Abstract
Introduction
The effectiveness of sleeve gastrectomy has been confirmed in many studies. The impact of individual factors on the parameters of weight loss is still not clear.
Aim
To identify important factors affecting the parameters of weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy.
Material and methods
The impact of prognostic factors and postoperative care components on body mass index (BMI) and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) was assessed in a group of 100 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.
Results
The baseline BMI and body mass in patients with BMI < 30 kg/m2 and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 12 months after surgery were, respectively, 39.7 ±3.2 vs. 45.9 ±4.6 kg/m2, p < 0.0001, and 114.4 ±16.8 vs. 130.3 ±18.5 kg, p < 0.0001. In the group with EWL < 50%, the average age was 47.1 ±7.7 vs. 40.6 ±10.8 in the group with EWL ≥ 50%, p = 0.0025. In the group of patients with preoperative weight loss, %EWL was 61.4 ±17.2 vs. 53.3 ±19.3% in the group with no weight loss, p = 0.0496. Body mass index of the patients who started physical activities was 30.6 ±4.2 kg/m2 vs. 34.0 ±5.6 kg/m2 in the patients with no physical activity, p = 0.0013, and %EWL was 63.4 ±14.6 vs. 47.0 ±19.9%, p < 0.0001, respectively. In the case of patients regularly consulted by a dietician BMI was 30.6 ±4.2 kg/m2 vs. 35.1 ±5.5 kg/m2 in the group without systematic consultations, p < 0.0001, and %EWL was 63.1 ±15.1% vs. 42.3 ±18.2%, p < 0.0001.
Conclusions
Lower baseline body weight parameters, younger age, preoperative weight loss, starting systematic physical activities and constant care of a dietician were conducive to achieving better results of surgery, as assessed on the basis of changes in BMI and %EWL.
Keywords: sleeve gastrectomy, outcomes, prognostic factors, postoperative care
Introduction
Low effectiveness of conservative treatment of obesity, the constantly growing number of obese people and the dissemination of laparoscopic techniques are conducive to the development of bariatric surgery. Surgery is an attractive alternative due to the degree of weight loss, the durability of the effects achieved, the positive impact on the resolution of comorbidities of obesity and reduced cost of long-term care [1–4]. Sleeve gastrectomy is becoming an increasingly popular method among the many methods of surgical treatment of obesity [5, 6]. The effectiveness and safety of sleeve gastrectomy have been confirmed in many reports [7–9]. Bariatric results of the treatment depend on several factors. The factors whose influence on the outcomes raises doubts include preoperative weight loss, baseline body weight parameters, age and sex of patients [10–12]. It is also not clear which elements of postoperative care have the greatest impact on the results of sleeve gastrectomy. In the case of conservative treatment, adherence to diet results in a greater weight loss and prevents weight regain in long follow-up periods [13]. Other elements influencing the results of bariatric procedures may include participation in follow-up appointments and starting physical activity in the postoperative period [14–17].
Aim
The aim of the study was to identify important factors affecting the parameters of weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy.
Material and methods
The study included the first 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in the period from January 2010 to April 2012 (67 women, 33 men). We analyzed prospectively collected data on 93 patients (63 women, 30 men) whose follow-up was at least 12 months. The analysis did not include 5 patients who did not attend the scheduled follow-up visit after 12 months and 2 patients who became pregnant during their follow-up. Patients with body mass index (BMI) of 35–39.9 kg/m2 and at least one comorbidity, or with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2, were accepted for surgical treatment. Having expressed consent to the surgery, patients were referred for psychological and dietary consultations. During the entire period of treatment the patients were under the care of a dietician. No weight loss or weight gain before the surgery were no grounds to disqualify a patient from the surgery.
The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Medical Centre of Postgraduate Education in accordance with Resolution No. 51/PM/2011 dated 08.03.2011.
