Noëlle Geubbels1, L Maurits de Brauw2, Yair I Z Acherman3, Arnold W J M van de Laar4, Sjoerd C Bruin5. 1. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ngeubbels@gmail.com. 2. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. maurits.debrauw@slz.nl. 3. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. yair.acherman@slz.nl. 4. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. arnoldvandelaar@slz.nl. 5. Department of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. sjoerd.bruin@slz.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models are useful tools for informing patients undergoing bariatric surgery about their risk for complications and correcting outcome reports. The aim of this study is to externally validate risk models assessing complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery. METHODS: All 740 patients who underwent a primary LRYGB between December 2007 and July 2012 were included in the validation cohort. PubMed was systematically searched for risk prediction models. Eight risk models were selected for validation. We classified our complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Predefined criteria of a good model were a non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test, Nagelkerke R (2) ≥ 0.10, and c-statistic ≥0.7. RESULTS: There were 85 (7.8 %) grade 1, 54 (7.3 %) grade 2, 5 (0.7 %) grade 3a, 14 (1.9 %) grade 3b, and 14 (1.9 %) grade 4a complications in our validation cohort. Only one model predicted adverse events satisfactorily. This model consisted of one patient-related factor (age) and four surgeon- or center related factors (conversion to open surgery, intraoperative events, the need for additional procedures during LRYGB and the learning curve of the center). CONCLUSIONS: The overall majority of the included risk models are unsuitable for risk prediction. Only one model with an emphasis on surgeon- and center-related factors instead of patient-related factors predicted adverse outcome correctly in our external validation cohort. These findings support the establishment of specialty centers and warn benchmark data institutions not to correct bariatric outcome data by any other patient-related factor than age.
BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models are useful tools for informing patients undergoing bariatric surgery about their risk for complications and correcting outcome reports. The aim of this study is to externally validate risk models assessing complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery. METHODS: All 740 patients who underwent a primary LRYGB between December 2007 and July 2012 were included in the validation cohort. PubMed was systematically searched for risk prediction models. Eight risk models were selected for validation. We classified our complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Predefined criteria of a good model were a non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test, Nagelkerke R (2) ≥ 0.10, and c-statistic ≥0.7. RESULTS: There were 85 (7.8 %) grade 1, 54 (7.3 %) grade 2, 5 (0.7 %) grade 3a, 14 (1.9 %) grade 3b, and 14 (1.9 %) grade 4a complications in our validation cohort. Only one model predicted adverse events satisfactorily. This model consisted of one patient-related factor (age) and four surgeon- or center related factors (conversion to open surgery, intraoperative events, the need for additional procedures during LRYGB and the learning curve of the center). CONCLUSIONS: The overall majority of the included risk models are unsuitable for risk prediction. Only one model with an emphasis on surgeon- and center-related factors instead of patient-related factors predicted adverse outcome correctly in our external validation cohort. These findings support the establishment of specialty centers and warn benchmark data institutions not to correct bariatric outcome data by any other patient-related factor than age.
Authors: Jonathan F Finks; Kerry L Kole; Panduranga R Yenumula; Wayne J English; Kevin R Krause; Arthur M Carlin; Jeffrey A Genaw; Mousumi Banerjee; John D Birkmeyer; Nancy J Birkmeyer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Aliu Sanni; Sebastian Perez; Rachel Medbery; Hernan D Urrego; Craig McCready; Juan P Toro; Ankit D Patel; Edward Lin; John F Sweeney; S Scott Davis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; Deborah A Winegar; Joel F Farley; Bruce M Wolfe; Eric J DeMaria Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Peter Benotti; G Craig Wood; Deborah A Winegar; Anthony T Petrick; Christopher D Still; George Argyropoulos; Glenn S Gerhard Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Guilherme M Campos; Ruxandra Ciovica; Stanley J Rogers; Andrew M Posselt; Eric Vittinghoff; Mark Takata; John P Cello Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2007-10
Authors: Robert B Dorman; Christopher J Miller; Daniel B Leslie; Federico J Serrot; Bridget Slusarek; Henry Buchwald; John E Connett; Sayeed Ikramuddin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Luisa García-García; Juan Gervasio Martín-Lorenzo; Ramón Lirón-Ruiz; José Antonio Torralba-Martínez; José Antonio García-López; José Luis Aguayo-Albasini Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Hugo Meunier; Benjamin Menahem; Yannick Le Roux; Adrien Lee Bion; Yoann Marion; Antoine Vallois; Nicolas Contival; Thomas Gautier; Jean Lubrano; Anaïs Briant; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Arnaud Alves Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.129