Thirty years ago, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a Consensus Development Conference that published a Statement on gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity, reflecting expert assessment of the medical knowledge available at the time [ 1 ]. Specifically, it sought to address “the surgical treatments for severe obesity and the criteria for selection, the efficacy and risks of surgical treatments for severe obesity, and the need for future research on and epidemiological evaluation of these therapies,” and included specific recommendations for practice. Among these are that nonsurgical programs should be initial therapy for severe obesity; that patients should be carefully selected for surgery after evaluation by a multidisciplinary team; and that lifelong medical surveillance continue after surgery. The 1991 NIH Consensus Statement has been used by providers, hospitals, and insurers, as a standard for selection criteria for bariatric surgery. A body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m 2 , or BMI > 35 kg/m 2 with co-morbidities, is a threshold for surgery that is applied universally.
Since its publication, hundreds of studies have been published on the worldwide obesity epidemic and global experience with metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), which has greatly enhanced the understanding of obesity and its treatment [ 2 , 3 ]. Now recognized as a chronic disease, obesity is associated with a chronic low-grade inflammatory state and immune dysfunction [ 4 , 5 ]. It is suspected that the prolonged state of inflammation leads to a disruption of homeostatic mechanisms and consequently to metabolic disorders commonly associated with obesity, mediated by incompletely elucidated pathways involving cytokine production, adipokines, hormones, and acute-phase reactants [ 5 – 8 ].
With an increasing global MBS experience, long-term studies have proven it an effective and durable treatment of severe obesity and its co-morbidities. Studies with long-term follow up, published in the decades following the 1991 NIH Consensus Statement, have consistently demonstrated that MBS produces superior weight loss outcomes compared with nonoperative treatments [ 9 – 14 ]. After surgery, the significant improvement of metabolic disease, as well as the decrease in overall mortality, has been reported in multiple studies further supporting the importance of this treatment modality [ 15 – 19 ]. Concurrently, the safety of bariatric surgery has been studied and reported extensively [ 20 – 23 ]. Perioperative mortality is very low, ranging between .03% and .2% [ 24 ]. Thus, it is not surprising that MBS has become one of the most commonly performed operations in general surgery [ 25 ].
The operations commonly performed have evolved as well. Older surgical operations have been replaced with safer and more effective operations. The 1991 NIH Consensus Statement described the vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as the dominant procedures in clinical practice at the time. Currently, the dominant procedures are sleeve gastrectomy and RYGB, together accounting for approximately 90% of all operations performed worldwide [ 26 ], and each has well-studied mid- and long-term outcomes. Other operations performed include adjustable gastric banding (AGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, and one-anastomosis gastric bypass. The VBG is of historical interest and no longer performed, and the popularity of the AGB has diminished significantly over the past decade. MBS is now preferably performed using minimally invasive surgical approaches (laparoscopic or robotic assisted).
In light of significant advances in the understanding of the disease of obesity, its management in general, and metabolic and bariatric surgery specifically, the leaderships of the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) have convened to produce this joint statement on the current available scientific information on metabolic and bariatric surgery and its indications.
Criteria for surgery
BMI
Despite limitations of BMI to accurately risk stratify patients with obesity for their future health risk, it is the most feasible and widely used criteria to identify and classify patients with overweight or obesity. MBS is currently the most effective evidence-based treatment for obesity across all BMI classes.
BMI 30–34.9 kg/m 2 . Class I obesity (BMI 30–34.9 kg/m 2 ) is a well-defined disease that causes or exacerbates multiple medical and psychological co-morbidities, decreases longevity, and impairs quality of life. Prospective and large retrospective studies support the notion that MBS should be considered a treatment option for patients with class I obesity who do not achieve substantial or durable weight loss or co-morbidity improvement with nonsurgical methods, and early findings prompted international diabetes organizations to publish a joint statement supporting the consideration of MBS for patients with BMI <35 kg/m 2 and type 2 diabetes (T2D) [ 27 ]. Aminian et al. [ 28 ] summarize the available data from randomized controlled trials (RCT’s), meta-analyses, and observational studies that also include individuals with BMI <35 kg/m 2 . These data consistently demonstrate the weight loss and metabolic benefits of MBS in individuals with class I obesity [ 28 ]. Noun et al. [ 29 ] reported on >500 consecutive patients with BMI <35 kg/m 2 who had MBS and demonstrated significant weight loss at 5 years and improvement or remission of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. In a cohort study of more than 1000 patients, MBS in individuals with BMI <35 kg/m 2 produced high rates of co-morbidity remission and was more likely than MBS in BMI > 35 kg/m 2 to achieve BMI < 25 kg/m 2 [ 30 ]. Ikramuddin et al. [ 31 ] and Schauer et al. [ 32 ] demonstrated superior diabetes improvement and weight loss following MBS in randomized controlled trials that include the subset of patients with BMI <35 kg/m 2 . A 3-arm randomized controlled trial that had 43% of its subjects with class I obesity, demonstrated that MBS is superior to lifestyle intervention for remission of T2D, 3 years after surgery [ 33 ].
Furthermore, randomized trials designed specifically to study the population with BMI <35 kg/m 2 also demonstrate significant benefits of MBS in individuals with class I obesity compared with other treatment. O’Brien et al. [ 34 ], in a randomized controlled trial of 80 patients with BMI 30–35 kg/m 2 assigned to nonsurgical treatment or MBS, demonstrated that patients undergoing MBS had superior long-term weight reduction and improvement of metabolic disease. A short-term follow-up randomized trial examining patients with T2D demonstrated significantly improved remission of diabetes and weight loss in those individuals undergoing MBS compared with medical weight management [ 35 ]. In a study of 51 patients with class I obesity diabetes randomized to either medical therapy or medical therapy plus MBS, the cohort who underwent surgery has superior diabetes control up to 2 years postoperatively [ 36 ].
Medical weight loss is considered to have greater durability in individuals with BMI <35 kg/m 2 than individuals with BMI > 35 kg/m 2 , and thus it is recommended that a trial of nonsurgical therapy is attempted before considering surgical treatment. However, if attempts at treating obesity and obesity-related co-morbidities such as T2D, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease (e.g., coronary artery disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation), asthma, fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic kidney disease, polycystic ovarian syndrome, infertility, gastroesophageal reflux disease, pseudotumor cerebri, and bone and joint diseases have not been effective, MBS should be considered for suitable individuals with class I obesity [ 27 , 28 , 37 , 38 ].
BMI > 35 kg/m 2 . Given the presence of high-quality scientific data on safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of MBS in improving survival and quality of life in patients with BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 , MBS should be strongly recommended in these patients regardless of presence or absence of evident obesity-related co-morbidities. Current nonsurgical treatment options for patients with BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 are ineffective in achieving a substantial and sustained weight reduction necessary to significantly improve their general health. Physical problems related to excess body weight, undiagnosed obesity-related co-morbidities, risk of developing obesity-related co-morbidities in the future, and impaired quality of life related to physical and mental consequences of obesity threaten the general health of individuals with moderate to severe obesity even in the absence of diagnosed obesity-related co-morbidities [ 27 , 28 ]. Thus, MBS is recommended in this population.
BMI thresholds in the Asian population
The World Health Organization defines the terms overweight and obesity based on BMI thresholds [ 39 ]. In its consensus panel statement of 1991, the NIH stated that the “risk for morbidity linked with obesity is proportional to the degree of overweight.” However, BMI does not account for an individual’s sex, age, ethnicity, or fat distribution, and is recognized as only an approximation of adiposity. The health risk in a patient with BMI 30 kg/m 2 with visceral and ectopic fat accumulation and subsequent metabolic and cardiovascular disease would be significantly higher than a patient with BMI 40 kg/m 2 whose adipose tissue is mainly accumulated in the lower extremity. In the Asian population the prevalence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease is higher at a lower BMI than in the non-Asian population. Thus, BMI risk zones should be adjusted to define obesity at a BMI threshold of 25–27.5 kg/m 2 in this population. Therefore, in certain populations access to MBS should not be denied solely based on traditional BMI thresholds [ 28 , 37 , 40 – 44 ].