Surgical technique and post-operative care
All patients were treated laparoscopically, with a pneumoperitoneum at a pressure of 12 to 15 mm Hg using the Veress needle. The five-trocar technique was used. The width of the sleeve was calibrated using a 36 Fr bougie. The staple line was routinely reinforced with a continuous absorbable suture. Methylene blue was used to carry out the leak test. A Redon drain was placed along the staple line. On the first post-operative day a water-soluble contrast study was routinely performed. In the absence of signs of leakage, drinking was recommended. Patients were discharged on the second day after starting a liquid diet. Follow-up visits were performed after 10 days and 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.
Parameters of weight loss
The baseline data from the surgery day were used for verifying weight loss. Very good bariatric outcomes were defined as a decrease in BMI below 30 kg/m2 or achieving excess weight loss (EWL) ≥ 50%.
Identification of prognostic factors and elements of post-operative care influencing parameters of weight loss
The effect of the following factors was analyzed: age, gender, baseline BMI, baseline body weight, and preoperative weight loss aimed at obtaining a beneficial outcome of the surgery, defined as a decrease in BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 or EWL ≥ 50%. The preoperative weight loss was assessed on the basis of the difference between the values recorded on the day of qualification for the surgery and the day of the surgery. The impact of compliance with dietary recommendations, eating sweets, systematic physical activities, dietary care, and follow-up visits on the decrease in BMI and %EWL was also assessed 12 months after the surgery. Absence during more than one follow-up visit during the follow-up period was determined as a lack of visits. Systematic physical activities were defined as physical activities at least 3 times a week. In the case of including sweets in the diet more than once a week, consumption of them was reported. In the case of finding a lack of compliance with dietary recommendations during more than one follow-up visit, the patient was included in the group not complying with dietary recommendations.
Statistical analysis
Student’s t test was used for comparisons between groups. The analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism v.5.02 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego California USA, www.graphpad.com). A p-value of < 0.05 indicated that the difference was statistically significant.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 43.0 ±10.2 years (range: 17–62), the mean weight on the surgery day was 124.9 ±19.4 kg (range: 82.0–180.0), and the mean BMI was 43.7 ±5.1 kg/m2 (range: 34.2–56.0). Differences between men and women in the above parameters are shown in Table I. Four (4.3%) patients underwent concomitant cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis, and 1 (1.08%) patient underwent cruroplasty with interrupted sutures due to a large hiatal hernia. The mean operative time was 123.1 ±33.2 min (range: 60–270). No conversion was recorded. Weight loss parameters are shown in Table II.
Table I.
Characteristics of patients
| Parameter | Female (N = 63) Mean ± SD (range) | Male (N = 30) Mean ± SD (range) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMI [kg/m2] | 43.9 ±4.8 (34.8–54.9) | 43.5 ±5.6 (43.2–56.0) | 0.7395 |
| Body weight [kg] | 118.8 ±15.1 (82.0–151.0) | 137.6 ±21.3 (106.0–180.0) | < 0.0001 |
| Age [years] | 42.5 ±11.1 (17–60) | 44.1 ±8.0 (26–62) | 0.4287 |
Table II.
Weight loss parameters
| Evaluated parameter | Before surgery; mean ± SD (range) | 12 months after surgery; mean ± SD (range) |
|---|---|---|
| Body weight [kg] | 124.9 ±19.4 (82–180) | 91.6 ±17.7 (56.5–142) |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 43.7 ±5.1 (34.2–56.0) | 32.1 ±5.1 (22.1–46.1) |
| Weight loss (%) | 26.6 ±8.5 (3–47) | |
| Weight loss [kg] | 33.3 ±11.4 (4–64) | |
| %EWL | 56.2 ±18.9 (6.8–102.1) |
Prognostic factors for the outcome assessed according to the changes in BMI
After 12 months, BMI < 30 kg/m2 was found in 32 (34.4%) and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 in 61 (65.6%) patients. The mean BMI after surgery in both groups was, respectively, 26.6 ±1.9 kg/m2 (range: 22.1–29.9) and 35.0 ±3.8 kg/m2 (range: 30.0–46.1), p < 0.0001. A significant influence of the baseline body weight and the baseline BMI on the possibility of BMI decrease below 30 kg/m2 was observed. Preoperative weight loss was also a factor contributing to the achievement of BMI < 30 kg/m2, but the difference was not statistically significant. There was no effect of gender or the age of patients on outcome assessed on the basis of changes in BMI. The data are shown in Table III.
