It remains unknown whether the administration of a deep neuromuscular block (NMB) during bariatric surgery improves surgical conditions and patient outcome. The authors studied the effect of deep versus moderate NMB in laparoscopic bariatric surgery on surgical conditions and postoperative pain. One hundred patients scheduled to undergo elective bariatric surgery were randomized to a deep NMB (post-tetanic-count 2–3) or a moderate NMB (train-of-four 1–2). The quality of the surgical field was scored using the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS), a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely poor conditions) to 5 (optimal conditions). Three surgeons scored the L-SRS at 10-min intervals during surgery; postoperative pain scores were obtained in the postanesthesia-care-unit (PACU) and on the ward. Mean (95% confidence interval) L-SRS scores in moderate NMB 4.2 (4.0–4.4) versus 4.8 (4.7–4.9) in deep NMB (p < 0.001). Moderate NMB resulted in 17% of scores at L-SRS scores of 1–3, while deep NMB resulted in 100% scores at the high end of the L-SRS (4–5). Deep NMB led to improved pain scores in the PACU (4.6 (4.2–4.9) versus 3.9 (3.6–4.4), p = 0.03) and reduced shoulder pain on the ward (1.8 (1.5–2.1) versus 1.3 (1.1–1.5), p = 0.03). A composite score of pain and opioid use in the PACU favoured deep NMB (p = 0.001). In bariatric surgery, deep relaxation has advantages for surgeon and patient. Compared to moderate NMB, deep NMB produced stable and improved surgical conditions with less postoperative pain.

Background: Scientific researchers who wish to reuse health data pertaining to individuals can obtain consent through an opt-in procedure or opt-out procedure. The choice of procedure may have consequences for the consent rate and representativeness of the study sample and the quality of the research, but these consequences are not well known. Objective: This review aimed to provide insight into the consequences for the consent rate and consent bias of the study sample of opt-in procedures versus opt-out procedures for the reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes. Methods: A systematic review was performed based on searches in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently included studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and assessed whether the statistical methods used in the reviewed literature were appropriate for describing the differences between consenters and nonconsenters. Statistical pooling was conducted, and a description of the results was provided. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Of the 15 studies, 13 (87%) implemented an opt-in procedure, 1 (7%) implemented an opt-out procedure, and 1 (7%) implemented both the procedures. The average weighted consent rate was 84% (60,800/72,418 among the studies that used an opt-in procedure and 96.8% (2384/2463) in the single study that used an opt-out procedure. In the single study that described both procedures, the consent rate was 21% in the opt-in group and 95.6% in the opt-out group. Opt-in procedures resulted in more consent bias compared with opt-out procedures. In studies with an opt-in procedure, consenting individuals were more likely to be males, had a higher level of education, higher income, and higher socioeconomic status. Conclusions: Consent rates are generally lower when using an opt-in procedure compared with using an opt-out procedure. Furthermore, in studies with an opt-in procedure, participants are less representative of the study population. However, both the study populations and the way in which opt-in or opt-out procedures were organized varied widely between the studies, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions regarding the desired balance between patient control over data and learning from health data. The reuse of routinely recorded health data for scientific research purposes may be hampered by administrative burdens and the risk of bias.

Background: High rates of revision surgery have been reported for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), with weight regain (WR) as the most frequently reported cause. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed revision procedure, whereas one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a less popular approach. Methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted. One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled and randomized. After loss to follow-up, 80 patients for RYGB and 80 patients for OAGB were analyzed, with a 2-year follow-up. Patients with grade B or higher gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were excluded. Early and late postoperative complications were recorded. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL), nutritional laboratory test results, and the resolution of associated medical problems were assessed after revision surgery. Results: After 2 years, both groups achieved significantly lower BMI than their post-LSG nadir BMI (p < 0.001). The %EBMIL changes showed significantly faster weight loss in the OAGB group than in the RYGB at the 6-month follow-up (mean difference: 8.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2 to 16.9%). However, at 1-year and 2-year follow-ups, the differences were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Early and late complications were similar between two groups. Both groups showed improvement or resolution of associated medical problems, with no statistically significant differences after 2 years (p = 1.00). Conclusion: Both revisional RYGB and OAGB have comparable significant weight loss effects when performed for WR after LSG. After a 2-year follow-up, both procedures were safe, with no significant differences in the occurrence of complications and nutritional deficits. Graphical