Extremes of age
Older population
Coincident with the demonstrated safety of MBS, surgery has been performed successfully in increasingly older patients over the past few decades, including individuals >70 years of age [ 45 , 46 ]. In septuagenarians MBS is associated with slightly higher rates of postoperative complications compared with a younger population, but still provides substantial benefits of weight loss and remission of co-morbid disease [ 46 ]. In fact, the presence of obesity co-morbid disease and the choice of operation are more predictive of 30-day adverse outcomes than age alone [ 47 ]. Similar to other operations, the question of whether there should be an upper chronologic age limit is complex. The physiologic changes that occur with aging may have an impact on the efficacy of MBS, the incidence of postoperative complications, and the ability of older patients to recover from surgery. However, it appears that factors other than age, such as frailty, cognitive capacity, smoking status, and end-organ function have an important role [ 48 ].
Frailty, rather than age alone, is independently associated with higher rates of postoperative complications following MBS [ 49 ]. Furthermore, when considering MBS in older patients, the risk of surgery should be evaluated against the morbidity risk of obesity-related diseases. Thus, there is no evidence to support an age limit on patients seeking MBS, but careful selection that includes assessment of frailty is recommended.
Pediatrics and adolescents
Children and adolescents with obesity carry the burden of the disease and its co-morbidities into adulthood, increasing the individual risk for premature mortality and complications from obesity co-morbidities [ 50 ].
MBS is safe in the population younger than 18 years and produces durable weight loss and improvement in co-morbid conditions. Adolescents with severe obesity undergoing RYGB have significantly greater weight loss and improvement of cardiovascular co-morbidities compared with adolescents undergoing medical management [ 51 ]. Furthermore, improvement in hypertension and dyslipidemia has been demonstrated up to 8 years after surgery [ 52 ]. Additional studies from the prospective Teen-Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery database (Teen-LABS) demonstrated significant weight loss and durable improvement in cardiovascular risk factors and T2D in adolescents undergoing MBS. Furthermore, data suggest that the benefits of RYGB on T2D and hypertension are greater in adolescents than adults [ 52 – 55 ]. Prospective data shows durable weight loss and maintained co-morbidity remission in patients as young as 5 years old [ 56 ].
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the ASMBS recommend consideration of MBS in children/adolescents with BMI >120% of the 95th percentile (class II obesity) and major co-morbidity, or a BMI >140% of the 95th percentile (class III obesity) [ 57 , 58 ]. In addition, MBS does not negatively impact pubertal development or linear growth, and therefore a specific Tanner stage and bone age should not be considered a requirement for surgery [ 56 ]. Increasingly, syndromic obesity, developmental delay, autism spectrum, or history of trauma is not considered a contraindication to MBS in adolescents [ 59 ].
Bridge to other treatment
Joint arthroplasty
Poorer outcomes after total joint arthroplasty have been associated with obesity, such that some orthopedic surgical societies discourage hip and knee replacement in individuals with BMI >40 kg/m 2 [ 60 – 62 ]. In addition to the technical challenge of performing orthopedic surgery in individuals with severe obesity, patients with obesity undergoing joint arthroplasty are at increased risk of hospital readmission and surgical complications, such as wound infection and deep vein thrombosis [ 63 – 67 ].
There are reports to suggest that MBS may be effective as a bridge to total joint arthroplasty in individuals with class II/III obesity when performed > 2 years prior to joint surgery [ 68 , 69 ]. A study of veterans with osteoarthritis demonstrated that an average of 35 months elapsed between MBS and joint arthroplasty or lumbar spine surgery in patients with known osteoarthritis [ 70 ]. MBS prior to total knee and hip arthroplasty has been shown to decrease operative time, hospital length-of-stay, and early postoperative complications [ 66 , 71 , 72 ]. Long-term joint-related complications rates were not significantly different.
In a randomized clinical trial on 82 patients with obesity and osteoarthritis, 41 were randomized to AGB 12-months prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 41 were randomized to receive usual nonoperative weight management prior to TKA. In a median follow-up of 2 years after TKA, 14.6% of patients in the MBS group incurred the primary outcome of composite complications, compared with 36.6% in the control (non-MBS) group (difference 22.0%, P = .02). Interestingly, TKA was declined by 29.3% of subjects in the MBS group because of symptom improvement following weight loss, compared with only 4.9% in the control group [ 73 ].
Abdominal wall hernia repair
Obesity is a risk factor for the development of ventral hernia. It increases the risk for impaired wound healing, local and systemic infections, and other complications following hernia repair, and increases the risk for recurrence [ 74 – 76 ]. In addition to a larger volume of subcutaneous soft tissue, abdominal wall hernias in the population with obesity tend to be larger, adding to the complexity of repair in these patients. While the timing of MBS relative to hernia repair remains controversial, evidence suggests that patients with large, chronic abdominal wall hernia may benefit from significant weight loss initially as staged procedure to definitive hernia repair [ 75 , 77 ]. Thus, in patients with severe obesity and an abdominal wall hernia requiring elective repair, MBS should be considered first to induce significant weight loss, and consequently reduce the rate of complications associated with hernia repair and increase durability of the repair.
Organ transplantation
Class III obesity is associated with end-stage organ disease and may limit the access to transplantation of the patient with obesity, since it is a relative contraindication for solid organ transplantation and poses specific technical challenges during surgery. Conversely, MBS may be overlooked as an option in patients with severe end-stage organ disease. Nonetheless, MBS has been described in patients with end-stage organ disease as a way to improve their candidacy for transplantation. Patients with end-stage organ disease can achieve meaningful weight loss and improve their eligibility to receive an organ transplant [ 78 ]. Studies suggest that more than 50% of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and morbid obesity are able to be listed for kidney transplant within 5 years after MBS [ 79 ]. Similarly, MBS is shown to be safe and effective as a bridge to liver transplantation in selected patients who would otherwise be ineligible [ 80 , 81 ]. Heart transplant candidacy can also be improved by MBS, and reports in some patients demonstrate significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction after surgery to remove the requirement for transplantation [ 82 , 83 ]. MBS has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with heart failure and a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). McElderry et al. [ 84 ] demonstrated in a study of 2798 patients who underwent LVAD implantation that a history of prior MBS was associated with a 3-fold higher probability of heart transplantation in follow-up, compared with patients who did not have MBS. In addition, limited data suggest that patients with obesity and end-stage lung disease may lose sufficient weight after MBS to achieve listing for transplantation [ 85 ].
MBS in the high-risk patient
BMI > 60 kg/m 2
There is no consensus concerning the best procedure for individuals with especially high BMI, but the efficacy and safety of MBS have been demonstrated in this population [ 86 , 87 ]. In general, mortality risk increases with increasing BMI, and BMI >50 kg/m 2 has been implicated in increasing surgical risk in older studies [ 88 – 90 ]. Individuals with BMI >60 kg/m 2 are considered to be at especially high risk for surgery since these patients have greater obesity-associated disease burden and more challenging surgical anatomy, resulting in longer operative times, higher rates of perioperative morbidity, and longer hospital lengths of stay in some studies [ 91 , 92 ]. Others, however, failed to demonstrate a significant difference in perioperative complications, length of stay, 30-day mortality, or long-term outcomes after MBS when individuals with BMI >60 kg/m 2 were compared with those with BMI <60 kg/m 2 . Furthermore, studies have shown that MBS can be performed safely in patients with BMI >70 kg/m 2 [ 93 ]. Therefore, MBS should be considered as a preferred method to achieve clinically significant weight loss in patients with extreme BMI.
Cirrhosis
Obesity is a significant risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and consequent cirrhosis. At the same time, obesity conveys a 3-fold increase in the risk of liver decompensation in patients with known cirrhosis [ 94 ]. In addition to inducing significant and durable weight loss, MBS has been association with histologic improvement of NASH and regression of fibrosis in early cases, leading to a reduced risk of hepatocellular carcinoma [ 94 , 95 ]. Furthermore, MBS is associated with an 88% risk reduction of progression of NASH to cirrhosis [ 18 ].
