Abstract
Introduction
Multidisciplinary care after bariatric surgery is essential for long-term safety and optimal weight loss. However, many patients do not participate in routine postoperative follow-ups. We have explored the determinants of patients’ adherence to scheduled follow-up visits after bariatric surgery.
Method
A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients who underwent bariatric surgery from 2009 to 2019. Cohort participants with a proportion of attendance above the median were compared with those below the median in the first-year post-operation and the period after that. We assumed that the contribution of each predefined session to the overall attendance at eligible sessions is not equal. We weighted each predefined session by the proportion of attendance of all cohort members scheduled for that session. We then calculated the proportion of attendance for each individual at each period. Discriminatory logistic regression was used to identify factors separating adherers from non-adherers.
Results
We followed 5245 patients who underwent bariatric surgery for up to 10 years. The median follow-up was 2 years. Patients with the following characteristics were more likely to comply with the postoperative attendance schedule: female sex, older age, higher body mass index at the first visit, non-smoker, readmission after surgery, being operated in a general hospital, and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery type. Comorbidities did not significantly affect patients’ adherence to the predefined follow-up schedules.
Conclusion
Younger male smokers are more likely non-adherers. Patients with comorbidities are not at an increased risk of missing predefined postoperative follow-up visits.
Graphical Abstract
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-022-06428-8.
Keywords: Bariatric surgery, Adherence, Obesity surgery, Follow-up
Introduction
Obesity is a significant public health concern leading to an epidemic [1, 2]. Bariatric surgery has been suggested to provide long-term weight loss and improve obesity-related diseases, with optimal weight loss usually occurring 18 to 24 months after surgery [3, 4]. In order to achieve the best result of bariatric surgery, guidelines present some recommendations, including increasing the patient’s knowledge about surgery performance through training sessions, at least 30 min of daily physical activity, psychological evaluation, and nutritional and sports medicine consultant [5]. Therefore, postoperative follow-up and multidisciplinary evaluations are critical in patients who have undergone obesity and metabolic surgery [1, 4–8]. The typical health programs suggest four to six medical, psychological, and nutritional counseling visits during the first year after surgery [1, 9].
Multidisciplinary follow-up care can play an essential role in preventing adverse outcomes through early detection and treatment of medical complications [1, 4, 7, 10–15]. Besides the advantages of attending to postoperative follow-up visits, the adherence of some patients is not sufficiently high.
The attrition rates vary considerably from 3 to 63% according to the patients or operative procedure characteristics and the type of specialized examinations from the multidisciplinary program [4, 11, 15–21]. The literature shows that adherence to postoperative medical follow-up is related to nature, attributes, and the result of the operation [4, 6, 7, 15], gender [4, 17], age [4, 7, 11, 22], baseline body mass index (BMI) [4], marital status, occupation [10], health insurance coverage, and distance to the follow-up center [11]. Identifying significant factors could help health program developers adjust their strategies for the patient’s benefit. However, there are contradictory findings from different studies about the role of each of these factors [17, 18]. We have, therefore, explored the effect of the patient’s baseline status, demographical factors, comorbidities, type of surgery, and its attributes and complications on the adherence to the follow-up program in the first year and beyond the first year after surgery.
Methods
Study Design
We used the data from the Iranian National Obesity Surgery cohort database [23, 24]. In a retrospective cohort study design, we selected patients who had undergone bariatric surgery performed by a single surgeon from June 2009 to March 2019 and had at least 1 year of follow-up. Other inclusion criteria were age above 18 years old at the time of surgery, and those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as the most common types of bariatric surgery. The last eligible follow-up time was 19 February 2020, based on the first COVID-19 case reported in Iran to avoid any interference from the changing adherence pattern following the COVID-19 epidemic.
According to the cohort protocol, patients should attend clinic visits at 10 days and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after their surgery. The visits will continue at 1-year intervals for up to 10 years. All patients were reminded of their visit 2 weeks before the scheduled visit via text messages. In case of non-attendance at any predefined session, the follow-up team called the patient, provided the necessary advice, and rescheduled their visit if possible. All the predefined follow-up visits after operative procedures, while the patients were alive, were regarded as eligible. Since patients did not attend precisely on predefined dates, delays up to 20% of the calculated time for each visit were allowed.
