Purpose Bariatric procedures are technically complex and skill demanding. In order to standardize the procedures for research and training, a Delphi analysis was performed to reach consensus on the practice of the laparoscopic gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Methods After a pre-round identifying all possible steps from literature and expert opinion within our study group, questionnaires were send to 68 registered Dutch bariatric surgeons, with 73 steps for bypass surgery and 51 steps for sleeve gastrectomy. Statistical analysis was performed to identify steps with and without consensus. This process was repeated to reach consensus of all necessary steps. Results Thirty-eight participants (56%) responded in the first round and 32 participants (47%) in the second round. After the first Delphi round, 19 steps for gastric bypass (26%) and 14 for sleeve gastrectomy (27%) gained full consensus. After the second round, an additional amount of 10 and 12 sub-steps was confirmed as key steps, respectively. Thirteen steps in the gastric bypass and seven in the gastric sleeve were deemed advisable. Our expert panel showed a high level of consensus expressed in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 for the gastric bypass and 0.87 for the sleeve gastrectomy. Conclusions The Delphi consensus defined 29 steps for gastric bypass and 26 for sleeve gastrectomy as being crucial for correct performance of these procedures to the standards of our expert panel. These results offer a clear framework for the technical execution of these procedures.

Introduction: One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an effective and safe treatment for morbidly obese patients. Longer biliopancreatic (BP) limb length is suggested to result in better weight loss outcomes, but to date, no data are available for the OAGB to substantiate this. We hypothesized that applying a longer BP-limb length in the higher BMI classes would result in more weight reduction so that the attained BMI would be comparable to patients with a lower BMI, thereby compensating for differences in baseline BMI. Method: A retrospective cohort study in patients who underwent a primary OAGB at a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between January 2015 and December 2016. BP-limb length was tailored based on preoperative BMI. Patients were divided into three different groups depending on the length of the BP-limb: 150, 180, and 200 cm. Weight loss outcomes after 1 and 3 years and resolution of comorbidities were compared between these groups. Results: Of the 632 included patients, a BP-limb length of 150 cm was used in 172 (27.2%), 180 cm in 388 (61.4%), and 200 cm in 72 (11.4%) patients. Despite more BMI loss, %EWL was lower and attained BMI remained higher in the groups with longer BP-limb lengths. After adjustment for the confounder preoperative BMI, longer BP-limb lengths were not associated with higher BMI loss. There was no difference in remission rates of comorbidities. Conclusion: Attained BMI remained higher in spite of tailoring BP-limb length according to baseline BMI with no differences in remission rates of comorbidities. Graphical