Objective: To define “best possible” outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS). Background: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. Methods: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years. Results: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ± 10 years, 8.4 ± 5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ± 7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1–3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. Conclusion: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

Background There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. Methods We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Results Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. Conclusions BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak.

Summary Background Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity. Objectives This study examined the safety of MBS in adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Methods This was a global, multicentre and observational cohort study of MBS performed between May 01, 2020, and October 10,2020, in 68 centres from 24 countries. Data collection included in‐hospital and 30‐day COVID‐19 and surgery‐specific morbidity/mortality. Results One hundred and seventy adolescent patients (mean age: 17.75 ± 1.30 years), mostly females (n = 122, 71.8%), underwent MBS during the study period. The mean pre‐operative weight and body mass index were 122.16 ± 15.92 kg and 43.7 ± 7.11 kg/m2, respectively. Although majority of patients had pre‐operative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) (n = 146; 85.9%), only 42.4% (n = 72) of the patients were asked to self‐isolate pre‐operatively. Two patients developed symptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection post‐operatively (1.2%). The overall complication rate was 5.3% (n = 9). There was no mortality in this cohort. Conclusions MBS in adolescents with obesity is safe during the COVID‐19 pandemic when performed within the context of local precautionary procedures (such as pre‐operative testing). The 30‐day morbidity rates were similar to those reported pre‐pandemic. These data will help facilitate the safe re‐introduction of MBS services for this group of patients.

Objective Management of poor response and of long-term complications after bariatric surgery (BS) is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. Benchmarking uses best performance in a given field as reference point for improvement. Our aim was to define ‘‘best possible’’ outcomes for elective secondary BS. Methods The establishment of benchmarks in secondary BS followed a standardized methodology, based on recommendations of a Delphi consensus panel of experts. This multicenter study analyzed patients undergoing elective secondary BS in 18 high-volume centers on 4 continents from 06/2013 to 05/2019. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of the centers. Benchmark cases had no: previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI>50kg/m2 or age>65 years. Descriptive statistics, multivariate logistic regression and data visualization were performed using the R software. Results Out of 44’884 elective bariatric procedures performed in the participating centers, 5’328 secondary BS cases were identified. The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8±10 years, 8.4±5.3 years after primary BS, with a body mass index 35.2±7kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.57% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.36) and after conversional or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.7). Benchmark cutoffs at 90-days postoperatively were ≤5.8% re-intervention and ≤8.8% re-operation rate. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. Conclusion Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

Background Laparoscopic surgery has become the golden standard for many procedures, requiring new skills and training methods. The aim of this review is to appraise literature on assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal procedures and quantify these methods for implementation in surgical training. Materials and methods PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched in October 2022 for studies reporting learning and assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Quality was scored using the Downs and Black checklist. Included articles were categorized in procedure-based assessment methods and non-procedure-based assessment methods. A second distinction was made between capability for formative and/or summative assessment. Results In this systematic review, nineteen studies were included. These studies showed large heterogeneity despite categorization. Median quality score was 15 (range 0–26). Fourteen studies were categorized as procedure-based assessment methods (PBA), and five as non-procedure-based assessment methods. Three studies were applicable for summative assessment. Conclusions The results show a considerable diversity in assessment methods with varying quality and suitability. To prevent a sprawl of assessment methods, we argue for selection and development of available high-quality assessment methods. A procedure-based structure combined with an objective assessment scale and possibility for summative assessment should be cornerstones.