4.4 Editorial Material

Current Status of Preoperative Oesophago-Gastro-Duodenoscopy (OGD) in Bariatric NHS Units-a BOMSS Survey

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 2257-2262

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-016-2304-z

关键词

Preoperative OGD; Bariatric surgery; Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; Preoperative work up; Obesity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preoperative oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (p-OGD) is often routinely employed in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The value of p-OGD is still unclear; however, since all bariatric procedures modify stomach anatomy differently with exclusion of the remnant in a majority of cases, the question arises whether there is a rational for including it routinely in the preoperative pathway. To assess the current status of p-OGD in the UK, a survey was sent to the British Obesity & Metabolic Surgery Society members, regarding preoperative evaluation of patients, focusing on the role of p-OGD. Forty-nine UK bariatric units (in excess of 5000 patients estimated caseload/year) answered. The survey has shown that 44 units (90 %) include OGD in their preoperative work up, routinely or selectively. According to results, 25 units (51 %) changed the operative plans after OGD because of peptic ulcer (46 %), hiatus hernia (43 %), Barrett's oesophagus (32 %) or gastrointestinal stromal tumour (25 %). Only 2 units (7 %) found incidental gastrointestinal cancer. When specifically asked, p-OGD was believed to be essential in patients with family history of gastrointestinal cancer (61 %), pernicious anaemia (57 %) and reflux symptoms (54 %). Five units (10 %) considered p-OGD completely unnecessary. Only 11 units (25 %) would not be able to accommodate routine p-OGD in all patients. Most units value p-OGD, either selectively or routinely, in preparation for bariatric surgery. However, there seems to be a discrepancy on the specific risk factors involved in the selection process. National and international guidelines are advocated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据