Background: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Results: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. Conclusion: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) may provide better clinical and pathologic outcomes compared to its open counterpart. The Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Overall postoperative morbidity and resection margin involvement rate were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), incisional surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and number of lymph nodes harvested. Twenty-four studies totaling 12,579 patients (2,175 robotic PD and 10,404 open PD were included. Overall postoperative mortality did not significantly differ [OR (95%CI) = 0.86 (0.74, 1.01); p = 0.06]. Resection margin involvement rate was significantly lower in robotic PD [15.6% vs. 19.9%; OR (95%CI) = 0.64 (0.41, 1.00); p = 0.05; NNT = 23]. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 75.17 (48.05, 102.28); p < 0.00001]. EBL was significantly decreased in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = − 191.35 (− 238.12, − 144.59); p < 0.00001]. Number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly higher in robotic PD [MD (95%CI) = 2.88 (1.12, 4.65); p = 0.001]. This meta-analysis found that robotic PD provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to open PD at the cost of longer operating time. Furthermore, robotic PD did not have any detrimental impact on clinical outcomes, with lower wound infection rates.

Background: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure today. While an increasing number of long-term studies report the occurrence of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) after SG, its treatment has not been studied, yet. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as treatment for BE and reflux after SG. Setting: University hospital setting, Austria Methods: This multi-center study includes all patients (n = 10) that were converted to RYGB due to BE after SG in Austria. The mean interval between SG and RYGB was 42.7 months. The follow-up after RYGB in this study was 33.4 months. Gastroscopy, 24 h pH-metry, and manometry were performed and patients were asked to complete the BAROS and GIQLI questionnaires. Results: Weight and BMI at the time of SG was 120.8 kg and 45.1 kg/m². Eight patients (80.0%) went into remission of BE after the conversion to RYGB. Two patients had RYGB combined with hiatoplasty. The mean acid exposure time in 24 h decreased from 36.8 to 3.8% and the mean DeMeester score from 110.0 to 16.3. Patients scored 5.1 on average in the BAROS after conversion from SG to RYGB which denotes a very good outcome. Conclusions: RYGB is an effective therapy for patients with BE and reflux after SG. Its outcomes in the current study were BE remission in the majority of cases as well as a decrease in reflux activity. Further studies with larger cohorts are necessary to confirm these findings.