The patient with obesity and compensated cirrhosis is at higher risk for perioperative mortality following MBS, but the risk remains small (<1%) and the benefits significant [ 94 , 96 , 97 ]. There is a paucity of data on surgical outcomes in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension [ 98 ]. Careful patient selection and consideration of choice of surgical procedure are important to ensure best outcomes.
Heart failure
There are increasing data to suggest that MBS can be a useful adjunct to treatment in patients with obesity and heart failure before heart transplantation or placement of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and performed with low morbidity and mortality [ 82 , 84 , 99 ]. The consequent improvement in obesity and associated co-morbidities improves overall health and can reduce the future risk associated with cardiac therapies. Furthermore, limited studies have shown that MBS in individuals with heart failure was associated with a significant improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), improvement of functional capacity, and higher chances for receiving heart transplantation [ 84 , 100 – 102 ].
Patient evaluation
The 1991 NIH Consensus Statement recommends that patients who are candidates for MBS should be evaluated by a “multidisciplinary team with access to medical, surgical, psychiatric, and nutritional expertise” [ 1 ]. The value of assessments by such a team has since been reiterated [ 103 – 105 ], reflecting the recognition of the complexity of the disease of obesity, and the ability to provide a comprehensive risk/benefit analysis when considering MBS. This may also facilitate the patient’s ability to comprehend the life-long changes that can be expected after surgery, benefitting from the expertise of different healthcare providers [ 106 ]. Studies have suggested that the addition of a multidisciplinary team to the perioperative care of the patient may decrease rates of complications [ 107 , 108 ].
While there has been initial enthusiasm for weight loss prior to surgery, there are no data to support the practice of insurance-mandated preoperative weight loss; this practice is understood to be discriminatory, arbitrary, and scientifically unfounded, contributing to patient attrition, unnecessary delay of lifesaving treatment, and progression of life-threatening co-morbid conditions [ 109 ]. A multidisciplinary team can help assess and manage the patient’s modifiable risk factors with a goal of reducing risk of perioperative complications and improving outcomes; the decision for surgical readiness should be primarily determined by the surgeon.
The nutritional status of patients seeking MBS is important [ 104 , 110 ]. A nutritional assessment by a registered dietitian with expertise in MBS can help obtain a comprehensive weight history, identify maladaptive eating behaviors or patterns, and correct any micronutrient deficiencies prior to surgery. A registered dietitian can also provide preoperative nutrition education and prepare the patient for expected dietary changes after MBS [ 103 , 104 ]. In addition, a registered dietitian with expertise in MBS can assist in the management of postoperative patients who may be experiencing food intolerances, malabsorption issues and micronutrient deficiencies, and weight regain.
Mental health conditions such as depression and binge eating disorders, as well as substance abuse, are found at higher rates among candidates for MBS than in the general population. The pre-surgical evaluation process is designed to optimize surgical outcomes and implement interventions that can address disordered eating, severe uncontrolled mental illness, or active substance abuse. Licensed mental health providers with specialty knowledge and experience in MBS behavioral health are important to assess patients for psychopathology, and determine the candidate’s ability to cope with the adversity of surgery, changing body image, and life-style changes required after MBS. In addition, stressors that may affect long-term outcomes such as financial, housing and food insecurity should be identified [ 104 , 111 ].
Outcomes
Weight loss and co-morbidity improvement
The ASMBS established standard guidelines for reporting on outcomes of MBS, including weight loss, co-morbidity remission, surgical complications, and quality of life [ 112 ]. Mid- and long-term outcomes of MBS, confirming the safety, efficacy and durability of surgery are extensively studied and reported in the literature [ 24 , 113 ].
Overall weight loss outcomes for MBS that are durable for years after surgery are consistently reported at greater than 60% percent excess weight loss (%EWL), with some variation depending on the specific operation performed [ 14 , 114 , 115 ]. MBS is proven superior to diet, exercise, and other lifestyle interventions in attaining significant and durable weight loss, and improving obesity-related co-morbid conditions in multiple observational and prospective studies [ 9 , 32 , 116 ]. Durability of weight loss at 5, 10, and 20 years after surgery has been consistently demonstrated in multiple studies [ 10 , 11 , 14 , 32 , 117 ].
Obesity is associated with diseases affecting nearly every organ system. They include the cardiovascular system (hypertension, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke), respiratory system (obstructive sleep apnea, asthma), digestive system (gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis), endocrine system (insulin resistance, T2D), reproductive system (polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility), liver (NAFLD, NASH), kidneys (nephrolithiasis, chronic kidney disease), musculoskeletal system (osteoarthritis) and mental health [ 118 ]. Nearly all of these conditions have demonstrated improvement, and in some cases remission, after weight loss associated with MBS. There is substantial evidence demonstrating the significant and durable clinical improvement of metabolic syndrome following surgery. In a large cohort study of >180,000 Medicare beneficiaries, patients who underwent MBS had significantly lower risk of new-onset heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared with matched controls at 4 years after surgery [ 119 ]. The long-term reduction in cardiovascular risk after MBS has been shown by others, especially in individuals with concurrent T2D [ 19 , 120 ].
Greater weight loss and improvement in T2D, hypertension, and dyslipidemia has been demonstrated beyond 10 years after MBS, compared with nonsurgical controls [ 10 , 121 ]. Sustained weight loss of at least 15% is recognized as having a significant effect on inducing marked improvement of metabolic derangement in most patients, with individuals undergoing MBS demonstrating a consistent and durable benefit [ 122 ]. In the randomized controlled STAMPEDE trial, medical therapy with RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy were shown to be superior to medical therapy alone in the long-term treatment of T2D [ 32 ]. Similarly, Mingrone et al. [ 123 ] demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial the superiority of MBS to medical therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes 5 years after surgery. Others have shown that microvascular complications of diabetes are decreased after MBS with up to 20 years follow up [ 116 ], and that the risk for, and markers of diabetic nephropathy improve after MBS in retrospective and randomized prospective studies [ 124 – 127 ].
Cancer risk
Obesity is associated with an elevated risk of multiple cancers, including esophagus, breast, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, stomach, kidney, ovary, pancreas, liver, thyroid, multiple myeloma, and meningioma [ 128 – 133 ]. There is evidence to suggest that MBS can lead to a significant reduction in incidence of obesity-associated cancer and cancer-related mortality, compared with obese individuals who did not undergo surgery. Multiple studies have shown that MBS reduces the risk of developing cancer in the population with class II/III obesity, ranging from 11% to 50% for all cancer types [ 130 , 134 – 137 ]. Benefits were also documented for the incidence of specific cancers, such as gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary cancers, genitourinary cancers, and gynecological cancers.
Furthermore, MBS may significantly reduce overall cancer mortality compared with nonsurgical obese controls [ 134 , 137 ]. There is some evidence to suggest that the risk-reduction attenuates as time from surgery increases, although it is unclear to what extent type of operation, type of cancer, health behaviors, and presence of co-morbidities confound these findings [ 138 ]. Nonetheless, a recent retrospective cohort study of >30,000 patients with a median follow-up of 6 years found that adults with obesity who underwent MBS had a 32% lower risk of developing cancer and 48% lower risk of cancer-related death compared with a matched cohort who did not have surgery [ 137 ].
Mortality
Large prospective and retrospective studies have consistently reported the lower mortality and improved survival benefit of MBS. Representative studies include the Swedish Obese Subjects study demonstrated an adjusted decreased overall mortality by 30.7% in the group of 2010 surgical patients compared with nonsurgical controls, at an average of 10 years after surgery [ 17 ]. Similar results were demonstrated in a large retrospective study comparing 9949 individuals who had undergone RYGB compared with nonsurgical controls [ 139 ]. With a mean follow-up of 7 years, adjusted overall mortality decreased by 40% in the MBS group. In a retrospective cohort study of 2500 mostly male patients, all-cause mortality was significantly lower at 5-10 years after MBS compared to controls [ 16 ]. In a large meta-analysis with an overall >170,000 subjects, median life-expectancy was increased by 6.1 years after MBS compared with usual care [ 140 ]. In this study, the median life-expectancy is increased further in the population with diabetes. A study of Medicare beneficiaries comparing >94,000 individuals who had MBS to matched controls demonstrated a significantly lower risk of mortality [ 119 ]. Thus, the durable benefits of MBS for individuals with class II/III obesity are reflected in an overall lower mortality years after surgery in multiple populations.
