Bariatric surgery and relevant comorbidities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a growing epidemic in the United States, and with this, has come an increasing volume of metabolic surgery operations. The ideal management of obesity-associated medical conditions surrounding these operations is yet to be determined. This review sought to investigate the routine use of intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) with cholecystectomy during or after a bypass-type operation, the ideal management of post-sleeve gastrectomy gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and the optimal bariatric operation in patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Using medical literature databases, searches were performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies from 1990 to 2022. Each study was screened by two independent reviewers from the SAGES Guidelines Committee for eligibility. Data were extracted while assessing the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for RCTs and cohort studies, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed using random effects. RESULTS: Routine use of IOC was associated with a significantly decreased rate of common bile duct injury and a trend towards decreased intraoperative complications, perioperative complications, and mortality. The rates of reoperation, postoperative pancreatitis, cholangitis, and choledocholithiasis were low in the routine use of the IOC group, but no non-routine use studies evaluated these outcomes. After sleeve gastrectomy, GERD-specific quality of life was significantly higher in the surgically treated group compared to the medically treated group. Bypass-type operations had worse outcomes of IBD sequelae than sleeve gastrectomy, including pain, patient perception, and fistula formation. Sleeve patients had lower mortality and fewer short- and long-term complications. CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality data limited the conclusions that were drawn; however, trends were observed favoring the routine use of IOC during cholecystectomy for patients with bypass-type anatomy, surgical treatment of GERD post-sleeve gastrectomy, and sleeve gastrectomy in IBD patients. Future research proposals are suggested to further answer the questions posed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".