. It was carried out incorporating institutional costs: hospital bed stay, anaesthesia, surgical procedure and equipment, drugs and complications. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), readmission and complication rate.ResultsCost of laparoscopic procedure alone was significantly more expensive than open resection. However, implementation of the ERAS protocol reduced additional costs. Total cost per patient in group 1 was significantly lower than in groups 2 and 3 (EUR 1826 vs. EUR 2355.3 vs. EUR 2459.5, p < 0.0001). Median LOS was 3, 6 and 9 days in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were noted in 5 (15.2%), 6 (18.2%) and 13 (39.4%) patients in groups 1, 2, 3 respectively (p = 0.0435).ConclusionsIn a low medical care expenditure country, minimally invasive surgery combined with ERP can be a safe and a cost-effective alternative to open surgery with traditional perioperative care.