Faculty Bibliography

Purpose: Obesity is a modifiable risk factor of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). While diet, exercise and other conservative treatments can have limited and often transient beneficial effects, an alternative strategy would target weight loss via surgery to delay or avoid joint replacement. Some retrospective data, including a study from our group, have in fact shown sustained improvement in KOA pain after bariatric surgery. We initiated a prospective study to evaluate painful KOA in the obese population, and track whether weight loss after bariatric surgery affects KOA-related pain and physical function. Methods: We screened consecutive patients prior to laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), sleeve gastrectomy, or gastric bypass (RYGB), at NYU Langone Medical Center and Bellevue Hospital Center. Patients age >21 with knee pain for >1 month and a visual analog scale pain score >30mm were enrolled, excluding those with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or psoriasis. Baseline pre-op assessments included x-rays for OA severity by Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) with a Likert scale calculated from the KOOS. Patients were consented for optional tissue collection (blood, urine and intra-operative adipose samples) for future biomarker analysis. They are (still) completing the questionnaires and being measured for BMI and % excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1,3,6 and 12 month post-op intervals. Results: In total, we screened 537 patients planning to have bariatric surgery, found that 309 (58%) of them reported knee pain - and enrolled 176who met criteria and consented for the study. Our cohort is 89.7% female, with a mean BMI of 43.6 kg/m2+/-7 (31.6-60.6), a mean age of 42.4 +/-11 (18-73), and radiographic severity as follows: KL0=43 (25%), KL1=34 (19%), KL2=38 (22%), KL3=34 (19%), KL4=27 (15%). The mean pre-op KOOS scores were 45.4 for pain and 46.0 for ADL (0=worst, 100=best), the mean pre-op WOMAC pain score (Likert scale) was 11 (0=best, 20=worst), and the mean overall WOMAC index was 52 (0=best, 96=worst). Before surgery, a higher KL correlated with symptoms; mean KOOS pain was 53.2, 48.1 and 36.7 for KL0, KL1-2, and KL3-4 (p=0.00002 for KL0 vs KL3-4, and p=0.0005 for KL1-2 vs KL3-4), with similar trends across other KOOS and WOMAC scores. Higher BMI also trended with worse pre-op knee symptoms, as the tertiles with the lowest and highest BMIs (31-39 and 46-61) had mean KOOS pain scores of 46.8 and 43.7 (p=0.37). While 23 ultimately decided against weight loss surgery, we are collecting post-operative data on the 153 patients (40 RYGB=26%, 93 sleeve=61%, 20 LAGB=13%). Improvement in average KOOS and WOMAC scores over baseline has been observed at all intervals (67, 71, 65, and 42 responses at 1,3,6,12 month visits), with more improvement farther after surgery. At 6 months post-op, mean KOOS scores available thus far improved 29 points for pain, with mean WOMAC pain and index improving by 6 and 22 points. The %EWL correlated with knee symptoms at each interval and for all followups combined, as the smallest and largest %EWL quartiles (4-29%, 54-92%) showed mean improvements of 18 and 31 points (p=0.03) in KOOS pain - mirrored across KOOS and WOMAC scores. RYGB and sleeve yielded higher %EWL than LAGB (44%, 43% vs. 37%) across all intervals, and greater improvement in mean KOOS and WOMAC scores (e.g. mean KOOS pain increased by 28, 29 and 8). Neither presence nor severity of KOA severity affected knee pain improvement from weight loss. Conclusions: These data suggest that bariatric surgery improves patients' KOA pain proportional to percent excess weight loss, with durability over time. RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy have more impact on knee symptoms than LAGB. While patients with worse KL grades report more baseline pain and disability, as expected, x-ray severity did not impact the response to surgical weight loss