Table III.
Prognostic factors for the outcome assessed according to the changes in BMI
| Patients | Parameter | Mean ± SD (range) | Mean ± SD (range) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI < 30 as. vs. BMI ≥ 30 as. | BMI bs. | 39.7 ±3.2 (34.2–44.6) | 45.9 ±4.6 (36.8–56.0) | < 0.0001 |
| BMI < 30 as. vs. BMI ≥ 30 as. | Age bs. | 42.3 ±10.6 (17–62) | 43.4 ±10.0 (19–60) | 0.6346 |
| BMI < 30 as. vs. BMI ≥ 30 as. | Weight bs. | 114.4 ±16.8 (82–161) | 130.3 ±18.5 (97–180) | < 0.0001 |
| Pwl. (+) vs. pwl. (–) | BMI as. | 30.7 ±4.8 (23.4–41.3) | 32.8 ±5.2 (22.1–46.1) | 0.0560 |
| Female vs. male | BMI as. | 32.1 ±4.6 (22.1–43.6) | 32.2 ±6.1 (23.4–46.1) | 0.9308 |
bs. – before surgery, as. – after surgery, pwl. – preoperative weight loss.
Prognostic factors for the outcome assessed on the basis of %EWL
Twelve months after the surgery, EWL < 50% was observed in 35 (37.6%) patients, and EWL ≥ 50% in 58 (62.4%) patients. Excess weight loss in both groups was 37.1 ±10.4% (range: 6.8–49.3) and 67.7 ±12.5% (range: 50.4–102.1), p < 0.0001. Excess weight loss was significantly higher in patients with preoperative weight loss, as compared with those without weight loss. The average age in the group of patients with EWL ≥ 50% was lower than in the group of patients whose EWL was less than 50%. The results are shown in Table IV.
Table IV.
Prognostic factors for the outcome assessed on the basis of %EWL
| Patients | Parameter | Mean ± SD (range) | Mean ± SD (range) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EWL < 50% vs. EWL ≥ 50% | BMI bs. | 44.9 ±5.2 (34.2–56.0) | 43.0 ±4.9 (34.8–55.0) | 0.0818 |
| EWL < 50% vs. EWL ≥ 50% | Age bs. | 47.1 ±7.7 (24–59) | 40.6 ±10.8 (17–62) | 0.0025 |
| EWL < 50% vs. EWL ≥ 50% | Weight bs. | 129.9 ±22.1 (97–180) | 121.8 ±17 (82–161) | 0.0528 |
| Pwl. (+) vs. pwl. (–) | %EWL | 61.4 ±17.2 (29–93) | 53.3 ±19.3 (6.8–102.1) | 0.0496 |
| Females vs. males | %EWL | 56.3 ±18.3 (6.8–102.1) | 55.4 ±20.4 (13.9–93.4) | 0.8335 |
bs. – before surgery, as. – after surgery, pwl. – preoperative weight loss.
Impact of selected elements of post-operative care on the parameters of weight loss
Lower BMI was observed in patients adhering to dietary recommendations, regularly attending dietary consultations and in patients who started regular physical activities. Consuming sweets and participation in follow-up appointments had no significant impact on this parameter. The results are presented in Table V. All of the analyzed elements have a significant impact on the %EWL. This was particularly evident in the case of performing systematic physical activity and participation in dietary consultations. The data are presented in Table VI.
Table V.