For patients and the follow-up team, the importance of the first year after surgery differed from the other follow-up period. As a result, non-compliance with postoperative visits was investigated in two periods: visits in the first year after surgery and visits in the second year and beyond until 10 years. We assumed that the contribution of each predefined session to the overall attendance at eligible sessions is not equal. We weighted each predefined session by the proportion of attendance of all cohort members scheduled for that session. We then calculated the proportion of attendance for each individual at each period. Cohort participants with a proportion of attendance above the median were compared with those below the median in the first-year post-operation and the period after that.
All possible factors affecting patients’ adherence were explored. Patient’s characteristics included gender, age, body mass index at the time of surgery, history of comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, history of stroke, low back pain, and knee pain, marital status, education, smoking history, city of residence, and type of hospital (private or public-educational hospitals). The variables related to the operative procedures included the waiting time until surgery, the type of surgery, the length of hospital stay, the presence of surgical complications, and the need for readmission. Unfortunately, we did not have direct information about patients’ economic status, such as occupation, income, and health insurance. We used educational status and the type of hospital instead.
Statistical analysis
We described continuous variables using means (standard deviation) and categorical variables using frequency (percentage). The multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors that affect adherence as the outcome. The variables with a p-value less than 0.2 in univariable analysis were entered in this model. This approach was repeated for each period. Data analysis was performed using STATA statistical software. All the test and confidence intervals were evaluated at the 95% confidence level.
Results
In this study, we followed 5245 (4159 females and 1086 males) patients who had undergone bariatric surgery for up to 10 years. The median follow-up time was 2 years. Cohort members were mostly (62%) in the 30–50 years age and (62.5%) 40–50 kg/m2 BMI categories. Frequencies of SG, OAGB, and RYGB were 1204 (23.0%), 2601 (49.5%), and 1440 (27.5%) respectively. The majority of patients had at least one comorbidity; 34.0% dyslipidemia, 19.4% hypertension, 16.9% type 2 diabetes, and 71.5% musculoskeletal diseases (Table 1, Table S1 in the Supplementary information).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics and initial evaluations of preoperative patients in three groups, all patients, first-year follow-up, and beyond the first-year follow-up
| Total follow-up | First-year follow-up | Beyond the first-year follow-up | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Non-adherence N = 2686 |
Adherence N = 2559 |
p-value1 | Non-adherence N = 2629 |
Adherence N = 2616 |
p-value1 | Non-adherence N = 1803 |
Adherence N = 1810 |
p-value1 |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.006 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Female | 2089 (78) | 2070 (81) | 2031 (77) | 2128 (81) | 1376 (76) | 1532 (85) | |||
| Male | 595 (22) | 489 (19) | 596 (23) | 488 (19) | 427 (24) | 278 (15) | |||
| Age group at surgery, n (%) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.006 | ||||||
| Under 30 | 590 (22) | 435 (17) | 565 (22) | 460 (18) | 400 (22) | 343 (19) | |||
| 30–50 | 1668 (62) | 1582 (62) | 1631 (62) | 1619 (62) | 1118 (62) | 1121 (62) | |||
| More than 50 | 426 (16) | 542 (21) | 431 (16) | 537 (21) | 285 (16) | 346 (19) | |||
| BMI group at first visit, n (%) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.054 | ||||||
| Under 35 | 100 (3.7) | 56 (2.2) | 107 (4.1) | 49 (1.9) | 53 (2.9) | 42 (2.3) | |||
| 35–40 | 471 (18) | 409 (16) | 466 (18) | 414 (16) | 280 (16) | 249 (14) | |||
