Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30706152›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Does intraoperative endoscopy decrease complications after bariatric surgery? Analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

Mohamad A Minhem, Bassem Y Safadi, Hani Tamim, Aurelie Mailhac, Ramzi S Alami

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Training in bariatric and metabolic endoscopy.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamad A MinhemDepartment of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Riad El Solh, PO Box 11-0236, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon.
Bassem Y SafadiDepartment of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Riad El Solh, PO Box 11-0236, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon.
Hani TamimBiostatistics Unit, Clinical Research Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Aurelie MailhacBiostatistics Unit, Clinical Research Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ramzi S AlamiDepartment of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Riad El Solh, PO Box 11-0236, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. ra204@aub.edu.lb.
American University of Beirut Medical Center · LBAmerican University of Beirut · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntraoperative endoscopy (IOE) has been proposed to decrease serious complications following bariatric surgeries such as leaks, bleeding, and stenosis. Such complications can lead to sepsis and eventually can be fatal. We aim to compare major postoperative complications in patients with and without IOE.

methodsData from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database years 2011 till 2016 were used to identify laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) patients. We compared outcomes of IOE and non-IOE using bivariate and multivariate analysis. Thirty-day outcomes included sepsis, organ space infection, unplanned reoperations, unplanned readmissions, prolonged hospital stay, bleeding, and mortality.

resultsOut of 62,805 cases of LSG and 50,047 cases of LRYGB, 17.9%, and 19.7% had IOE, respectively. Endoscopy-assisted LSG was associated with a decrease in sepsis [0.37% vs. 0.21%, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.55 (0.36, 0.84)], unplanned reoperation [0.58% vs. 0.38%, AOR = 0.61 (0.44, 0.85)], prolonged hospital stay [14.9% vs. 14.0%, AOR = 0.87 (0.82, 0.92)], and composite complications [1.43% vs. 1.17%, AOR = 0.78 (0.65, 0.94)]. Outcomes after LRYGB were similar in both groups, except for decreased prolonged hospital stay with IOE [22.4% vs. 20.6%, AOR = 0.89 (0.84, 0.94)].

conclusionsIOE is generally underutilized in baraitric procedures. IOE is associated with decreased risk of postoperative complications particularly sepsis, unplanned reoperations, prolonged hospital stay, and composite complications after LSG; and hospital stay after LRYGB. Large multicenter prospective studies are needed to explore the benefits of IOE in bariatric surgery, particularly the intermediate or long-term benefits.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdultBariatric SurgeryDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansIncidenceIntraoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesReoperationUnited StatesComplicationsGastric bypassIntraoperative endoscopySepsisSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID30706152
OpenAlexW2913567513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.