Revisional surgery
With the rise in the number of metabolic and bariatric operations performed worldwide, and with the recognition of obesity as a chronic, relapsing, multifactorial disease, comes a rise in the need for revisional surgery. Indications for revisional MBS vary among individual patients, but may include weight regain, insufficient weight loss, insufficient improvement of co-morbidities, and managing complications (e.g., gastroesophageal reflux) [ 141 – 144 ].
Surgical revision can take the form of converting from one kind of MBS operation to another, enhancing the effect of a specific operation (e.g., distalization after RYGB), treating possible complications of the index operation, or restoring normal anatomy if possible [ 144 , 145 ]. Furthermore, with the understanding of severe obesity to be a chronic disease there has been a growing recognition of the requirement for long-term management of excess weight and obesity co-morbidities. This often takes the form of multimodal therapy that could include additional or “revisional” surgery, to achieve optimal outcomes. Thus, revisional surgery may also serve as escalation therapy for those individuals who are deemed poor responders to the initial operation.
The complexity of revisional surgery is higher than primary MBS, and is associated with increased hospital length of stay, and higher rates of complications [ 146 ]. Nonetheless, revisional MBS is effective in achieving additional weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after the primary operation in selected patients, with acceptable complication rates, and low mortality rates [ 145 , 147 , 148 ].
Conclusion
Since the NIH published its statement on gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity in 1991, the understanding of obesity and MBS has significantly grown based on a large body of clinical experience and research. Long-term data consistently demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and durability of MBS in the treatment of clinically severe obesity and its co-morbidities, with a resultant decreased mortality compared with nonoperative treatment methods. MBS is recommended for individuals with BMI > 35 kg/m 2 , regardless of presence, absence, or severity of co-morbidities. MBS is recommended in patients with T2D and BMI > 30 kg/m 2 . MBS should be considered in individuals with BMI of 30–34.9 kg/m 2 who do not achieve substantial or durable weight loss or co-morbidity improvement using nonsurgical methods. Obesity definitions using BMI thresholds do not apply similarly to all populations. Clinical obesity in the Asian population is recognized in individuals with BMI >25 kg/m 2 . Access to MBS should not be denied solely based on traditional BMI risk zones. There is no upper patient-age limit to MBS. Older individuals who could benefit from MBS should be considered for surgery after careful assessment of co-morbidities and frailty. Carefully selected individuals considered higher risk for general surgery may benefit from MBS. Children and adolescents with BMI >120% of the 95th percentile and a major co-morbidity, or a BMI >140% of the 95th percentile, should be considered for MBS after evaluation by a multidisciplinary team in a specialty center. MBS is an effective treatment of clinically severe obesity in patients who need other specialty surgery, such as joint arthroplasty, abdominal wall hernia repair, or organ transplantation. Consultation with a multidisciplinary team can help manage the patient’s modifiable risk factors with a goal of reducing risk of perioperative complications and improving outcomes. The ultimate decision for surgical readiness should be determined by the surgeon. Severe obesity is a chronic disease requiring long-term management after primary MBS. This may include revisional surgery or other adjuvant therapy to achieve desired treatment effect.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Change history
11/29/2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s11695-022-06369-2
References
1. Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity. Consens Statement 1991;9(1):1–20. 1760489
2. Ogden CL Carroll MD Kit BK Flegal KL Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States 2011–12 JAMA 2014 311 8 806 814 10.1001/jama.2014.732 24570244 PMC4770258
3. World Health Organization (WHO) [monograph on the Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002 [cited 2022 Mon D]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241562072 .
4. Gossman H Butsch WS Jastreboff AM Treating the chronic disease of obesity Med Clin N Am 2021 105 6 983 1016 10.1016/j.mcna.2021.06.005 34688422
5. Kawai T Autieri MV Scalia R Adipose tissue inflammation and metabolic dysfunction in obesity Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2021 320 3 C375 C391 10.1152/ajpcell.00379.2020 33356944 PMC8294624
6. Hotamisligil GS Inflammation and metabolic disorders Nature 2006 444 7121 860 867 10.1038/nature05485 17167474
7. Grosfeld A Andre J Hauguel-De Mouzon S Berra E Poussegur J Guerre-Millo M Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 transactivates the human leptin gene promoter J Biol Chem 2002 277 45 42953 42957 10.1074/jbc.M206775200 12215445
8. Chang SS Eisenberg D Zhao L Adams C Leib R Morser J Leung L Chemerin activation in human obesity Obesity (Silver Spring) 2016 24 7 1522 1529 10.1002/oby.21534 27222113
9. Gloy VL Briel M Bhatt DL Kashyap SR Schauer PR Mingrone G Bucher HC Nordmann AJ Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment of obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials BMJ 2013 347 f5934 10.1136/bmj.f5934 24149519 PMC3806364
10. Adams TD Davidson LE Litwin SE Kim J Kolotkin RL Nanjee MN Gutierrez JM Frogley SJ Ibele AR Brinton EA Hopkins PN McKinlay R Simper SC Hunt SC Weight and metabolic outcomes 12 years after gastric bypass N Engl J Med 2017 377 12 1143 1155 10.1056/NEJMoa1700459 28930514 PMC5737957
11. Sjostrom L Lindroos AK Peltonen M Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery N Engl J Med 2004 351 26 2683 2693 10.1056/NEJMoa035622 15616203
12. Sjostrom L Peltonen M Jacobson P Bariatric surgery and long-term cardiovascular events JAMA 2012 307 1 56 65 10.1001/jama.2011.1914 22215166
13. Puzziferri N Roshek TB III Mayo HG Gallagher R Belle SH Livingston EH Long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery: a systematic review JAMA 2014 312 9 935 942 10.1001/jama.2014.10706 PMC4409000 25182102
14. Maciewjewski ML Arterburn DE Van Scoyoc L Bariatric surgery and long-term durability of weight loss JAMA Surg 2016 151 11 1046 1055 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2317 27579793 PMC5112115
15. Schauer PR Mingrone G Ikramuddin S Wolfe B Clinical outcomes of metabolic surgery: efficacy of glycemic control, weight loss, and remission of diabetes Diabetes Care 2016 39 6 902 911 10.2337/dc16-0382 27222548 PMC5864131
16. Arterburn DE Olsen MK Smith VA Livingston EH van Scoyoc L Yancy WS Jr Eid G Weidenbacher H Maciejewski ML Association between bariatric surgery and long-term survival JAMA 2015 313 1 62 70 10.1001/jama.2014.16968 25562267
17. Sjostrom L Narbro K Sjostrom CD Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects N Engl J Med 2007 357 8 741 752 10.1056/NEJMoa066254 17715408
18. Aminian A Al-Kurd A Wilson R Association of bariatric surgery with major adverse liver and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis JAMA 2021 26 20 2031 2042 10.1001/jama.2021.19569 PMC8587225 34762106
19. Aminian A Zajicheck A Arterburn DE Association of metabolic surgery with major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity JAMA 2019 322 13 1271 1282 10.1001/jama.2019.14231 31475297 PMC6724187
20. Goldberg I Yang J Nie L Bates AT Docimo S Jr Pryor AD Cohn T Spaniolas K Safety of bariatric surgery in patients older than 65 years Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019 15 8 1380 1387 10.1016/j.soard.2019.05.016 31248793
21. Phillips BT Shikora SA The history of metabolic and bariatric surgery: development of standards for patient safety and efficacy Metabolism 2018 79 97 107 10.1016/j.metabol.2017.12.010 29307519
22. Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) Consortium Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery N Engl J Med 2009 361 445 454 10.1056/NEJMoa0901836 19641201 PMC2854565
23. Buchwald H Estok R Fahrbach K Banel D Sledge I Trends in mortality in bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surgery 2007 142 4 621 632 10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.018 17950357
24. Arterburn DE Telem DA Kushner RF Courcoulas AP Benefits and risks of bariatric surgery in adults: a review JAMA 2020 324 9 879 887 10.1001/jama.2020.12567 32870301
25. American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) [Internet]. Newberry, FL: The Society [updated 2022 Jun; cited YYYY Mon D]. Estimate of Bariatric Surgery Numbers, 2011-2020; [about 2 screens]. Available from: https://asmbs.org/resources/estimate-of-bariatric-surgery-numbers .
