The MBSAQIP is going viral! 194 hits and still going strong

From database to practice: the MBSAQIP in the surgical literature

BACKGROUND

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) has been a game changer for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), with continuous improvements in safety and outcomes throughout the years of its usage. It allows in-depth evaluations of MBS procedures, presenting practitioners and researchers with unparalleled opportunities for quality assessment, research and clinical advancement.

OBJECTIVES

To offer an updated overview of MBSAQIP-related publications.

SETTING

United States.

METHODS

PubMed was queried using keywords "MBSAQIP" and "Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program." Letters to editors, duplicates, commentaries, and retracted articles were excluded. Studies that mentioned MBSAQIP but did not use the data within were also excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 400 search items were returned as of August 2023. After exclusions, 289 studies were reviewed. Articles were published in a total of 28 unique journals, the majority of which were featured in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (SOARD), with 114 articles (39.4%). Sixty-one articles were focused on creating predictive models or risk calculators, 58 on investigating the safety of procedures, and 52 on exploring complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were the 2 most commonly discussed procedures, at 80.3% and 80% respectively. Forty-three studies included patients who underwent robotic-assisted MBS.

CONCLUSIONS

The MBSAQIP is a valuable resource that has generated a wealth of studies in the literature. It has allowed for intense analysis of clinical issues and fostered a culture of safety and quality improvement. Participating surgeons must pledge commitment to extended follow-up periods to maximize its effectiveness.

First Assistant In Bariatric Surgery: A Comparison Between Laparoscopic And Robotic Approaches: A 4-Year Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database (2016-2019)

PURPOSE

The first assistant (FA) plays an important role in the operating room for bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the type of FA and operative time (OT) and postoperative outcomes comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches in bariatric surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) data for 2016-2019 was queried. Log-normal regression was performed to evaluate the association of FAs and OT variations within and between groups. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between the type of FA and 30-day outcomes across all procedures and approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 691,789 patients who underwent robotic (R), and laparoscopic (L) sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass (RYGB), and duodenal switch (DS) were included. The percentage variation of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group (L-SG: 8.18%, L-RYGB: 9.88%, and L-DS: 15.00%) compared to the robotic group (R-SG: 2.43%, R-RYGB: 5.76%, and R-DS: 0.80%). There was not a significant difference in 30-day outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for the same procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The FA was associated with a decreased variability in OT in the robotic cohort compared to the laparoscopic group with no significant difference in complication rates. These results suggest that the robotic approach may decrease the need for skilled FAs in bariatric procedures.

MBSAQIP database: are the data reliable?

BACKGROUND

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database collects data from all accredited centers in the US. A prior study showed data quality issues limiting use of up to 20% of the 2015 database.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the completeness and data quality (internal validity, accuracy, and consistency) of the MBSAQIP database between 2015 and 2019.

SETTING

United States.

METHODS

All subsets of data from the MBSAQIP Participant User Data File (PUDF) were compiled into one main file. Completeness, internal validity, accuracy, and consistency were evaluated. Completeness was determined via missing values. Internal validity was assessed using the percentage of patients with a body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m2 who underwent primary bariatric surgery. Accuracy was evaluated using reported versus calculated BMI. Consistency was assessed using the percentage of patients with a gain of >5 or a loss of >20 units of BMI change in 30 days. Effects across years were assessed using a chi-squared test.

RESULTS

Missing data for age, BMI, and ASA was consistently low (<2.5%) with no significant difference across years. Only .02% of patients who underwent a primary bariatric procedure had a reported BMI <30 kg/m2. The mean difference between reported versus calculated BMI was -.02 units. A maximum of .33% of patients gained >5 units of BMI, and a maximum of .85% of patients lost > 20 units of BMI in early follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

While the MBSAQIP is a database with acceptable data quality and minimal changes from 2015-2019, ongoing efforts are needed to improve data.

Operative Time and 30-Day Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Comparison between Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach: 4-Year MBSAQIP Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

The main criticism of robotic surgery is longer operative time (OT). The aim of this study was to examine the variables that determine OT, the association between OT and 30-day outcomes, and the effect of the robotic approach in bariatric surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

MBSAQIP data for 2016 to 2019 were queried. Logistic regression was performed to examine the association between OT and outcomes for each surgical approach while adjusting for patients' characteristics. The results of each fitted logistic regression model were reported as odds ratio and the associated 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 666,182 patients underwent robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, robotic duodenal switch (R-DS), and laparoscopic duodenal switch). More patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (89.7%) than robotic surgery (10.3%). OT for robotic cases was longer than for laparoscopic cases (p < 0.0001). Longer OT was associated with increased odds of adverse 30-day outcomes irrespective of the surgical approach. The association between OT and adverse outcomes was stronger in the laparoscopic cohort. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes when comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches after adjusting for OT, except a lower reoperation rate for R-SG (p = 0.03) and readmission rates in R-RYGB and R-DS (p < 0.01). The variability of OT was higher in the laparoscopic group and was more affected by the first assistant.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes in robotic bariatric surgery were comparable with the laparoscopic approach despite longer OT. Use of robotic surgery decreased the variability in OT.