Impact of selected elements of post-operative care on BMI 12 months after surgery
| Evaluated factors | BMI, mean ± SD (range) | BMI, mean ± SD (range) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diet (+) vs. diet (–) | 31.5 ±4.8 (22.1–41.4) | 33.9 ±5.7 (25.7–46.6) | 0.0481 |
| Sweets (–) vs. sweets (+) | 31.7 ±5.1 (22.1–1.4) | 32.5 ±5.1 (25.8–46.1) | 0.4806 |
| Pa (+) vs. pa (–) | 30.6 ±4.2 (23.4–39.9) | 34.0 ±5.6 (22.1–46.1) | 0.0013 |
| Dc (+) vs. dc. (–) | 30.6 ±4.2 (22.1–41.4) | 35.1 ±5.5 (25.7–46.1) | < 0.0001 |
| Fv. (+) vs. fv (–) | 31.6 ±5.1 (22.1–46.4) | 33.7 ±4.8 (25.7–43.6) | 0.0750 |
Pa. – physical activity, dc. – dietary consultations, fv. – follow-up visits.
Table VI.
Impact of selected elements of post-operative care on %EWL 12 months after surgery
| Evaluated factors | %EWL, mean ± SD (range) | %EWL, mean ± SD (range) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diet (+) vs. diet (–) | 59.7 ±17.5 (22.5–102.1) | 45.4 ±19.4 (6.8–76.6) | 0.0014 |
| Sweets (–) vs. sweets (+) | 60.1 ±18.2 (22.5–102.1) | 51.6 ±18.9 (6.8–81.3) | 0.0293 |
| Pa (+) vs. pa (–) | 63.4 ±14.6 (33.7–93.4) | 47.0 ±19.9 (6.8–102.1) | < 0.0001 |
| Dc (+) vs. dc. (–) | 63.1 ±15.1 (28.1–102.1) | 42.3 ±18.2 (6.8–81.3) | < 0.0001 |
| Fv. (+) vs. fv(–) | 58.9 ±18.5 (22.5–102.1) | 47.8 ±17.9 (6.8–76.6) | 0.0130 |
Pa. – physical activity, dc. – dietary consultations, fv. – follow-up visits.
Discussion
In recent years, sleeve gastrectomy has become the second most common bariatric procedure performed worldwide [18]. Despite the similarity of the surgical technique, results, in terms of weight loss, achieved in individual patients may vary significantly. In the present study, the degree of weight loss was evaluated on the basis of %EWL and BMI changes in accordance with the recommendations of 2005 [19]. In the analyzed group, the above parameters were similar to the data presented in the literature [7, 20–22]. The impact of each factor on the final outcome of the bariatric treatment is still not clear. An additional difficulty in the interpretation of the results is the lack of a clear definition of success of the surgical treatment of obesity. What is more, there are many different definitions and scales [23–26]. The manner of defining success affects the reported results of treatment. In the current study, a very good outcome included EWL ≥ 50% and BMI decrease below 30 kg/m2. A more restrictive criterion in this approach is to obtain a BMI < 30 kg/m2.
We did not find any effect of the age or gender of patients on the degree of BMI decrease. In the case of patients with preoperative weight loss, the mean BMI after the surgery was lower than in patients without weight loss, but the difference was not significant. Significant differences were however observed in the case of the baseline weight and BMI. In the group of patients with BMI < 30 kg/m2, both the mean weight and BMI before the surgery were lower than in the case of patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, p < 0.0001. Reports on the impact of initial body weight parameters on %EWL and the rate of BMI decrease in the postoperative period are contradictory [11, 27]. Certainly, it is much more difficult for patients with the initial BMI > 50 kg/m2 to achieve a decrease of BMI below 30 kg/m2 [11]. This study confirms the beneficial effect of lower baseline body weight parameters on the possibility of achieving a lower BMI after the surgery. Taking the decrease in BMI below the target as the measure of success, patients with lower body weight parameters should therefore be eligible for surgery. In the current study, a lower baseline BMI also favored higher %EWL, but the difference was not significant. Other reports also do not confirm any significant influence of the baseline BMI on %EWL [11, 27]. Chopra et al. noted higher %EWL in the group of patients with the baseline BMI < 50 kg/m2 as compared to patients > 50 kg/m2, but the difference was significant only after 6 and 12 months, and it faded after 24 months [12]. Alvarado et al. reported that baseline BMI higher by one was related to achieving EWL lower by 1.34%, but these results concerned the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [28]. In the present study, a significant impact on the %EWL was only found in the case of the age of the operated patients and their weight loss before the surgery. Numerous studies have confirmed a beneficial effect of younger age on both the %EWL and percentage excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL). Contreras et al. reported EBMIL in patients under 45 years of age, 12 months after the surgery, at the level of 91 ±26.6% and 73.1 ±24.1%, p < 0.0001, in the group ≥ 45 years of age. A significant difference was also found when comparing the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients who achieved EBMIL ≥ 50%. In the case of younger patients, the percentage was 97.4%, and it was 85.1% in the case of older patients, p < 0.001 [10]. Chopra et al. found that