26. International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO). 5 th IFSO Global Registry Report [monograph on the Internet]. Naples, Italy: IFSO; 2019 [cited YYYY Mon D]. Available from: https://www.ifso.com/pdf/5th-ifso-global-registry-report-september-2019.pdf .
27. Rubino F Nathan DM Eckel RH Schauer PR Alberti KG Zimmet PZ del Prato S Ji L Sadikot SM Herman WH Amiel SA Kaplan LM Taroncher-Oldenburg G Cummings DE Delegates of the 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016 12 1 1144 1162 10.1016/j.soard.2016.05.018 27568469
28. Aminian A Chang J Brethauer SA Kim JJ American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Clinical Issues Committee ASMBS updated position statement on bariatric surgery in class I obesity (BMI 30-35 kg/m 2 ) Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018 14 8 1071 1087 10.1016/j.soard.2018.05.025 30061070
29. Noun R Slim R Nasr M Chakhtoura G Gharios J Antoun NA Ayoub E Results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in 541 consecutive patients with low baseline body mass index (30-35 kg/m 2 ) Obes Surg 2016 26 12 2824 2828 10.1007/s11695-016-2224-y 27185176
30. Varban OA Bonham AJ Finks JF Telem DA Obeid NR Ghaferi AA Is it worth it? Determining the health benefits of sleeve gastrectomy in patients with a body mass index <35 kg/m 2 Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020 16 2 248 253 10.1016/j.soard.2019.10.027 31831336
31. Ikramuddin S Komer J Lee WJ Durability of addition of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to lifestyle intervention and medical management in achieving primary treatment goals for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in mild to moderate obesity: a randomized control trial Diabetes Care 2016 39 9 1510 1518 10.2337/dc15-2481 27311493 PMC5001141
32. Schauer PR Bhatt DL Kirwan JP Wolski K Aminian A Brethauer SA Navaneethan SD Singh RP Pothier CE Nissen SE Kashyap SR STAMPEDE Investigators Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes – 5-year outcomes N Engl J Med 2017 376 7 641 651 10.1056/NEJMoa1600869 28199805 PMC5451258
33. Courcoulas AP Belle SH Neiberg RH Pierson SK Eagleton JK Kalarchian MA DeLany JP Lang W Jakicic JM Three-year out-comes of bariatric surgery vs lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Surg 2015 150 10 931 940 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1534 26132586 PMC4905566
34. O’Brien PE Brennan L Laurie C Brown W Intensive medical weight loss or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in the treatment of mild to moderate obesity: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomised trial Obes Surg 2013 23 9 1345 1353 10.1007/s11695-013-0990-3 23760764
35. Parikh M Chung M Sheth S McMacken M Zahra T Saunders JK Ude-Welcome A Dunn V Ogedegbe G Schmidt AM Pachter HL Randomized pilot trial of bariatric surgery versus intensive medical weight management on diabetes remission in type 2 diabetes patients who do NOT meet NIH criteria for surgery and the role of soluble RAGE as a novel biomarker of success Ann Surg 2014 260 4 617 622 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000919 25203878 PMC4691842
36. Wentworth JM Playfair J Laurie C Ritchie ME Brown WA Burton P Shaw JE O'Brien PE Multidisciplinary diabetes care with and without bariatric surgery in overweight people: a randomised controlled trial Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014 2 7 545 552 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70066-X 24731535
37. Busetto L Dixon J De Luca M Shikora S Pories W Angrisani L Bariatric surgery in class I obesity: a position statement from the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Obes Surg 2014 24 4 487 519 10.1007/s11695-014-1214-1 24638958
38. Rubino F Cohen RV Mingrone G le Roux CW Mechanick JI Arterburn DE Vidal J Alberti G Amiel SA Batterham RL Bornstein S Chamseddine G del Prato S Dixon JB Eckel RH Hopkins D McGowan BM Pan A Patel A Pattou F Schauer PR Zimmet PZ Cummings DE Bariatric and metabolic surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: DSS recommendations for management of surgical candidates and postoperative patients and prioritisation of access to surgery Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2020 8 7 640 648 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30157-1 32386567 PMC7252156
39. World Health Organization (WHO) [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: The Organization; 2022 [cited 2022 Apr 27]. Obesity and overweight [about 6 screens]. Available from: www.who.int/westernpacific/health-topics/obesity .
40. Misra A Ethnic-specific criteria for classification of body mass index: a perspective for Asian Indians and American Diabetes Association position statement Diabetes Technol Ther 2015 17 9 667 671 10.1089/dia.2015.0007 25902357 PMC4555479
41. Hsu WC Araneta MRG Kanaya AM Chiand JL Fujimoto W BMI cut points to identify at-risk Asian Americans for type 2 diabetes screening Diabetes Care 2015 38 1 150 158 10.2337/dc14-2391 25538311 PMC4392932
42. Gill RS Karmali S Sharma AM The potential role of the Edmonton obesity staging system in determining indications for bariatric surgery Obes Surg 2011 21 12 1947 1949 10.1007/s11695-011-0533-8 22002510
43. Padwal RS Pajewski NM Allison DB Sharma AM Using the Edmonton obesity staging system to predict mortality in a population-representative cohort of people with overweight and obesity CMAJ 2011 183 14 E1059 E1066 10.1503/cmaj.110387 21844111 PMC3185097
44. Frattini F Lavazza M Rausei S Rovera F Boni L Dionigi G BMI: the weakness of a milestone in obesity management and treatment Obes Surg 2015 25 10 1940 1941 10.1007/s11695-015-1795-3 26177811
45. Al-Kurd A Grinbaum R Mordechay-Heyn T Outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy in septuagenarians Obes Surg 2018 28 12 3895 3901 10.1007/s11695-018-3418-2 30032420
46. Smith ME Bacal D Bonham AJ Varban OA Carlin AM Ghaferi AA Finks JF Perioperative and 1-year outcomes of bariatric surgery in septuagenarians: implications for patient selection Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019 15 10 1805 1811 10.1016/j.soard.2019.08.002 31530451 PMC6834898
47. Edwards MA Mazzei M Agarwal S Rhodes L Bruff A Exploring perioperative outcomes in metabolic and bariatric surgery amongst the elderly: an analysis of the 2015–2017 MBSAQIP database Surg Obes Relat Dis 2021 17 6 1096 1106 10.1016/j.soard.2021.02.026 33785272
48. Watt J Tricco AC Talbot-Hamon C Pham B’ Rios P Grudniewicz A Wong C Sinclair D Straus SE Identifying older adults at risk of harm following elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Med 2018 16 1 2 10.1186/s12916-017-0986-2 29325567 PMC5765656
49. Gondal AB Hsu CH Zeeshan M Hamidi M Joseph B Ghaderi I A frailty index and the impact of frailty on postoperative outcomes in older patients after bariatric surgery Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019 15 9 1582 1588 10.1016/j.soard.2019.06.028 31451386
50. Reilly JJ Kelly J Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood: systematic review Int J Obes (Lond) 2011 35 7 891 898 10.1038/ijo.2010.222 20975725
51. Olbers T Beamish AJ Gronowitz E Flodmark CE Dahlgren J Bruze G Ekbom K Friberg P Göthberg G Järvholm K Karlsson J Mårild S Neovius M Peltonen M Marcus C Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe obesity (AMOS): a prospective, 5-year, Swedish nationwide study Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017 5 3 174 183 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30424-7 28065734 PMC5359414
52. Inge TH Jenkins TM Xanthakos SA Dixon JB Daniels SR Zeller MH Helmrath MA Long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery in adolescents with severe obesity (FABS-5+): a prospective follow-up analysis Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017 5 3 165 173 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30315-1 28065736 PMC8282411
53. Michalsky MP Inge TH Jenkins TM Teen-LABS consortium. Cardiovascular risk factors after adolescent bariatric surgery Pediatrics 2018 141 2 e20172485 10.1542/peds.2017-2485 29311357 PMC5810605
