Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is an area of continued controversy in the preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery; more information is needed regarding its impact on surgical management and associated costs. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports rates of abnormalities detected on preoperative EGD that changed operative management or delayed bariatric surgery. Sensitivity analysis examined the impact of controversial findings of hiatal hernia, Helicobacter pylori, gastritis, peptic ulcer disease. Data were used to calculate the cost per surgical alteration made due to abnormalities detected by routine EGD, compactly termed “cost-of-routine-EGD.” Thirty-one retrospective observational studies were included. Meta-analysis found 3.9% of EGDs resulted in a change in operative management; this proportion decreased to 0.3% after sensitivity analysis, as detection of hiatal hernia comprised 85.7% of findings that changed operative management. Half of the 7.5% of cases that resulted in surgical delay involved endoscopic detection of H. pylori. Gastric pathology was detected in a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (65.0%) than in asymptomatic patients (34.1%; P<0.001). Cost-of-routine-EGD to identify an abnormality that changed operative management was $601,060, after excluding controversial findings. The cost-of-routine-EGD to identify any abnormality that led to a change in type of bariatric operation was $281,230 and $766,352 when controversial findings were included versus excluded, respectively. Cost-of-routine-EGD to identify a malignancy was $2,554,506. Cost-of-routine-EGD is high relative to the low proportion of abnormalities that alter bariatric surgery. Our results highlight the need to develop alternative strategies to preoperative screening, in order to improve access and decrease cost associated with bariatric surgery.
Routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is an area of continued controversy in the preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery; more information is needed regarding its impact on surgical management and associated costs. This systematic review and meta-analysis reports rates of abnormalities detected on preoperative EGD that changed operative management or delayed bariatric surgery. Sensitivity analysis examined the impact of controversial findings of hiatal hernia, Helicobacter pylori, gastritis, peptic ulcer disease. Data were used to calculate the cost per surgical alteration made due to abnormalities detected by routine EGD, compactly termed “cost-of-routine-EGD.” Thirty-one retrospective observational studies were included. Meta-analysis found 3.9% of EGDs resulted in a change in operative management; this proportion decreased to 0.3% after sensitivity analysis, as detection of hiatal hernia comprised 85.7% of findings that changed operative management. Half of the 7.5% of cases that resulted in surgical delay involved endoscopic detection of H. pylori. Gastric pathology was detected in a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (65.0%) than in asymptomatic patients (34.1%; P<0.001). Cost-of-routine-EGD to identify an abnormality that changed operative management was $601,060, after excluding controversial findings. The cost-of-routine-EGD to identify any abnormality that led to a change in type of bariatric operation was $281,230 and $766,352 when controversial findings were included versus excluded, respectively. Cost-of-routine-EGD to identify a malignancy was $2,554,506. Cost-of-routine-EGD is high relative to the low proportion of abnormalities that alter bariatric surgery. Our results highlight the need to develop alternative strategies to preoperative screening, in order to improve access and decrease cost associated with bariatric surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.