| 40–50 | 1680 (63) | 1595 (62) | 1632 (62) | 1643 (63) | 1151 (64) | 1142 (63) | |||
| More than 50 | 433 (16) | 497 (19) | 422 (16) | 508 (19) | 319 (18) | 375 (21) | |||
| Education, n (%) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Academic degree | 1050 (39) | 847 (33) | 1035 (39) | 862 (33) | 715 (40) | 517 (29) | |||
| Diploma or less | 1629 (61) | 1712 (67) | 1588 (61) | 1753 (67) | 1084 (60) | 1293 (71) | |||
| Smoke history, n (%) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Non-smoker | 2330 (88) | 2320 (91) | 2283 (88) | 2367 (91) | 1566 (88) | 1646 (92) | |||
| Smoker | 326 (12) | 230 (9.0) | 318 (12) | 238 (9.1) | 221 (12) | 143 (8.0) | |||
| Marital status, n (%) | 0.13 | 0.26 | 0.062 | ||||||
| Single | 572 (21) | 490 (19) | 554 (21) | 508 (19) | 399 (22) | 344 (19) | |||
| Live without partner | 165 (6.2) | 156 (6.1) | 164 (6.3) | 157 (6.0) | 108 (6.0) | 116 (6.4) | |||
| Live with partner | 1940 (72) | 1912 (75) | 1903 (73) | 1949 (75) | 1291 (72) | 1348 (75) | |||
| Hypertension, n (%) | 480 (18) | 539 (21) | 0.004 | 481 (18) | 538 (21) | 0.039 | 338 (19) | 348 (19) | 0.71 |
| Type 2 diabetes, n (%) | 443 (17) | 442 (17) | 0.46 | 427 (16) | 458 (18) | 0.23 | 308 (17) | 336 (19) | 0.24 |
| Dyslipidemia, n (%) | 878 (33) | 905 (35) | 0.043 | 827 (31) | 956 (37) | < 0.001 | 605 (34) | 763 (42) | < 0.001 |
| Cardiovascular, n (%) | 97 (3.6) | 113 (4.4) | 0.14 | 103 (3.9) | 107 (4.1) | 0.75 | 74 (4.1) | 58 (3.2) | 0.15 |
| Stroke, n (%) | 3 (0.1) | 1 (< 0.1) | 0.63 | 3 (0.1) | 1 (< 0.1) | 0.62 | 3 (0.2) | 0 (0) | 0.12 |
| Low back pain, n (%) | 1414 (53) | 1451 (57) | 0.003 | 1383 (53) | 1482 (57) | 0.004 | 968 (54) | 1087 (60) | < 0.001 |
| Knee pain, n (%) | 1438 (54) | 1470 (57) | 0.005 | 1408 (54) | 1500 (57) | 0.006 | 1022 (57) | 1043 (58) | 0.57 |
| Psychiatric problems, n (%) | 817 (30) | 746 (29) | 0.31 | 768 (29) | 795 (30) | 0.36 | 507 (28) | 684 (38) | < 0.001 |
| Region, n (%) | 0.002 | < 0.001 | 0.95 | ||||||
| Tehran City | 1766 (67) | 1715 (68) | 1706 (66) | 1775 (69) | 1238 (70) | 1241 (69) | |||
| Tehran province | 346 (13) | 391 (15) | 329 (13) | 408 (16) | 240 (14) | 248 (14) | |||
| Other | 525 (20) | 420 (17) | 547 (21) | 398 (15) | 298 (17) | 297 (17) | |||
| Waiting time (year), mean (SD) | 0.43 (0.53) | 0.51 (0.60) | < 0.001 | 0.41 (0.52) | 0.53 (0.60) | < 0.001 | 0.52 (0.62) | 0.52 (0.58) | 0.88 |
| Hospital type, n (%) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Private | 2030 (76) | 1810 (71) | 2078 (79) | 1762 (67) | 1240 (69) | 1092 (60) | |||
| General | 656 (24) | 749 (29) | 551 (21) | 854 (33) | 563 (31) | 718 (40) | |||
| Surgery type, n (%) | 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| GS | 651 (24) | 553 (22) | 685 (26) | 519 (20) | 360 (20) | 183 (10) | |||
| OAGB | 1266 (47) | 1335 (52) | 1246 (47) | 1355 (52) | 858 (48) | 971 (54) | |||
| RYGB | 769 (29) | 671 (26) | 698 (27) | 742 (28) | 585 (32) | 656 (36) | |||
| Length of stay, n (%) | < 0.001 | 0.13 | < 0.001 | ||||||
| One day | 2241 (83) | 2245 (88) | 2226 (85) | 2260 (86) | 1532 (85) | 1414 (78) | |||
| 2–3 days | 365 (14) | 266 (10) | 330 (13) | 301 (12) | 229 (13) | 320 (18) | |||
| More than 3 days | 80 (3.0) | 48 (1.9) | 73 (2.8) | 55 (2.1) | 42 (2.3) | 76 (4.2) | |||
| Complication, n (%) | 99 (3.7) | 86 (3.4) | 0.52 | 95 (3.6) | 90 (3.4) | 0.73 | 64 (3.5) | 71 (3.9) | 0.55 |
| Readmission, n (%) | 124 (4.6) | 128 (5.0) | 0.51 | 119 (4.5) | 133 (5.1) | 0.35 | 74 (4.1) | 156 (8.6) | < 0.001 |
1Pearson’s Chi-squared test; Welch two-sample t-test; Fisher’s exact test
BMI body mass index, GS gastric sleeve, OAGB one-anastomosis gastric bypass, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
The contributions of each predefined session to the overall attendance at 10 days, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after surgery were 87.6%, 80.1%, 68.0%, 57.8%, 33.0%, and 44.5%, respectively (Fig. 1) which were used as a weight in the calculation of the proportion of attendance for each individual at each period.