54. Inge TH Laffel LM Jenkins TM Marcus MD Leibel NI Brandt ML Haymond M Urbina EM Dolan LM Zeitler PS for the Teen–Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (Teen-LABS) and Treatment Options of Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) Consortia Comparison of surgical and medical therapy for type 2 diabetes in severely obese adolescents JAMA Pediatr 2018 172 5 452 460 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5763 29532078 PMC5875354
55. Inge TH Courcoulas AP Helmrath MA Five-year outcomes of gastric bypass in adolescents as compared with adults N Engl J Med 2019 380 22 2136 2145 10.1056/NEJMoa1813909 31116917 PMC7345847
56. Alqahtani AR Elahmedi M Abdurabu HY Alqahtani S Ten-year outcomes of children and adolescents who underwent sleeve gastrectomy: weight loss, comorbidity resolution, adverse events, and growth velocity J Am Coll Surg 2021 233 6 657 664 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.08.678 34563670
57. Pratt JSA Browne A Browne NT Bruzoni M Cohen M Desai A Inge T Linden BC Mattar SG Michalsky M Podkameni D Reichard KW Stanford FC Zeller MH Zitsman J ASMBS pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery guidelines, 2018 Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018 14 7 882 901 10.1016/j.soard.2018.03.019 30077361 PMC6097871
58. Armstrong SC Bolling CF Michalsky MP Reichard KW SECTION ON OBESITY, SECTION ON SURGERY Haemer MA Muth ND Rausch JC Rogers VW Heiss KF Besner GE Downard CD Fallat ME Gow KW FACS M Pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery: evidence, barriers, and best practices Pediatrics 2019 144 6 e20193223 10.1542/peds.2019-3223 31656225
59. Jones RE Wood LSY Matheson BE Pratt JSA Burgart AM Garza D Shepard WE Bruzoni M Pilot evaluation of a multidisciplinary strategy for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in adolescents and young adults with obesity and intellectual disabilities Obes Surg 2021 31 8 3883 3887 10.1007/s11695-021-05393-y 33797732
60. Khatod M Cafri G Namba RS Inacio MCS Paxton EW Risk factors for total hip arthroplasty aseptic revision J Arthroplasty 2014 29 7 1412 1417 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.023 24582159
61. Namba RS Inacio MCS Paxton EW Risk factors associated with surgical site infection in 30,491 primary total hip replacements J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012 94 10 1330 1338 10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.29184 23015556
62. Workgroup of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Evidence-Based Committee Obesity and total joint arthroplasty: a literature-based review J Arthroplasty 2013 28 5 714 721 10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.011 23518425
63. Arsoy D Woodcock JA Lewallen DG Trousdale RT Outcomes and complications following total hip arthroplasty in the super-obese patient, BMI>50 J Arthroplasty 2014 29 10 1899 1905 10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.022 25081511
64. Issa K Harwin SF Malkani AL Bonutti PM Scillia A Mont MA Bariatric orthopaedics: total hip arthroplasty in super-obese patients (those with a BMI of > 50 kg/m 2 ) Bone Joint Surg Am 2016 98 3 180 185 10.2106/JBJS.O.00474 26842407
65. Rajagopal R Martin R Howard JL Outcomes and complications of total hip replacement in super-obese patients Bone Joint J 2013 95-B 6 758 763 10.1302/0301-620X.95B6.31438 23723268
66. McLawhorn AS Levack AE Lee YY Ge Y Do H Dodwell ER Bariatric surgery improves outcomes after lower extremity arthroplasty in the morbidly obese: a propensity score-matched analysis of a New York statewide database J Arthroplasty 2018 33 7 2062 2069 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.056 29366728
67. Davis AM Wood AM Keenan ACM Brenkel IJ Ballantyne JA Does body mass index affect clinical outcome post-operatively and at five years after primary unilateral total hip replacement performed for osteoarthritis? A multivariate analysis of prospective data J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011 93 9 1178 1182 10.1302/0301-620X.93B9.26873 21911527
68. Inacio MC Paxton EW Fisher D Bariatric surgery prior to total joint arthroplasty may not provide dramatic improvements in post-arthroplasty surgical outcomes J Arthroplasty 2014 29 7 1359 1364 10.1016/j.arth.2014.02.021 24674730 PMC4151515
69. Severson EP Singh JA Browne JA Total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients treated with bariatric surgery: a comparative study J Arthroplasty 2012 27 9 1696 1700 10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.005 22554730 PMC3413743
70. Kubat E Giori NJ Hwa K Eisenberg D Osteoarthritis in veterans undergoing bariatric surgery is associated with decreased excess weight loss: 5-year outcomes Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016 12 7 1426 1430 10.1016/j.soard.2016.02.012 27260653
71. Werner BC Kurkis GM Gwathmey FW Browne JA Bariatric surgery prior to total knee arthroplasty is associated with fewer postoperative complications J Arthroplasty 2015 30 9 81 85 10.1016/j.arth.2014.11.039 26071250
72. Li S Luo X Sun H Wang K Zhang K Sun X Does prior bariatric surgery improve outcomes following total joint arthroplasty in the morbidly obese? A meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2019 34 3 577 585 10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.018 30528132
73. Dowsey MM Brown WA Cochrane A Burton PR Liew D Choong PF Effect of bariatric surgery on risk of complications after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized clinical trial JAMA Netw Open 2022 5 4 e226722 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6722 35420662 PMC9011119
74. Geletzke AK Rinaldi JM Phillips BE Mobley SB Miller J Dykes T Hollenbeak C Kelleher SL Soybel DI Prevalence of systemic inflammation and micronutrient imbalance in patients with complex abdominal hernias J Gastrointest Surg 2014 18 4 646 655 10.1007/s11605-013-2431-y 24356980
75. Veilleux E Lufti R Obesity and ventral hernia repair: is there success in staging? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2020 30 8 896 899 10.1089/lap.2020.0265 32453617
76. Novitsky YW Orenstein SB Effect of patient and hospital characteristics on outcomes of elective ventral hernia repair in the United States Hernia 2013 17 5 639 645 10.1007/s10029-013-1088-5 23613017
77. Menzo ML Hinojosa M Carbonell A American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and American Hernia Society consensus guideline on bariatric surgery and hernia surgery Surg Obes Relat Dis 2018 14 9 1221 1232 10.1016/j.soard.2018.07.005 30154033
78. Yemini R Nesher E Carmeli I Winkler J Rahamimov R Mor E Keidar A Bariatric surgery is efficacious and improves access to transplantation for morbidly obese renal transplant candidates Obes Surg 2019 29 8 2373 2380 10.1007/s11695-019-03925-1 31134476
79. Al-Bahri S Fakhry TK Gonzalvo JP Murr MM Bariatric surgery as a bridge to renal transplantation in patients with end-stage renal disease Obes Surg 2017 27 11 2951 2955 10.1007/s11695-017-2722-6 28500419
80. Lee Y Tian C Lovrics O Soon MS Doumouras AG Anvari M Hong D Bariatric surgery before, during, and after liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020 16 9 1336 1347 10.1016/j.soard.2020.05.012 32694040
81. Yemini R Nesher E Braun M Cohen M Carmeli I Mor E Keidar A Long-term outcomes of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in patients with cirrhosis; before, during or after liver transplantation: a single center’s experience Clin Transplant 2021 35 8 e14374 10.1111/ctr.14374 34043840
82. Lee Y Anvari S Sam Soon M Tian C Wong JA Hong D Anvari M Doumouras AG Bariatric surgery as a bridge to heart transplantation in morbidly obese patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis Cardiol Rev 2022 30 8 1 7 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000346 33165086
83. Lim CP Fisher OM Falkenback D Boyd D Hayward CS Keogh A Samaras K MacDonald P Lord RV Bariatric surgery provides a “bridge to transplant” for morbidly obese patients with advanced heart failure and may obviate the need for transplantation Obes Surg 2016 26 3 486 493 10.1007/s11695-015-1789-1 26163362