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomography (PET) in cancer patients undergoing adrenalectomy for presumed metastatic disease, utilizing the gold standard of histopathology. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all adrenalectomies for metastatic disease performed at our institution over the last 12 years. Preoperative PET scans were compared with final pathology reports. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Forty-nine adrenalectomies were performed for metastatic disease. Thirty had preoperative PET imaging and were included in this analysis. Mean age was 65.5 +/- 13.6 years (29-91) and 54 % were male. Mean size was 3.8 cm (0.4-7.1). Primary tumor distribution was 61 % (n = 17) pulmonary; 11 % (n = 3) breast; 7 % (n = 2) gastric; 7 % (n = 2) renal; and 4 % (n = 1) each of brain, lymphoma, melanoma, and uterine. Mean standardized uptake value (SUV) was 11 +/- 7.3 (3.2-30.0). Final pathology revealed that 80 % (25/30) were positive for metastatic disease and 20 % (5/30) were negative. The positive predictive value of PET in correctly identifying adrenal metastatic disease was 83 % (24 true-positive cases and 5 false-positive cases); there was one false-negative PET. False-positive PET results were not correlated with sex (p = 0.35), age (p = 0.24), or maximum SUV units (p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: The 20 % false-positive rate for PET-positive adrenalectomies performed for metastatic disease should warrant its inclusion in preoperative counseling to the patient and interaction with the treating oncologist.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for patients suffering from obesity-related comorbidities. There is little data regarding how patients choose one particular bariatric procedure over another. This study aimed to better define the relationship between preferences of patients considering bariatric surgery and the procedure patients undergo. METHODS: A bilingual questionnaire was administered to all prospective patients seen between March 1 and August 31, 2012. The questionnaire assessed basic knowledge of bariatric surgery (based on the information seminar) as well as patient preferences of the various outcomes and complications for sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and gastric banding. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two patients completed the questionnaire. Fifty-eight percent of patients chose "maximum weight loss" as the most important outcome, and 65 % chose "leak" as the most concerning complication. Subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes revealed that 58 % chose "curing diabetes" as the most important outcome. Nineteen percent of patients were either not sure which procedure they wanted or changed their decision after consultation with the surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to choose one bariatric procedure over another is complex and is based on factors beyond absolute patient preferences. Although maximum weight loss is a commonly reported preference for patients seeking bariatric surgery, patients with diabetes are more focused on diabetes remission. Most patients have already decided which procedure to undergo prior to surgeon consultation. Patients may benefit from shared decision making, which integrates patient values and preferences along with current medical evidence to assist in the complex bariatric surgery selection process.

OBJECTIVE: To compare bariatric surgery versus intensive medical weight management (MWM) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who do not meet current National Institutes of Health criteria for bariatric surgery and to assess whether the soluble form of receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) is a biomarker to identify patients most likely to benefit from surgery. BACKGROUND: There are few studies comparing surgery to MWM for patients with T2DM and BMI less than 35. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with T2DM and BMI 30 to 35, who otherwise met the criteria for bariatric surgery were randomized to MWM versus surgery (bypass, sleeve or band, based on patient preference). The primary outcomes assessed at 6 months were change in homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and diabetes remission. Secondary outcomes included changes in HbA1c, weight, and sRAGE. RESULTS: The surgery group had improved HOMA-IR (-4.6 vs +1.6; P = 0.0004) and higher diabetes remission (65% vs 0%, P < 0.0001) than the MWM group at 6 months. Compared to MWM, the surgery group had lower HbA1c (6.2 vs 7.8, P = 0.002), lower fasting glucose (99.5 vs 157; P = 0.0068), and fewer T2DM medication requirements (20% vs 88%; P < 0.0001) at 6 months. The surgery group lost more weight (7. vs 1.0 BMI decrease, P < 0.0001). Higher baseline sRAGE was associated with better weight loss outcomes (r = -0.641; P = 0.046). There were no mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery was very effective short-term in patients with T2DM and BMI 30 to 35. Baseline sRAGE may predict patients most likely to benefit from surgery. These findings need to be confirmed with larger studies.ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01423877.