Fig. 1.
Predetermined postoperative visits, number of permitted visits, number and percentage of adherence to each visit
In the logistic regression of total follow-up time, we observed an increase in adherence by each unit increase in age at the time of surgery (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03), similar to the first-year follow-up period and BMI at the first visit (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00–1.02) similar to the first year and the beyond the first-year follow-up periods. Having a history of smoking significantly decreased patient adherence (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.94). Staying 2–3 days or more than 3 days in the hospital decreased the adherence by about 40% compared with a 1-day stay (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51–0.73; and OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40–0.85) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Factors affecting patients’ adherence to scheduled visits in total patients and patients in visits under 1 year and above 1 year
| Characteristic | Total follow-up | First-year follow-up | Beyond the first-year follow-up | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Sex (male) | 0.93 (0.80 to 1.07) | 0.30 | 0.89 (0.76 to 1.03) | 0.11 | 0.68 (0.57 to 0.82) | < 0.001 |
| Age at surgery | 1.02 (1.01 to 1.03) | < 0.001 | 1.01 (1.00 to 1.02) | < 0.001 | 1.00 (1.00 to 1.01) | 0.36 |
| BMI3 at first visit | 1.01 (1.00 to 1.02) | 0.003 | 1.02 (1.01 to 1.03) | < 0.001 | 1.02 (1.00 to 1.03) | 0.007 |
| Education (diploma or less) | 1.12 (0.99 to 1.27) | 0.067 | 1.05 (0.93 to 1.19) | 0.42 | 1.37 (1.18 to 1.60) | < 0.001 |
| Region | ||||||
| Tehran City | 11 | 1 | ||||
| Tehran Province | 1.16 (0.98 to 1.36) | 0.083 | 1.17 (0.99 to 1.38) | 0.066 | ||
| Other | 0.82 (0.70 to 0.95) | 0.008 | 0.69 (0.59 to 0.80) | < 0.001 | ||
| Smoke history (smoker) | 0.78 (0.64 to 0.94) | 0.011 | 0.82 (0.68 to 0.99) | 0.038 | 0.71 (0.56 to 0.90) | 0.006 |
| Hypertension at baseline | 1.05 (0.90 to 1.23) | 0.53 | 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) | 0.93 | 0.86 (0.71 to 1.05) | 0.14 |
| Type 2 diabetes mellitus at baseline | 0.85 (0.72 to 1.01) | 0.064 | 0.92 (0.78 to 1.08) | 0.30 | 0.90 (0.74 to 1.10) | 0.30 |
| Dyslipidemia at baseline | 1.09 (0.96 to 1.23) | 0.18 | 1.25 (1.10 to 1.41) | < 0.001 | 1.51 (1.30 to 1.75) | < 0.001 |
| Low back pain at baseline | 1.08 (0.96 to 1.22) | 0.21 | 1.05 (0.93 to 1.19) | 0.40 | 1.08 (0.94 to 1.24) | 0.30 |
| Knee pain at baseline | 0.98 (0.87 to 1.11) | 0.77 | 1.00 (0.89 to 1.14) | 0.96 | ||
| Cardiovascular disease | 1.04 (0.77 to 1.40) | 0.80 | 0.60 (0.41 to 0.86) | 0.007 | ||
| Psychiatric problems at baseline | 1.35 (1.16 to 1.57) | < 0.001 | ||||
| Waiting time (year) | 1.17 (1.04 to 1.32) | 0.012 | ||||
| Length of stay | ||||||
| One day | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2–3 days | 0.61 (0.51 to 0.73) | < 0.001 | 0.64 (0.54 to 0.77) | < 0.001 | 1.22 (1.00 to 1.49) | 0.051 |
| More than 3 days | 0.58 (0.40 to 0.85) | 0.005 | 0.57 (0.39 to 0.83) | 0.003 | 1.64 (1.10 to 2.48) | 0.017 |
| Surgery type | ||||||
| GS | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| OAGB | 1.14 (0.99 to 1.32) | 0.073 | 1.34 (1.15 to 1.55) | < 0.001 | 2.17 (1.76 to 2.69) | < 0.001 |
| RYGB | 0.98 (0.84 to 1.15) | 0.82 | 1.33 (1.13 to 1.56) | < 0.001 | 2.06 (1.65 to 2.57) | < 0.001 |
| Readmission | 2.29 (1.70 to 3.10) | < 0.001 | ||||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Live without partner | 0.74 (0.56 to 0.98) | 0.033 | 0.85 (0.60 to 1.19) | 0.34 | ||
| Live with partner | 0.85 (0.72 to 1.00) | 0.051 | 0.90 (0.74 to 1.10) | 0.30 | ||
