D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Harmon S. Jordan, ScD, Karima A. Kendall, PhD, Linda J. Lux, Roycelynn Mentor-Marcel, PhD, MPH, Laura C. Morgan, MA, Michael G. Trisolini, PhD, MBA, Janusz Wnek, PhD

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair , Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect , Nancy M. Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN,

2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Guideline for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62/PubMedCentral/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2013

A review of shape memory alloy research, applications and opportunities

2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Guideline for the Management of Overweight

Objective:To determine the mid- and long-term efficacy and possible side effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as treatment for morbid obesity.Summary Background Data:Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is still controversial as single and final treatment for morbid obesity. Some favorable short-te

/pdf/long-term-results-of-laparoscopic-sleeve-gastrectomy-for-4d1ak539ju.pdf

Long-term Results of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity

Background and aim The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO), being a Federation of 62 national societies, is the ideal network to monitor the number and type of procedures at a global level. The IFSO survey, enriched with a special section on revisional procedures, aims to report the number and types of bariatric procedures performed worldwide in 2016 and analyzes the surgical trends from 2008 to 2016. Methods The 2016 IFSO Survey form was emailed to all IFSO societies. Each Society was requested to indicate the number and type of bariatric procedures performed in the country. Trend analyses from 2008 to 2016 were also performed. Results The total number of bariatric/metabolic procedures performed in 2016 was 685,874; 634,897 (92.6%) of which were primary and 50,977 were revisional (7.4%). Among the primary interventions, 609,897 (96%) were surgical and 25,359 (4%) were endoluminal. The most performed primary surgical bariatric/metabolic procedure was sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (N = 340,550; 53.6%), followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (N = 191,326; 30.1%), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (N = 30,563; 4.8%). Conclusions In 2016, there was an increase in the total number both of surgical and endoluminal bariatric/metabolic procedures. Revisional procedures represent about 7% of the total bariatric interventions. SG remains the most performed surgical procedure in the world.

IFSO Worldwide Survey 2016: Primary, Endoluminal, and Revisional Procedures.

Background: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (GB) is the most popular restrictive procedure for obesity in Europe. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy (SG), is less common, but more invasive and with a higher learning curve. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the results of GB and SG after 1 and 3 years of surgery. Methods: 80 patient candidates for laparoscopic restrictive surgery were operated consecutively and randomly, between January and December 31, 2002, by GB (7M, 33F) or by SG (9M, 31F) (NS). Median age was 36 (20-61) for GB versus 40 (22-65) for SG (NS). Median BMI was 37 (30-47) for GB versus 39 (30-53) for SG (NS). After 1 and 3 years: weight loss, feeling of hunger, sweet eating, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), complications and re-operations were recorded in both groups. Results: Median weight loss after 1 year was 14 kg (−5 to +38) for GB and 26 kg (0 to 46) for SG (P<0.0001); and after 3 years was 17 kg (0 to 40) for GB and 29.5 kg (1 to 48) for SG (P<0.0001). Median decrease in BMI after 1 year was 15.5 kg/m 2 (5 to 39) after GB and 25 kg/m2 (0 to 45) after SG (P<0.0001); and after 3 years was 18 kg/m2 (0 to 39) after GB and 27.5 kg/m 2 (0 to 48) after SG (P=0.0004). Median %EWL at 1 year was 41.4% (−11.8 to +130.5) after GB and 57.7% (0 to 125.5) after SG (P=0.0004); and at 3 years was 48% (0 to 124.8) after GB and 66% (−3.1 to +152.4) after SG (P=0.0025). Loss of feeling of hunger after 1 year was registered in 42.5% of patients with GB and in 75% of patients with SG (P=0.003); and after 3 years in 2.9% of patients with GB and 46.7% of patients with SG (P<0.0001). Loss of craving for sweets after 1 year was achieved in 35% of patients with GB and 50% of patients with SG (NS); and after 3 years in 2.9% of patients with GB and 23% of patients with SG (NS). GERD appeared de novo after 1 year in 8.8% of patients with GB and 21.8% of patients with SG (NS); and after 3 years in 20.5% of patients with GB and 3.1% of patients with SG (NS). Postoperative complications requiring re-operation were necessary for 2 patients after SG. Late complications requiring re-operation after GB included 3 pouch dilations treated by band removal in 2 and 1 laparoscopic conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP), 1 gastric erosion treated by conversion to RYGBP, and 3 disconnections of the system treated by reconnection. Inefficacy affected 2 patients after GB, treated by conversion into RYGBP and 2 patients after SG treated by conversion to duodenal switch. Conclusion: Weight loss and loss of feeling of hunger after 1 year and 3 years are better after SG than GB. GERD is more frequent at 1 year after SG and at 3 years after GB. The number of re-operations is important in both groups, but the severity of complications appears higher in SG.

