METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5-year postoperative GERD data comparing LVSG and LRYGB in adults were undertaken. Electronic databases were searched from January 2015 to March 2024 for publications meeting inclusion criteria. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model was applied to estimate pooled odds ratio where meta-analysis was possible. Bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and GRADE.
RESULTS: Five RCTs were analysed (LVSG n = 554, LRYGB n = 539). LVSG was associated with increased adverse GERD outcomes compared to LRYGB at 5 years. The odds for revisional surgery to treat GERD in LVSG patients were 11 times higher compared to LRYGB (OR 11.47, 95% CI 1.83 to 71.69; p = 0.02; I2 = 0% High level of certainty). Similarly pharmacological management for increasing GERD was significantly more frequent in LVSG patients compared to LRYGB (OR 3.89, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.55; p ≤ 0.01; I2 = 0% Moderate level of certainty). Overall, LVSG was associated with significantly more interventions (both medical and surgical) for either worsening GERD and/or development of de novo GERD compared to LRYGB (OR 5.98, 95% CI 3.48 to 10.29; p ≤ 0.01; I2 = 0%) Moderate level of certainty).
CONCLUSIONS: The development and worsening of GERD symptoms are frequently associated with LVSG compared to LRYGB at 5 years postoperatively requiring either initiation or increase of pharmacotherapy or failing that revisional bariatric surgery. Appropriate patient/surgical selection is crucial to reduce these postoperative risks of GERD.
METHODS: Jom Mama was a non-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Seremban, Malaysia, over a period of 33 weeks, covering six contact points between trained community health workers and newly married couples before the conception of a first child. Out of 2075 eligible nulliparous women, 549 participated and 305 completed the intervention, with 145 women in the intervention and 160 in the control group. The intervention group received a complex behavioural change intervention, combining behaviour change communication provided by community health promoters and access to a habit formation mobile application, while the control group received the standard care provided by public health clinics in Malaysia. The primary outcome was a change in the woman's waist circumference. Secondary outcomes were anthropometric and metabolic measures, dietary intake (Food Frequency Questionnaire, FFQ), physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire, IPAQ) and mental health (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, DASS 21). An extensive process evaluation was conducted alongside the trial in order to aid the interpretation of the main findings.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences of change in the woman's waist circumference between intervention and control groups at the start and end of the intervention. While the weight, waist circumference and Body Mass Index (BMI) of women in both groups increased, there was a significantly lower increase in the intervention vs the control group over the period of the trial among women who are obese (0.1 kg vs 1.7 kg; P = 0.023, in the intervention and control group respectively). In terms of BMI, the obese intervention subgroup showed a slight reduction (0.01) compared to the obese control subgroup whose BMI increased by 0.7 (P = 0.015). There were no changes in the other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The Jom Mama pre-conception intervention did not lead to a reduction in waist circumference or significant changes in other secondary outcomes over the eight months prior to conception. However, there was a significantly smaller weight gain in the intervention vs the control group, predominantly in women with pre-existing obesity.
METHODOLOGY: We recruited 175 subjects, aged 7 to 18 years old, referred for obesity. We studied their demography (age, gender, ethnicity, family background), performed clinical/auxological examinations [weight, height, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure (BP)], and analyzed their biochemical risks associated with metabolic syndrome [fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting lipid profile (FLP), fasting insulin, liver function tests (LFT)]. MetS was identified according to the criteria proposed by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) for pediatric obesity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between risk variables and MetS.
RESULTS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome among children with obesity was 56% (95% CI: 48.6 to 63.4%), with a mean age of 11.3 ± 2.73 years. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed age [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.45] and sedentary lifestyle (adjusted OR 3.57, 95% CI: 1.48 to 8.59) were the significant factors associated with metabolic syndrome among obese children.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome among obese children referred to our centers was 56%. Older age group, male gender, birth weight, sedentary lifestyle, puberty and maternal history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were found to be associated with MetS. However, older age group and sedentary lifestyle were the only significant predictors for metabolic syndrome.