| Type of hospital (general) | 1.28 (1.10 to 1.50) | 0.002 | 2.02 (1.76 to 2.32) | < 0.001 | 1.48 (1.27 to 1.73) | < 0.001 |
1Reference group
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, BMI body mass index, GS gastric sleeve, OAGB one-anastomosis gastric bypass, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
In the first-year follow-up, patients undergoing OAGB or RYGB tended to attend the follow-up visits about 33% more than patients undergoing sleeve surgery (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15–1.55; and OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.13–1.56). Smoker patients were less likely to adhere compared to non-smokers (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68–0.99). Staying 2–3 days or more than 3 days in the hospital decreased adherence by about 40% compared with a 1-day stay (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.54–0.77; and OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39–0.83) (Table 2).
In the follow-up period beyond the first year, patients without a college education were more likely to attend the visit sessions than those with a college education (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18–1.60). In this period, in contrast to the first year, staying more than 3 days in the hospital increased adherence by 64% compared with a 1-day stay (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.10–2.48). Adherence to follow-up visits in patients undergoing OAGB or RYGB was 100% higher than in those undergoing sleeve surgery (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.76–2.69; and OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.65–2.57). History of smoking and cardiovascular diseases reduced patients' adherence to follow-up visits (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.90; and OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41–0.86) (Table 2).
Discussion
We found that in the first year of follow-up, an increase in age at the time of surgery, BMI at the first visit, history of dyslipidemia, admission to a public rather than the private hospital, and OAGB or RYGB surgeries were factors associated with increased adherence. In contrast, an increased length of stay in the hospital and a history of smoking decreased the adherence in total follow-up time.
Increased adherence to follow-up visits in patients who underwent bariatric malabsorptive procedures (OAGB, RYGB) in contrast to the restrictive ones [9, 18, 20, 25] could be partly attributed to the patient’s awareness of the possibility of malabsorption and malnutrition complications in these types of surgeries. This is because surgeons usually explain the advantages and disadvantages of each type of surgery, warnings, and precautions in the pre-operative orientation classes.
We have separately examined the impact of the factors associated with adherence in the first year and beyond the first year because the patterns and factors affecting adherence in these two periods differed. Combining these two intervals could dilute the effects and lead to non-significant findings.
Our study is the first that has investigated determinants of patient adherence over a long follow-up time in two separate periods. In the available literature, the Larjani and Khorgami study included 2 years of follow-up after bariatric surgery, and others covered only the first postoperative year [4, 15]. Our study, for the first time, provides the opportunity to compare the factors associated with adherence in the first postoperative year with the period beyond the first year. Length of stay, history of cardiovascular disease, type of surgery, and readmission were factors associated with patients’ adherence which had different effects in intensity or pattern in these two periods.