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of bariatric surgery on employment status in underserved, unemployed patients with severe obesity. METHODS: A retrospective review of all unemployed severely obese patients seen in our urban safety-net bariatric surgery program was performed. Preoperative patient questionnaires and medical records were reviewed to evaluate patient employment status at the time of initial evaluation by the multidisciplinary bariatric surgery team. Follow-up data was obtained on all available patients (including those who did not undergo surgery), including weight and employment status. A standardized telephone questionnaire was administered to supplement details regarding employment. Changes in employment status and body weight were determined in both groups. RESULTS: Here, 193 unemployed severely obese patients were evaluated by the multidisciplinary obesity team. The vast majority of patients (>80 %) were minorities (primarily Hispanic) and publicly insured. Seventy-two underwent bariatric surgery and 121 did not. Twenty-four percent of the surgical patients and 9 % of the non-surgical patients had acquired full-time employment at least one year postoperatively (p = 0.043). There was a 10-point body mass index reduction in the surgical group, compared to 1-point reduction in the non-surgical group after one year. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery may improve employment status in an unemployed severely obese patient cohort. Future research in this area should collect detailed prospective data on employment prior to surgery and assess changes longitudinally to provide a more complete picture of the impact of bariatric surgery on employment.

The interpretation of images obtained in patients who have recently undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery is challenging, in part because procedures that were previously performed with open surgical techniques are increasingly being performed with minimally invasive (laparoscopic) techniques. Thus, it is important to be familiar with the normal approach used for laparoscopic surgeries. The authors describe the indications for various laparoscopic surgical procedures (eg, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, hernia repair) as well as normal postoperative findings. For example, port site hernias are more commonly encountered in patients with trocar sites greater than 10 mm and occur at classic entry sites (eg, the periumbilical region). Similarly, preperitoneal air can be encountered postoperatively, often secondary to trocar dislodgement during difficult entry or positioning. In addition, intraperitoneal placement of mesh during commonly performed ventral or incisional hernia repairs typically leads to postoperative seroma formation. Familiarity with normal findings after commonly performed laparoscopic surgical procedures in the abdomen and pelvis allows accurate diagnosis of common complications and avoidance of diagnostic pitfalls. (c) RSNA, 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Abnormality in distal lung function may occur in obesity due to reduction in resting lung volume; however, airway inflammation, vascular congestion and/or concomitant intrinsic airway disease may also be present. The goal of this study is to 1) describe the phenotype of lung function in obese subjects utilizing spirometry, plethysmography and oscillometry; and 2) evaluate residual abnormality when the effect of mass loading is removed by voluntary elevation of end expiratory lung volume (EELV) to predicted FRC. METHODS: 100 non-smoking obese subjects without cardio-pulmonary disease and with normal airflow on spirometry underwent impulse oscillometry (IOS) at baseline and at the elevated EELV. RESULTS: FRC and ERV were reduced (44+/-22, 62+/-14% predicted) with normal RV/TLC (29+/-9%). IOS demonstrated elevated resistance at 20 Hz (R20, 4.65+/-1.07 cmH2O/L/s); however, specific conductance was normal (0.14+/-0.04). Resistance at 5-20 Hz (R5-20, 1.86+/-1.11 cmH2O/L/s) and reactance at 5 Hz (X5, -2.70+/-1.44 cmH2O/L/s) were abnormal. During elevation of EELV, IOS abnormalities reversed to or towards normal. Residual abnormality in R5-20 was observed in some subjects despite elevation of EELV (1.16+/-0.8 cmH2O/L/s). R5-20 responded to bronchodilator at baseline but not during elevation of EELV. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the phenotype of lung dysfunction in obesity as reduction in FRC with airway narrowing, distal respiratory dysfunction and bronchodilator responsiveness. When R5-20 normalized during voluntary inflation, mass loading was considered the predominant mechanism. In contrast, when residual abnormality in R5-20 was demonstrable despite return of EELV to predicted FRC, mechanisms for airway dysfunction in addition to mass loading could be invoked.