Kothari, Shanu N.

Introduction: Psychosocial assessments by behavioral health (BH) professionals before metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) are recommended by national guidelines. Accordingly, insurance companies often require patients to undergo psychosocial assessments before MBS. This paper reviews the historical evolution of the MBS psychosocial assessment, clarifies the role of BH professionals within the team before and after MBS, and describes strategies to effectively utilize psychosocial assessments to optimize patient outcomes. Methods: Authors conducted a manual search of the available literature and completed a narrative review. Results: The original intent of the psychosocial assessment for MBS was to correlate psychiatric profiles to weight loss outcomes or identify which patients were predicted to succeed or “fail” after MBS. Historically, these evaluations were gatekeeping mechanisms, which invalidates the myriad ways that psychosocial assessments can identify and support patients. Controversy exists about the necessity of these evaluations, leading some MBS team members and patients to see it as an unavoidable “checkbox” with little clinical utility outcomes. Conclusion: Viewing the psychosocial assessment as a checkbox minimizes the potential benefits to patients and MBS team members. Additionally, it diminishes the expertise of BH professionals who are uniquely trained to support this patient population toward an optimal surgical outcome.

Abstract Background: With over 1 billion individuals affected globally, obesity and obesity related diseases is now a leading cause of death. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) has emerged as a cornerstone intervention for severe obesity and its associated comorbidities. Despite its efficacy, postoperative care and follow-up after MBS remains highly variable worldwide. Objective: The PARTNER study aimed to evaluate global clinical practices in the postoperative management following MBS by surveying multidisciplinary healthcare professionals . Methods: This study was an international online survey conducted between October 2024 and January 2025. A multidisciplinary team developed the questionnaire based on existing literature and international guidelines. The survey assessed five domains: follow-up care, postoperative treatment, dietary management, patient support, and measurement of surgical outcomes. Responses were analysed descriptively. Results: A total of 262 responses were received from 62 countries. Most respondents were bariatric surgeons (72.1%) working in public healthcare systems (73.3%). While 78.7% reported conducting three-month postoperative reviews, only 23.7% offered indefinite follow-up. Hybrid models of care (virtual and in-person) were common (56.9%). VTE prophylaxis and postoperative PPI use were recommended by 64.1% and 84.3% respectively. Nearly all respondents (98.1%) provided dietary advice, with protein and micronutrient supplementation widely endorsed. Only 56.1% routinely referred patients for psychological follow-up. Definitions of surgical success and failure varied widely, with inconsistent objective outcome measures. Conclusion: The PARTNER study reveals significant international variation in postoperative management practices following MBS. These findings underscore the need for more standardized, evidence-based guidelines to improve long-term outcomes and equity of care worldwide.

SummaryGlobal obesity rates have risen dramatically, now exceeding deaths from starvation. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), initially for severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m2), is performed globally over 500 000 times annually, offering significant metabolic benefits beyond weight loss. However, varying eligibility criteria globally impact patient care and healthcare resources. Updated in 2022, ASMBS and IFSO guidelines aim to standardise MBS indications, reflecting current understanding and emphasising comprehensive preoperative assessments. Yet, clinical variability persists, necessitating consensus‐based recommendations. This modified Delphi study engaged 45 global experts to establish consensus on perioperative management in MBS. Experts selected from bariatric societies possessed expertise in MBS and participated in a two‐round Delphi protocol. Consensus was achieved on 90 of 169 statements (53.3%), encompassing multidisciplinary team composition, patient selection criteria, preoperative testing, and referral pathways. The agreement highlighted the critical role of comprehensive preoperative assessments and the integration of healthcare professionals in MBS. These findings offer essential insights to standardise perioperative practices and advocate for evidence‐based guidelines in MBS globally. The study underscores the need for unified protocols to optimise outcomes and guide future research in MBS.

Abstract Bariatric surgeries are often complicated by de-novo gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or worsening of pre-existing GERD. The growing rates of obesity and bariatric surgeries worldwide are paralleled by an increase in the number of patients requiring post-surgical GERD evaluation. However, there is currently no standardized approach for the assessment of GERD in these patients. In this review, we delineate the relationship between GERD and the most common bariatric surgeries: sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), with a focus on pathophysiology, objective assessment, and underlying anatomical and motility disturbances. We suggest a stepwise algorithm to help diagnose GERD after SG and RYGB, determine the underlying cause, and guide the management and treatment.

Objective The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists. Methods Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts. Results New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity‐based chronic disease complications‐centric model, nuance‐based and algorithm/checklist‐assisted clinical decision‐making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest). Conclusions Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher‐risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision‐making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.