EWL% was higher in patients < 40 years of age than in the group > 40 years of age, but the differences were only significant after 12 and 24 months. After 24 months, the difference between the mean %EWL in both groups was 11% [12]. Other reports did not confirm the beneficial effect of patients’ younger age on %EWL [11]. Another factor whose influence is controversial is the preoperative body weight loss. Recommending weight loss before the surgery is not always accepted by patients. Making the surgery conditional on weight loss can promote disqualification of patients for whom bariatric treatment brings measurable health benefits. On the other hand, preoperative body weight loss is an effective way to assess patients’ involvement in the therapeutic process [29]. Many studies have shown beneficial effects of preoperative weight loss on the parameters of weight loss in the postoperative period [28–30]. This phenomenon can be maintained only for short periods of follow-up [31, 32]. Not all reports confirm the positive effect of preoperative weight loss [33]. In our study %EWL in the patients with preoperative weight loss was 61.4 ±17.2%, and it was 53.3 ±19.3% in the group of patients with no preoperative body weight loss, p = 0.0496. The prerequisite to demonstrate a significant effect can be weight loss by a specified value, e.g. excess body weight loss by 5% [30]. Undoubtedly, in patients with a high initial BMI, weight loss may be justified due to the beneficial effects on the overall health and the reduced risk of perioperative complications.
Many patients’ hope for weight loss is associated with the surgery, mostly with no emphasis on lifestyle changes before and after the surgery. Regardless of the type of intervention, failure to comply with recommendations will again result in increased body weight [34]. In order to obtain good treatment results, a comprehensive multidisciplinary team approach is needed along with good identification of adverse factors which may occur in the postoperative period. This study confirms a significant impact of compliance with dietary recommendations on decreases in BMI. Avoiding consumption of sweets was less important in this context. The impact of compliance with dietary recommendations is clear in the case of %EWL. The beneficial effect of constant dietary care is obvious in the case of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [35]. The present study confirms a clear effect of systematic participation in dietary consultations on decreases in BMI and %EWL after sleeve gastrectomy. It is important to educate patients on the proper reporting of food intake. This is conducive to identifying the causes of too low weight loss. Attempts to determine the causes of poor weight loss should not cause patients’ discomfort and cannot be perceived as negative assessments. In this area of contact with patients, dieticians who have experience in working with bariatric patients should play major roles. The frequency of follow-up visits after the bariatric surgery performed depends on the type of bariatric procedure and comorbidities [14]. Odom et al. reported that the risk of further weight gain in patients after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is inversely proportional to the frequency of appointments [15]. Regular appointments allow for the identification of patients with possible complications and affect the results of weight loss. In the present study, the patients who systematically attended follow-up visits had significantly higher %EWL. In the case of their BMI, a tendency to obtain better results was observed. Unfortunately, in most cases, the willingness of patients to participate in follow-up appointments after bariatric surgery is much lower than before the surgery [36, 37]. Intensive care in the postoperative period and the patients’ constant contact with the team providing treatment are essential, particularly in later years after the surgery [38, 39]. Data on the impact of follow-up visits on the outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy are limited. This study showed that it is a factor favorably affecting the degree of weight loss. The importance of physical activities in the treatment of obesity was highlighted in the recommendations of 1998. Physical activities should be part of a comprehensive treatment program for obesity and a factor preventing re-gaining body weight [40]. The beneficial effect of physical activities on %EWL and BMI decrease was also confirmed in the present study. Patients should be advised to take up moderate aerobic exercises first for a minimum of 150 min and, eventually, 300 min per week, including strength training 2–3 times a week [14]. Regular physical activities are associated with obtaining better results of weight loss after bariatric surgery [17, 41]. Beneficial effects are particularly evident in the case of increasing the time devoted to physical activities after the surgery, as compared to the period before the surgery [42].