84. McElderry B Alvarez P Hanna M Chaudhury P Bhat P Starling RC Desai M Mentias A Outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with left ventricular assist device J Heart Lung Transplant 2022 41 7 914 918 10.1016/j.healun.2022.04.003 35537903
85. Orandi BJ Purvis JW Cannon RM Smith AB Lewis CE Terrault NA Locke JE Bariatric surgery to achieve transplant in end-stage organ disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Surg 2020 220 3 566 579 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.04.041 32600846 PMC7484004
86. Laurenius A Taha O Maleckas A Lönroth H Olbers T Laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for super-obesity-weight loss versus side effects Surg Obes Relat Dis 2010 6 4 408 416 10.1016/j.soard.2010.03.293 20655023
87. Prachand VN DaVee RT Alverdy JC Duodenal switch provides superior weight loss in the super-obese (BMI > 50 kg/m 2 ) compared with the gastric bypass Ann Surg 2006 244 4 611 619 16998370 10.1097/01.sla.0000239086.30518.2a PMC1856567
88. Whitlock G Lewington S Sherliker P Body mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900,000 adults: collaborative analyses of prospective studies Lancet 2009 373 9669 1083 1096 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60318-4 19299006 PMC2662372
89. Flum DR Belle SH King WC Perioperative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery N Engl J Med 2009 361 5 445 454 10.1056/NEJMoa0901836 19641201 PMC2854565
90. DeMaria EJ Bariatric surgery for morbid obesity N Engl J Med 2007 356 21 2176 2183 10.1056/NEJMct067019 17522401
91. Wilkinson KH Helm M Lak K Higgins RM Gould JC Kindel TL The risk of post-operative complications in super-superobesity compared to superobesity in accredited bariatric surgery centers Obes Surg 2019 29 9 2964 2971 10.1007/s11695-019-03942-0 31134478
92. Stephens DJ Saunders JK Belsley S Trivedi A Ewing DR Iannace V Capella RF Wasielewski A Moran S Schmidt HJ Ballantyne GH Short-term outcomes for super-super obese (BMI > 60 kg/m 2 ) patients undergoing weight loss surgery at a high-volume bariatric surgery center: laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic gastric bypass, and open tubular gastric bypass Surg Obes Relat Dis 2008 4 3 408 415 10.1016/j.soard.2007.10.013 18243060
93. Roland JC Needleman BJ Muscarella P Cook CH Narula VK Mikami DJ Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients with body mass index >70 kg/m 2 Surg Obes Relat Dis 2011 7 5 587 591 10.1016/j.soard.2011.02.010 21515091
94. Patton H Heimbach J McCullough A AGA clinical practice update on bariatric surgery in cirrhosis: expert review Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021 19 3 436 445 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.10.034 33393473 PMC8872426
95. Lassailly G Caiazzo R Ntandja-Wandji LC Gnemmi V Baud G Verkindt H Ningarhari M Louvet A Leteurtre E Raverdy V Dharancy S Pattou F Mathurin P Bariatric surgery provides long-term resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and regression of fibrosis Gastroenterology 2020 159 4 1290 1301 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.006 32553765
96. Ahmed S Pouwels S Parmar C Global bariatric research collaborative. Outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis: a systematic review Obes Surg 2021 31 5 2255 2267 10.1007/s11695-021-05289-x 33595790
97. Mumtaz K Lipshultz H Jalil S Porter K Li N Kelly SG Conteh LF Michaels A Hanje J Black S Hussan H Bariatric surgery in patients with cirrhosis: careful patient and surgery-type selection is key to improving outcomes Obes Surg 2020 30 9 3444 3452 10.1007/s11695-020-04583-4 32285332
98. Hanipah ZN Punchai S McCullough A Dasarathy S Brethauer SA Aminian A Schauer PR Bariatric surgery in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension Obes Surg 2018 28 11 3431 3438 10.1007/s11695-018-3372-z 30109667
99. Hirji SA Sabatino ME Minhas AMK Okoh AK Fudim M Vaduganathan M Khan MS Contemporary nationwide heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device outcomes in patients with histories of bariatric surgery J Card Fail 2022 28 2 330 333 10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.08.017 34509598
100. Yang TWW Johari Y Burton PR Earnest A Shaw K Hare JL Brown WA Bariatric surgery in patients with severe heart failure Obes Surg 2020 30 8 2863 2869 10.1007/s11695-020-04612-2 32291707
101. McCloskey CA Ramani GV Mathier MA Bariatric surgery improves cardiac function in morbidly obese patients with severe cardiomyopathy Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007 3 5 503 507 10.1016/j.soard.2007.05.006 17903770
102. Punchai S Hanipah ZN Sharm G Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in heart failure patients with left ventricular assist device Obes Surg 2019 29 4 1122 1129 10.1007/s11695-018-3570-8 30723879
103. Mechanick JL Apovian C Brethauer S Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric surgery-2019 update: co-sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists – executive summary Endoc Pract 2019 25 12 1346 1359 10.4158/GL-2019-0406 31682518
104. Carter J Chang J Birriel J ASMBS position statement on preoperative patient optimization before metabolic and bariatric surgery Surg Obes Relat Dis 2021 17 12 1956 1976 10.1016/j.soard.2021.08.024 34629296
105. Eisenberg D Lohnberg JA Kubat EP Bates CC Greenberg LM Frayne SM Systems innovation model: an integrated interdisciplinary team approach pre- and post-bariatric surgery at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017 13 4 600 606 10.1016/j.soard.2016.11.007 28089437
106. Mechanick JL Kushner RF Sugerman HJ American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery medical guidelines for clinical practice for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient Obesity (Silver Spring) 2009 17 Suppl 1 S1 70, v 10.1038/oby.2009.28 19319140
107. Rebibo L Marechal V De Lameth I Compliance with a multidisciplinary team meeting’s decision prior to bariatric surgery protects against major postoperative complications Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017 13 9 1537 1543 10.1016/j.soard.2017.05.026 28705572
108. Bullen NL Parmar J Gilbert J Clarke M Cota A Finlay IG How effective is the multidisciplinary team approach in bariatric surgery? Obes Surg 2019 29 10 3232 3238 10.1007/s11695-019-03975-5 31209829
109. Kim J Rogers A Ballem, et al. ASMBS updated position statement on insurance mandated preoperative weight loss requirements Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016 12 5 955 959 10.1016/j.soard.2016.04.019 27523728
110. Andromalos L Crowley N Brown J Craggs-Dino L Handu D Isom K Lynch A DellaValle D Nutritional care in bariatric surgery: an Academy Evidence Analysis Center systematic review J Acad Nutr Diet 2019 119 4 678 686 10.1016/j.jand.2018.08.002 30391396
111. Sogg S Lauretti J West-Smith L Recommendations for the presurgical psychosocial evaluation of bariatric surgery patients Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016 12 4 731 749 10.1016/j.soard.2016.02.008 27179400
112. Brethauer SA Kim J El Chaar M Standardized outcomes reporting in metabolic and bariatric surgery Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015 11 3 489 506 10.1016/j.soard.2015.02.003 26093765
113. Salminen P Grönroos S Helmiö M Hurme S Juuti A Juusela R Peromaa-Haavisto P Leivonen M Nuutila P Ovaska J Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss, comorbidities, and reflux at 10 years in adult patients with obesity: The SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial JAMA Surg 2022 157 8 656 666 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2229 35731535 PMC9218929
114. Buchwald H Avidor Y Braunwald E Jensen MD Pories W Fahrbach K Schoelles K Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA 2004 292 14 1724 1737 10.1001/jama.292.14.1724 15479938
115. Arterburn DE Wellman R Emiliano A Smith SR Odegaard AO Murali S Williams N Coleman KJ Courcoulas A Coley RY Anau J Pardee R Toh S Janning C Cook A Sturtevant J Horgan C McTigue KM for the PCORnet Bariatric Study Collaborative Comparative effectiveness and safety of bariatric procedures for weight loss: a PCORnet cohort study Ann Intern Med 2018 169 11 741 750 10.7326/M17-2786 30383139 PMC6652193
