METHODS: Between June 2000 and June 2020, patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 underwent either IGB insertion followed by LRYGB (two-stage group), or LRYGB as the definitive bariatric procedure (single-stage group) in our institution. The two-stage procedure was adopted for high risk individuals. Primary outcome measures were percentage total weight loss (%TWL) at 24 months, length of stay and postoperative morbidity. Propensity score analysis was used to account for differences between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 155 (mean age 42.9 years ± 10.60; mean BMI 54.6 kg/m2 ± 4.53) underwent either the two-stage (n = 30) or single-stage procedure (n = 125) depending on preoperative fitness. At 6 months following LRYGB, there was a significant difference in %TWL between the groups in a matched analysis (11.9% vs 23.7%, p < 0.001). At 24 months, there was no difference in %TWL (32.0% vs 34.7%, p = 0.13). Median hospital stay following LRYGB was 2.0 (1-4) days with the two-stage vs 2.0 (0-14) days for the single-stage approach (p = 0.75). There was also no significant difference in complication rates (p = 0.058) between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in weight loss after one or two-stage procedures in the treatment of patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 super obesity in a propensity score weighted analysis at 24 months. Length of stay and perioperative complications were similar for high risk patients; however, the two-stage approach was associated with delayed weight loss. Single-stage management is recommended for moderate risk patients, particularly with significant metabolic disorders, whilst two-stage approach is a safe and feasible pathway for high risk individuals.
METHODS: This single-centred prospective cohort study was conducted from January-to-June 2021, involving all patients admitted on suspicion of appendicitis. All patients were scored according to the Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score and Adult Appendicitis score (AAS). The final diagnosis for each patient was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each system. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for each scoring system, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Optimal cut-off scores were calculated using Youden's Index.
RESULTS: A total of 245 patients were recruited with 198 (80.8%) patients underwent surgery. RIPASA score had higher sensitivity and specificity than other scoring systems without being statistically significant (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 8.5, AUC 0.724), followed by the AAS (sensitivity 60.2%, specificity 75.4%, optimal score 14, AUC 0.719), AIR score (sensitivity 76.7%, specificity 52.2%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.688) and Alvarado score (sensitivity 69.9%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.681). Multiple logistic regression revealed anorexia (p-value 0.018), right iliac fossa tenderness (p-value 0.005) and guarding (p-value 0.047) as significant clinical factors independently associated with appendicitis.
CONCLUSION: Appendicitis scoring systems have shown moderate sensitivity and specificity in our population. The RIPASA scoring system has shown to be the most sensitive, specific and easy-to-use scoring system in the Malaysian population whereas the AAS is most accurate in excluding low-risk patients.