Conclusions
It can be stated that the younger age of patients and preoperative weight loss are conducive to achieving a higher %EWL. Lower baseline parameters of weight facilitate very good results, defined as a BMI decrease < 30 kg/m2. Starting systematic physical exercises, dietetic care and adherence to recommendations in the postoperative period positively influence the parameters of weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Sampalis JS, Liberman M, Auger S, et al. The impact of weight reduction surgery on health-care costs in morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg. 2004;14:939–47. doi: 10.1381/0960892041719662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:1724–37. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.14.1724. Erratum in: JAMA 2005; 293: 1728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Clinical Issues Committee of American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Sleeve gastrectomy as a bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3:573–6. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2007.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Dixon JB, Zimmet P, Alberti KG, et al. International Diabetes Federation Taskforce on Epidemiology and Prevention Bariatric surgery for diabetes: the International Diabetes Federation takes a position. J Diabetes. 2011;3:261–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-0407.2011.00144.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/Bariatric Surgery Worldwide 2011. Obes Surg. 2013;23:427–36. doi: 10.1007/s11695-012-0864-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Janik MR, Stanowski E, Paśnik K. Present status of bariatric surgery in Poland. Videosurgery Miniinv. 2016;11:22–5. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2016.58742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bellanger DE, Greenway FL. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 529 cases without a leak: short-term results and technical considerations. Obes Surg. 2011;21:146–50. doi: 10.1007/s11695-010-0320-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bobowicz M, Lehmann A, Orlowski M, et al. Preliminary outcomes 1 year after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy based on Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS) Obes Surg. 2011;21:1843–8. doi: 10.1007/s11695-011-0403-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gagner M, Deitel M, Erickson AL, et al. Survey on laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) at the Fourth International Consensus Summit on Sleeve Gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2013;23:2013–7. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-1040-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Contreras JE, Santander C, Court I, et al. Correlation between age and weight loss after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2013;23:1286–9. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-0905-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Eisenberg D, Bellatorre A, Bellatorre N. Sleeve gastrectomy as a stand-alone bariatric operation for severe, morbid, and super obesity. JSLS. 2013;17:63–7. doi: 10.4293/108680812X13517013317077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chopra A, Chao E, Etkin Y, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity: can it be considered a definitive procedure? Surg Endosc. 2012;26:831–7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1960-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Del Corral P, Bryan DR, Garvey WT, et al. Dietary adherence during weight loss predicts weight regain. Obesity. 2011;19:1177–81. doi: 10.1038/oby.2010.298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mechanick JI, Youdim A, Jones DB, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient – 2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic Bariatric Surgery. Obesity. 2013;(Suppl. 1):S1–27. doi: 10.1002/oby.20461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Odom J, Zalesin KC, Washington TL, et al. Behavioral predictors of weight regain after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2010;20:349–56. doi: 10.1007/s11695-009-9895-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Livhits M, Mercado C, Yermilov I, et al. Exercise following bariatric surgery: systematic review. Obes Surg. 2010;20:657–65. doi: 10.1007/s11695-010-0096-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Egberts K, Brown WA, Brennan L, et al. Does exercise improve weight loss after bariatric surgery? A systematic review. Obes Surg. 2012;22:335–41. doi: 10.1007/s11695-011-0544-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Bariatric Surgery Worldwide 2013. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1822–32. doi: 10.1007/s11695-015-1657-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Oria HE, Carrasquilla C, Cunningham P, et al. Guidelines for weight calculations and follow-up in bariatric surgery. American Society for Bariatric Surgery Standards Committee, 2004-2005. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2005;1:67–8. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2004.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Brethauer SA, Hammel JP, Schauer PR. Systematic review of sleeve gastrectomy as staging and primary bariatric procedure. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5:469–75. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2009.