We found that readmission increases the chance of adherence by more than 100% in the period beyond the first year, although it does not affect adherence in the first year. This is contrary to the findings by Goldenshluger et al., which reported a decrease in patients’ adherence after readmission in the first year (OR = 0.08, p-value = 0.046) [7]. The small sample size in the study probably explains his finding. The large sample size in our study provided a sufficient number of readmissions (133 (5.1%) and 119 (4.5%) of patients in adherence and non-adherence groups to provide more stable and valid estimates of the effect on adherence.
One of the issues in studying adherence is the definition of adherers and non-adherers. Studies have used different approaches. Goldenshluger’s study used visit number as a continuous variable and applied linear models [7]. However, this approach makes a normality assumption for the variable of visit number, which is not entirely accurate. Other studies have divided the participants into adherers and non-adherers and have made it a binary variable [7, 15, 26] using the same weights for all the sessions. However, the predefined visit sessions do not have the same weight, and this approach does not address it. We took into account the importance of different predefined sessions by weighting each predefined session by the proportion of attendance of all cohort members scheduled for that session.
One of the limitations in analyzing the post-bariatric surgery follow-ups is the multidisciplinary nature of the visits. The patients are usually referred to the clinic for several visits by different specialties on the same day. Therefore, adherence to a particular service in the multidisciplinary program is not measurable. Goldenshluger has tried to address this issue by reporting the results by specialty (surgeon team or nutrition specialist) [7]. However, the way of presentation is likely to mislead because of the simultaneous visits. Simultaneous routine multidisciplinary visits are one of the most important reasons for the difference in patients’ adherence in each session in the first year.
We could use current findings to help increase attendance at postoperative care by identifying factors that could potentially reduce the adherence in each patient. People who are likely to miss their visits should be targeted by varied and more intensive recall approaches. We may also plan simultaneous multidisciplinary visits to increase their adherence.
Supplementary Information
(DOCX 19.5 kb)
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their sincere thanks to all participants and National Obesity Surgery Database team, who prepared very useful data.
Author Contribution
Solaymani-Dodaran M, Pazouki A, Setarehdan A, Sheidaei A, Mokhber S, and Varse F were responsible for the study design process and conception as well as writing and approving the final version of the manuscript. Solaymani-Dodaran M, Setarehdan A, and Sheidaei A conceived and designed the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, wrote the manuscript, and approved the final version. Solaymani-Dodaran M and Pazouki A, as supervisors, checked quality control of data and algorithms, wrote the manuscript, and provided critical revisions. Mokhber S interpreted the data and approved the final version of the manuscript. Varse F reviewed the literature, approving the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study has been supported by the Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Grant Number: 1400–3-39–22791).
Declarations
Ethics and Consent
This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and approved by the Research Ethics committee (Ethics number: IR.IUMS.REC.1401.270). Written informed consent form was received from all patients at the time of first registry in our database for any possible anonymous usage from their data.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Key points
• The attendance at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery were 80.1%, 68.0%, 57.8%, and 44.5%.
• Younger male smokers are more likely non-adherers.
• Follow-up visit adherence post OAGB or RYGB is greater than that of sleeve gastrectomy.
• Readmission increases the chance of adherence in the period beyond the first year.
• People likely to miss their visits should be targeted by varied recall approaches.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Sherf Dagan S, Goldenshluger A, Globus I, Schweiger C, Kessler Y, Kowen Sandbank G, et al. Nutritional recommendations for adult bariatric surgery patients: clinical practice. Adv Nutr. 2017;8(2):382–394. doi: 10.3945/an.116.014258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.World Health Organisation. Obesity-and-overweight 2018 [Available from: https://www.who.int/es.
