Background: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS. Methods: We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus. Results: Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%). Conclusion: Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice.

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach / Mahawar, K. K.; Himpens, J. M.; Shikora, S. A.; Ramos, A. C.; Torres, A.; Somers, S.; Dillemans, B.; Angrisani, L.; Greve, J. W. M.; Chevallier, J. -M.; Chowbey, P.; De Luca, M.; Weiner, R.; Prager, G.; Vilallonga, R.; Adamo, M.; Sakran, N.; Kow, L.; Lakdawala, M.; Dargent, J.; Nimeri, A.; Small, P. K.. - In: SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0930-2794. - 34:4(2020), pp. 1648-1657. [10.1007/s00464-019-06937-1]

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach

Angrisani L.;
2020

Abstract

Background: Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS. Methods: We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus. Results: Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%). Conclusion: Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice.
2020
The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach / Mahawar, K. K.; Himpens, J. M.; Shikora, S. A.; Ramos, A. C.; Torres, A.; Somers, S.; Dillemans, B.; Angrisani, L.; Greve, J. W. M.; Chevallier, J. -M.; Chowbey, P.; De Luca, M.; Weiner, R.; Prager, G.; Vilallonga, R.; Adamo, M.; Sakran, N.; Kow, L.; Lakdawala, M.; Dargent, J.; Nimeri, A.; Small, P. K.. - In: SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0930-2794. - 34:4(2020), pp. 1648-1657. [10.1007/s00464-019-06937-1]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
mahawar2019.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 734.22 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
734.22 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/827064
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 66
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 56
social impact