A prospective randomized study between laparoscopic gastric banding and laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy: results after 1 and 3 years.

Theoretically, in laparoscopic surgery, a computer interface in command of a mechanical system (robot) allows the surgeon: (1) to recover a number a number of lost degrees of freedom, thanks to intraabdominal articulations; (2) to obtain better visual control of instrument manipulation, thanks to three-dimensional vision; (3) to modulate the amplitude of surgical motions by downscaling and stabilization; (4) to work at a distance from the patient. These advances improve the quality of surgical tasks in a perfect ergonomic position. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing a robot in laparoscopic surgery. The first robot-assisted procedure in humans was performed in March 1997 by our team. One hundred forty-six patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Between March 1997 and February 2001 a nonconsecutive series was performed of 39 antireflux procedures, 48 cholecystectomies, 28 tubal reanastomoses, 10 gastroplasties for obesity, 3 inguinal hernias, 3 intrarectal procedures, 2 hysterectomies, 2 cardiac procedures, 2 prostactectomies, 2 arteriovenous fistulas, 1 lumbar sympathectomy, 1 appendectomy, 1 laryngeal exploration, 1 varicocele ligation, 1 endometriosis cure, 1 neosalpingostomy, 1 deferent canal. The robot (Da Vinci system, Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, CA), consists of a console and a cart with three articulated robot arms. The surgeon sits in front of the console, manipulating joysticklike handles while observing the operative field through binoculars that provide a three-dimensional picture. This computer is capable of modulating these data by eliminating physiologic tremor and by downscaling the amplitude of motions by a factor 5 or 3 to one. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of several laparoscopic robotic procedures. There is no morbidity related to the system. Operating time and the hospital stay were within acceptable limits. The system seems most beneficial in intra-abdominal microsurgery or for manipulations in a very small space. Optimized ergonomics and increased mobility of the instrument tips are beneficial in many steps of abdominal surgical procedures.

Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases.

Objective To determine the long-term efficacy and safety of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) for morbid obesity. Design Clinical assessment in the surgeon's office in 2009 (≥12 years after LAGB). Setting University obesity center in Brussels, Belgium. Patients A total of 151 consecutive patients who had benefited from LAGB between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1997, were contacted for evaluation. Intervention Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Main Outcome Measures Mortality rate, number of major and minor complications, number of corrective operations, number of patients who experienced weight loss, evolution of comorbidities, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were evaluated. Results The median age of patients was 50 years (range, 28-73 years). The operative mortality rate was zero. Overall, the rate of follow-up was 54.3% (82 of 151 patients). The long-term mortality rate from unrelated causes was 3.7%. Twenty-two percent of patients experienced minor complications, and 39% experienced major complications (28% experienced band erosion). Seventeen percent of patients had their procedure switched to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Overall, the (intention-to-treat) mean (SD) excess weight loss was 42.8% (33.92%) (range, 24%-143%). Thirty-six patients (51.4%) still had their band, and their mean excess weight loss was 48% (range, 38%-58%). Overall, the satisfaction index was good for 60.3% of patients. The quality-of-life score (using the Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System) was neutral. Conclusion Based on a follow-up of 54.3% of patients, LAGB appears to result in a mean excess weight loss of 42.8% after 12 years or longer. Of 78 patients, 47 (60.3%) were satisfied, and the quality-of-life index was neutral. However, because nearly 1 out of 3 patients experienced band erosion, and nearly 50% of the patients required removal of their bands (contributing to a reoperation rate of 60%), LAGB appears to result in relatively poor long-term outcomes.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/articlepdf/1107072/soa15004_802_807.pdf

Jacques Himpens

Papers

Long-term Results of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity

IFSO Worldwide Survey 2016: Primary, Endoluminal, and Revisional Procedures.

A prospective randomized study between laparoscopic gastric banding and laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy: results after 1 and 3 years.

Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.