- 3.Magro DO, Geloneze B, Delfini R, Pareja BC, Callejas F, Pareja JC. Long-term weight regain after gastric bypass: a 5-year prospective study. Obes Surg. 2008;18(6):648–651. doi: 10.1007/s11695-007-9265-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Khorgami Z, Zhang C, Messiah SE, de la Cruz-Munoz N. Predictors of postoperative aftercare attrition among gastric bypass patients. Bariatr Surg Pract Patient Care. 2015;10(2):79–83. doi: 10.1089/bari.2014.0053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.McGrice M, Don PK. Interventions to improve long-term weight loss in patients following bariatric surgery: challenges and solutions. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2015;8:263–274. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S57054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.O'Kane M, Parretti HM, Hughes CA, Sharma M, Woodcock S, Puplampu T, et al. Guidelines for the follow-up of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Clin Obes. 2016;6(3):210–224. doi: 10.1111/cob.12145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Goldenshluger A, Elazary R, Cohen MJ, Goldenshluger M, Ben-Porat T, Nowotni J, et al. Predictors for adherence to multidisciplinary follow-up care after sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2018;28(10):3054–3061. doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-3296-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Thibault R, Huber O, Azagury DE, Pichard C. Twelve key nutritional issues in bariatric surgery. Clin Nutr. 2016;35(1):12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Moroshko I, Brennan L, O'Brien P. Predictors of attrition in bariatric aftercare: a systematic review of the literature. Obes Surg. 2012;22(10):1640–1647. doi: 10.1007/s11695-012-0691-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Heber D, Greenway FL, Kaplan LM, Livingston E, Salvador J, Still C, et al. Endocrine and nutritional management of the post-bariatric surgery patient: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(11):4823–4843. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-2128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wheeler E, Prettyman A, Lenhard MJ, Tran K. Adherence to outpatient program postoperative appointments after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2008;4(4):515–520. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2008.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Schwoerer A, Kasten K, Celio A, Pories W, Spaniolas K. The effect of close postoperative follow-up on co-morbidity improvement after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(8):1347–1352. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2017.03.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Vidal P, Ramon JM, Goday A, Parri A, Crous X, Trillo L, et al. Lack of adherence to follow-up visits after bariatric surgery: reasons and outcome. Obes Surg. 2014;24(2):179–183. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-1094-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Schiavo L, Scalera G, Pilone V, De Sena G, Ciorra FR, Barbarisi A. Patient adherence in following a prescribed diet and micronutrient supplements after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: our experience during 1 year of follow-up. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2017;30(1):98–104. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Larjani S, Spivak I, Hao Guo M, Aliarzadeh B, Wang W, Robinson S, et al. Preoperative predictors of adherence to multidisciplinary follow-up care postbariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016;12(2):350–356. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2015.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pories WJ, Swanson MS, MacDonald KG, Long SB, Morris PG, Brown BM, et al. Who would have thought it? An operation proves to be the most effective therapy for adult-onset diabetes mellitus. Ann Surg. 1995;222(3):339. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199509000-00011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lara MD, Baker MT, Larson CJ, Mathiason MA, Lambert PJ, Kothari SN. Travel distance, age, and sex as factors in follow-up visit compliance in the post-gastric bypass population. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2005;1(1):17–21. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2004.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.DeNino WF, Osler T, Evans EG, Forgione PM. Travel distance as factor in follow-up visit compliance in postlaparoscopic adjustable gastric banding population. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(6):597–600. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2010.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Himpens J, Cadiere GB, Bazi M, Vouche M, Cadiere B, Dapri G. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Arch Surg. 2011;146(7):802–807. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sivagnanam P, Rhodes M. The importance of follow-up and distance from centre in weight loss after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(10):2432–2438. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0970-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Fitzgerald DA, Baur L. Bariatric surgery for severely obese adolescents. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2014;15(3):227–230. doi: 10.1016/j.prrv.2014.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rosik CH. Psychiatric symptoms among prospective bariatric surgery patients: rates of prevalence and their relation to social desirability, pursuit of surgery, and follow-up attendance. Obes Surg. 2005;15(5):677–683. doi: 10.1381/0960892053923815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kabir, A., Pazouki, A. & Hajian, M. Iran Obesity and Metabolic Surgery (IOMS) Cohort Study: Rationale and Design. Indian J Surg (2021). 10.1007/s12262-021-02789-z
- 24.Kermansaravi M, Shahmiri SS, Khalaj A, Jalali SM, Amini M, Alamdari NM, et al. The First Web-Based Iranian National Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Database (INOSD) Obes Surg. 2022;32(6):2083–2086. doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06014-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Pontiroli AE, Fossati A, Vedani P, Fiorilli M, Folli F, Marchi M, et al. Post-surgery adherence to scheduled visits and compliance, more than personality disorders, predict outcome of bariatric restrictive surgery in morbidly obese patients. Obes Surg. 2007;17:6. doi: 10.1007/s11695-008-9428-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.McVay MA, Friedman KE, Applegate KL, Portenier DD. Patient predictors of follow-up care attendance in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(6):956–962. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2012.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
(DOCX 19.5 kb)