Lasting Impact of COVID-19 on Bariatric Surgery Delivery in North America: A Retrospective International Cohort Study of 349,209 Patients in 902 Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 resulted in dramatic changes to the delivery of bariatric surgery; however, the lasting effect on current and future delivery remains uncharacterized. We sought to characterize differences and trends in bariatric surgery care and outcomes between 2020 and 2021. The Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) collects data from 902 centers in North America. The MBSAQIP database was evaluated, including patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with two cohorts described: those receiving surgery in 2020 and those in 2021. Patient selection, operative techniques, and outcomes were compared using bivariate analysis. Multivariable modelling evaluated factors including operative year, independently associated with serious complications and mortality. We evaluated 349,209 patients, with 154,960 (44.4% undergoing bariatric surgery during 2020 compared to 194,249 (55.6%) in 2021. This represents a 20.2% year-to-year increase in total cases, and a 20.7% increase in cases per center (178.5 cases/center in 2020 vs. 215.4 cases/center in 2021). Patients receiving bariatric surgery during 2021 were statistically younger with fewer comorbidities compared to 2020; however, differences were small and groups appeared clinically similar. Length of stay continued to decrease (1.4 ± 1.1 days 2020 vs. 1.3 ± 1.2 days 2021, p < 0.001), yet post-operative outcomes remained similar. Bariatric surgical volumes have increased but may still remain inadequate to meet demand, while trends towards selecting younger, healthier patients for bariatric surgery continue. Efforts to recover from the effects of COVID-19 are ongoing, and long-term evaluation of outcomes following these changes will remain important.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".