Five-Year Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database: Are We Getting Better?

BACKGROUND

The MBSAQIP has been used to evaluate risk and create risk models. Previous studies have determined what complications matter most.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a registry-based analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, at centers participating in MBSAQIP. Cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology. Patients less than 18 years old were excluded. A chi-square test was used to assess differences in the prevalence of complications and effects across years. Using a multivariable Poisson regression model with a link log and robust estimation, prevalence ratio estimates and 95% CI were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 690,770 observations met the inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) age was 44.5 (±12.0) years, and mean (SD) BMI was 45.2 kg/m2 (±7.9). SG cases accounted for 73.45% of all observations. There was a significant relative reduction in readmissions, end-organ dysfunction, and all-cause mortality from 2015 to 2019 in the SG subgroup. There were also noticeable reductions in 30-day readmission, ICU admission, and end-organ dysfunction in the RYGB subgroup. For complications, bleeding, postoperative pneumonia, and stroke were significantly decreased in the RYGB subgroup, but only bleeding was significantly decreased in the SG subgroup during the 5-year study period.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a continuous improvement in several (but not all) outcomes through the years that the MBSAQIP has been collecting data. Different outcomes were reduced between the SG and RYGB subgroups, and the decrease in all-cause mortality was only noted in the SG subgroup.

Safety of Primary Versus Revisional Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch in Patients with Super Obesity Using the MBSAQIP database

INTRODUCTION

For patients with super obesity (BMI > 50 kg/m²), biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) can be an effective bariatric operation. Technical challenges and patient safety concerns, however, have limited its use as a primary procedure. This study sought to assess the safety of primary versus revisional BPD/DS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MBSAQIP database was queried for primary and revisional BPD/DS (2015-2018). Inclusion criteria were patients ≥ 18 years of age, BMI > 50 kg/m², and with no concurrent procedures. Preoperative variables were compared using a chi-square test or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Multivariate logistic or robust linear regression models were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 3,378 primary BPD/DS and 487 revisional BPD/DS patients. Primary BPD/DS patients had higher BMI (56.5 [IQR4.4] versus 54.8 [IQR4] kg/m², p < 0.0001) and had more diabetes mellitus type II (29.1% versus 17.2%, p < 0.0001). Intraoperatively, revisional BPD/DS had longer operative time (165 [IQR47] min versus 139 [IQR100] min, p < 0.0001). After adjusting for preoperative characteristics, there was no difference in 30-day readmission or ED visits (primary 12.9% versus revisional 14.6%), reoperation or reintervention (primary 5.7% versus revisional 7.8%), or mortality (primary 0.4% versus revisional 0.6%). In contrast, the revisional BPD/DS patients had higher odds of major morbidity (primary 3.4% versus revisional 5.3%, OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.2, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional BPD/DS is associated with higher morbidity than primary BPD/DS in patients with super obesity. These patients should thus be counselled appropriately when choosing a primary or revisional bariatric procedure.

Reluctance in duodenal switch adoption: an international survey among bariatric surgeons

BACKGROUND

Duodenal switch (DS) still comprises less than 1% of the overall primary procedures in the United States. Our aim is to explore the reasons behind surgeons' reluctance to DS adoption.

OBJECTIVES

To determine perceived reasons for the widespread lack of adoption of the DS.

SETTING

Worldwide survey of closed bariatric surgery social media groups.

METHODS

A standardized questionnaire was posted on 2 closed social media bariatric groups. DS was used as an umbrella term that includes traditional BPD with duodenal switch, single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and loop DS. The questionnaire link was accessible to bariatric surgeons only for a period of 1 week.

RESULTS

Survey responses (n = 193) were analyzed. The majority (75%) were fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons, and 58% were practicing in the United States. Although 72.9% believed DS to be a good bariatric procedure, it was not being performed by 64% of the respondents. The main reasons behind DS nonadoption included a perceptible high long-term complication rate (43.5%), lack of training (38.1%), and procedure seldomly demanded by patients (31.5%). For surgeons who perform DS, 16.4% use it as a revisional procedure, mainly following sleeve gastrectomy (40.5%). Finally, 29.5% of surgeons believed that the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery endorsement of SADI will encourage them to add DS to their practice. They are mostly planning to do so by visiting other surgeons and getting proctored (42.6%).

CONCLUSION

This survey will help guide bariatric societies and governing bodies in addressing the issues and concerns preventing surgeons from adopting DS in their practice by elucidating the chief reasons and circumstances behind this occurrence.