116. Sjostrom L Peltonen M Jacobson P Association of bariatric surgery with long-term remission of type 2 diabetes and with microvascular and macrovascular complications JAMA 2014 311 22 2297 2304 10.1001/jama.2014.5988 24915261
117. O’Brien PE Hindle A Brennan L Skinner S Burton P Smith A Crosthwaite G Brown W Long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight loss at 10 or more years for all bariatric procedures and a single-centre review of 20-year outcomes after adjustable gastric banding Obes Surg 2019 29 1 3 14 10.1007/s11695-018-3525-0 30293134 PMC6320354
118. Guh DP Zhang W Bansback N Amarsi Z Birmingham CL Anis AH The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Public Health 2009 9 88 10.1186/1471-2458-9-88 19320986 PMC2667420
119. Mentias A Aminian A Youssef D Pandey A Menon V Cho L Nissen SE Desai MY Long-term cardiovascular outcomes after bariatric surgery in the Medicare population J Am Coll Cardiol 2022 79 15 1429 1437 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.047 35422238
120. Ke Z Zhou X Sun F Li F Tong W Zhu Z Effect of bariatric surgery versus medical therapy on long-term cardiovascular risk in low BMI Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a propensity score-matched analysis Surg Obes Relat Dis 2022 18 4 475 483 10.1016/j.soard.2021.11.019 34969592
121. Colquitt JL Picket K Loveman E Frampton GK Surgery for weight loss in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014 2014 8 CD003641 25105982 10.1002/14651858.CD003641.pub4 PMC9028049
122. Sjoholm K Sjostrom E Carlsson LMS Peltonen M Weight change-adjusted effects of gastric bypass surgery on glucose metabolism: 2- and 10-year results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study Diabetes Care 2016 39 4 625 631 10.2337/dc15-1407 26681719
123. Mingrone G Panunzi S De Gaetano A Bariatric-metabolic surgery versus conventional medical treatment in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: 5 year follow-up of an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2015 386 9997 964 973 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00075-6 26369473
124. Docherty NG le Roux CW Bariatric surgery for the treatment of chronic kidney disease in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus Nature Rev Nephr 2020 16 12 709 720 10.1038/s41581-020-0323-4 32778788
125. Morales E Porrini E Martin-Toboada M Renoprotective role of bariatric surgery in patients with established chronic kidney disease Clin Kidney J 2020 14 9 2037 2046 10.1093/ckj/sfaa266 34476090 PMC8406062
126. Cohen RV Pereira TV Aboud CM Effect of gastric bypass vs best medical treatment on early-stage chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity. A randomized clinical trial JAMA Surg 2020 155 8 e200420 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0420 32492126 PMC7270872
127. Young L Hanipah ZN Brethauer SA Long-term impact of bariatric surgery in diabetic nephropathy Surg Endosc 2019 33 5 1654 1660 10.1007/s00464-018-6458-8 30251143
128. Li H Boakye D Chen X Hoffmeiser M Brenner H Association of body mass index with risk of early-onset colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Gastroenterol 2021 116 11 2173 2183 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001393 34309586 PMC8560162
129. Lauby-Secretan B Scoccianti C Loomis D Grosse Y Bianchini F Straif K International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group Body fatness and cancer-viewpoint of the IARC working group N Engl J Med 2016 375 8 794 798 10.1056/NEJMsr1606602 27557308 PMC6754861
130. Schauer DP Feigelson HS Koebnick C Caan B Weinmann S Leonard AC Powers JD Yenumula PR Arterburn DE Bariatric surgery and the risk of cancer in a large multisite cohort Ann Surg 2019 269 1 95 101 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002525 28938270 PMC6201282
131. Esposito K Chiodini P Colao A Lenzi A Giugliano D Metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Diabetes Care 2012 35 11 2402 11 10.2337/dc12-0336 23093685 PMC3476894
132. Economides A Giannakou K Mamais I Economides PA Papageorgis P Association between aggressive clinicopathologic features of papillary thyroid carcinoma and body mass index: A systematic review and meta-analysis Fron Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021 12 692879 10.3389/fendo.2021.692879 PMC8279812 34276564
133. Shi J Zhao L Gao Y Niu M Yan M Chen Y Song Z Ma X Wang P Tian J Associating the risk of three urinary cancers with obesity and overweight: an overview with evidence mapping of systematic reviews Syst Rev 2021 10 1 58 10.1186/s13643-021-01606-8 33597037 PMC7888186
134. Adams TD Hunt SC Cancer and obesity: Effect of bariatric surgery World J Surg 2009 33 10 2028 2033 10.1007/s00268-009-0169-1 19672652
135. Sjostrom L Gummesson A Sjostrom CD Effects of bariatric surgery on cancer incidence in obese patients in Sweden (Swedish Obese Subjects Study): a prospective, controlled intervention trial Lancet Oncol 2009 10 7 653 662 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70159-7 19556163
136. Anveden A Taube M Peltonen M Jacobson P Andersson-Assarsson JC Sjöholm K Svensson PA Carlsson LMS Long-term incidence of female-specific cancer after bariatric surgery or usual care in the Swedish Obese Subjects Study Gynecol Oncol 2017 145 2 224 229 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.036 28259424 PMC5401644
137. Aminian A Wilson R Al-Kurd A Association of bariatric surgery with cancer risk and mortality in adults with obesity JAMA 2022 327 24 2423 2433 10.1001/jama.2022.9009 35657620 PMC9166218
138. Tao W Santoni G von Euler-Chelpin M Ljung R Lynge E Pukkala E Ness-Jensen E Romundstad P Tryggvadottir L Lagergren J Cancer risk after bariatric surgery in a cohort study from the five Nordic countries Obes Surg 2020 30 10 3761 3767 10.1007/s11695-020-04751-6 32535785 PMC7467909
139. Adams TD Gress RE Smith SC Halverson RC Simper SC Rosamond WD LaMonte MJ Stroup AM Hunt SC Long-term mortality after gastric bypass surgery N Engl J Med 2007 357 8 753 761 10.1056/NEJMoa066603 17715409
140. Syn NL Cummings DE Wang LZ Lin DJ Zhao JJ Loh M Koh ZJ Chew CA Loo YE Tai BC Kim G So JBY Kaplan LM Dixon JB Shabbir A Association of metabolic-bariatric surgery with long-term survival in adults with and without diabetes: a one-stage meta-analysis of matched cohort and prospective controlled studies with 174772 participants Lancet 2021 397 10287 1830 1841 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00591-2 33965067
141. Aleassa EM Hassan M Hayes K Brethauer SA Schauer PR Aminian A Effect of revisional bariatric surgery on type 2 diabetes mellitus Surg Endosc 2019 33 8 2642 2648 10.1007/s00464-018-6541-1 30341657
142. McKenna D Selzer D Burchett M Choi J Mattar SG Revisional bariatric surgery is more effective for improving obesity related comorbidities than it is for reinducing major weight loss Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014 10 4 654 660 10.1016/j.soard.2013.12.007 24708909
143. Yan J Cohen R Aminian A Reoperative bariatric surgery for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017 13 8 1412 1421 10.1016/j.soard.2017.04.019 28647410
144. Ma P Reddy S HIga KD Revisional bariatric/metabolic surgery: what dictates its indications? Curr Atheroscler Rep 2016 18 7 42 10.1007/s11883-016-0592-3 27221504
145. Brethauer SA Kothari S Kallies K Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014 10 5 952 972 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.014 24776071
146. Lazzati A Bechet S Jouma S Paolino L Jung C Revision surgery after sleeve gastrectomy: a nationwide study with 10 years of follow-up Surg Obes Relat Dis 2020 16 10 1497 1504 10.1016/j.soard.2020.05.021 32636173
147. Tran DD Nwokeabia ID Purnell S Zafar SN Ortega G Hughes K Fullum TM Revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for weight regain: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes Obes Surg 2016 26 7 1627 1634 10.1007/s11695-016-2201-5 27138603
148. Nevo N Abu-Abeid S Lahat G Klausner J Eldar SM Converting a sleeve gastrectomy to a gastric bypass for weight loss failure – is it worth it? Obes Surg 2018 28 2 364 368 10.1007/s11695-017-2856-6 28891022