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Abd Ellatif ME, Abdallah E, Askar W, et al. Long term predictors of success after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Int J Surg. 2014;12:504–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Basso N, Casella G, Rizzello M, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as first stage or definitive intent in 300 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:444–9. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1187-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Michalik M, Bobowicz M, Buchwald H. A numerical scale to assess the outcomes of metabolic/bariatric surgery (NOMS) Videosurgery Miniinv. 2015;10:359–62. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2015.54085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Brolin RE, Kenler HA, Gorman RC, et al. The dilemma of outcome assessment after operations for morbid obesity. Surgery. 1989;105:337–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.van de Laar AW, Acherman YI. Weight loss percentile charts of large representative series: a benchmark defining sufficient weight loss challenging current criteria for success of bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2014;24:727–34. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-1130-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Menenakos E, Stamou KM, Albanopoulos K, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy performed with intent to treat morbid obesity: a prospective single-center study of 261 patients with a median follow-up of 1 year. Obes Surg. 2010;20:276–82. doi: 10.1007/s11695-009-9918-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Uffort E, Nease B, Canterbury T. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with comparable weight loss in all obese groups: a VA hospital experience. Am Surg. 2013;79:739–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Alvarado R, Alami RS, Hsu G, et al. The impact of preoperative weight loss in patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2005;15:1282–6. doi: 10.1381/096089205774512429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Livhits M, Mercado C, Yermilov I, et al. Does weight loss immediately before bariatric surgery improve outcomes: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2009;5:713–21. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2009.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Solomon H, Liu GY, Alami R, et al. Benefits to patients choosing preoperative weight loss in gastric bypass surgery: new results of a randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:241–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Alami RS, Morton JM, Schuster R, et al. Is there a benefit to preoperative weight loss in gastric bypass patients? A prospective randomized trial. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007;3:141–5. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.11.006. discussion 145-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Becouarn G, Topart P, Ritz P. Weight loss prior to bariatric surgery is not a pre-requisite of excess weight loss outcomes in obese patients. Obes Surg. 2010;20:574–7. doi: 10.1007/s11695-010-0083-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Cassie S, Menezes C, Birch DW, et al. Effect of preoperative weight loss in bariatric surgical patients: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011;7:760–7. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2011.08.011. discussion 767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bond DS, Phelan S, Leahey TM, et al. Weight-loss maintenance in successful weight losers: surgical vs non-surgical methods. Int J Obes. 2009;33:173–80. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2008.256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Faria SL, de Oliveira Kelly E, Lins RD, et al. Nutritional management of weight regain after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2010;20:135–9. doi: 10.1007/s11695-008-9610-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.El Chaar M, McDeavitt K, Richardson S, et al. Does patient compliance with preoperative bariatric office visits affect postoperative excess weight loss? Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2011;7:743–8. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2010.10.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Magro DO, Geloneze B, Delfini R, et al. Long-term weight regain after gastric bypass: a 5-year prospective study. Obes Surg. 2008;18:648–51. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fried M, Hainer V, Basdevant A, et al. Inter-disciplinary European guidelines on surgery of severe obesity. Int J Obes. 2007;31:569–77. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Shen R, Dugay G, Rajaram K, et al. Impact of patient follow-up on weight loss after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2004;14:514–9. doi: 10.1381/096089204323013523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: executive summary. Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight in Adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68:899–917. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/68.4.899. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Jacobi D, Ciangura C, Couet C, et al. Physical activity and weight loss following bariatric surgery. Obes Rev. 2011;12:366–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00731.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Bond DS, Phelan S, Wolfe LG, et al. Becoming physically active after bariatric surgery is associated with improved weight loss and health-related quality of life. Obesity. 2009;17:78–83. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]