OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of evidence for treatment of some conditions including complication management, suboptimal initial weight loss, recurrent weight gain, or worsening of a significant obesity complication after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study was designed to respond to the existing lack of agreement and to provide a valuable resource for clinicians by employing an expert-modified Delphi consensus method.
METHODS: Forty-eight recognized bariatric surgeons from 28 countries participated in the modified Delphi consensus to vote on 64 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus.
RESULTS: A consensus was achieved for 46 statements. For recurrent weight gain or worsening of a significant obesity complication after OAGB, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus that elongation of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) is an acceptable option and the total bowel length measurement is mandatory during BPL elongation to preserve at least 300-400 cm of common channel limb length to avoid nutritional deficiencies. Also, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus on conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with or without pouch downsizing as an acceptable option for the treatment of persistent bile reflux after OAGB and recommend detecting and repairing any size of hiatal hernia during conversion to RYGB.
CONCLUSIONS: While the experts reached a consensus on several aspects regarding revision/conversion surgeries after OAGB, there are still lingering areas of disagreement. This highlights the importance of conducting further studies in the future to address these unresolved issues.

BACKGROUND: MCGR lengthening has become an important innovation in treating patients with EOS. An alternative to traditional growing instrumentation, a single surgical procedure is necessary for insertion of the construct, followed by non-invasive lengthening in the outpatient setting. With every new technology emanates a new complication to troubleshoot. Failure to lengthen in the MCGR is a significant cause of revision surgery. Currently, no consensus exists on how to define a MCGR lengthening failure, what steps are necessary after a failure to lengthen, and what factors determine these next steps. The primary goal of this study was to establish a consensus on how to define and navigate a MCGR that fails to lengthen.
METHODS: A series of 3 surveys were distributed to 49 early onset scoliosis surgeons with 37 responses between December 2021 and April 2022. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement.
RESULTS: 37 of 49 surgeons (75%) responded to the first survey, and all 37 surgeons responded to the following two surveys (100%). Consensus statements were reached on 25% of questions (3/12) from survey 1, 40% of questions (4/10) on survey 2, and 100% of questions (5/5) on survey 3. The questions that reached consensus are detailed in Table 1. Consensus steps to navigate a rod that fails to lengthen 1 mm (97%) in the office include retrying during the same visit (78%), changing technique in the office (88%), and not adjusting the interval between lengthening appointments (78%). Table 1 Items that reached consensus from each survey (12 total) Survey Question Response, Consensus Percentage 1 If a rod does not lengthen, do you try again in that office visit?​ Yes, 78% 1 All modes of XR are equivalent when determining failure to lengthen? Yes, 70% 1 If you are unsuccessful at lengthening, you should change the lengthening interval? No, 78% 2 Re-lengthening a rod following a failure to lengthen one should change their technique? Yes, 88% Reposition patient, 100% Alternate rods, 90% No traction in OR, 92.6% 2 Is a MCGR non-operational following 3 consecutive visits where the rod failed lengthening? Yes, 100% 2 Considerations when determining next steps with a non-operational rod? Skeletal Age, 100% Curve Progression, 97% Curve Stiffness, 93.8% Family Convenience, 83% Chronologic Age, 77% Time from Last Lengthening, 70% 2 Can an APP follow your protocol for a rod that has failed to lengthen? Yes, 81% 3 Are you comfortable using either clunk or stall to describe the phenomena of the internal clutch failing within the actuator when lengthening? Yes, 97.3% 3 Clunk/stall try again before an adjustment? Yes, 81% 3 Define failure to lengthen? Less than 1 mm length achieved, 97% 3 After two failure to lengthen events do you discuss next surgical steps?​ Yes, 97% 3 Once a rod had been classified as non-operational (no longer lengthening despite interventions) do you consider the underlying diagnosis when making next step decisions? Yes, 97% CONCLUSION: Best clinical practice guidelines using a Delphi method established a consensus on defining failure to lengthen in a MCGR (less than 1 mm), appropriate responses to failure to lengthen (re-attempt to lengthen and re-position patient) and a definition for a non-functional MCGR (failure to lengthen 3 consecutive times). This consensus will help standardize research on this important problem.
METHODS: V-expert opinion.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision.
METHODS: Part 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been reached between the steering and rating groups, the question-answer sets were submitted to the peer-review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was then held to ratify the document.
RESULTS: The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + - 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article.
CONCLUSIONS: ACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults.
METHODS: Level II.

Chiari malformation type I (CIM) diagnoses have increased in recent years. Controversy regarding the best operative management prompted a review of the literature to offer guidance on surgical interventions.
To assess the literature to determine (1) whether posterior fossa decompression or posterior fossa decompression with duraplasty is more effective in preoperative symptom resolution; (2) whether there is benefit from cerebellar tonsillar resection/reduction; (3) the role of intraoperative neuromonitoring; (4) in patients with a syrinx, how long should a syrinx be observed for improvement before additional surgery is performed; and 5) what is the optimal duration of follow-up care after preoperative symptom resolution.
A systematic review was performed using the National Library of Medicine/PubMed and Embase databases for studies on CIM in children and adults. The most appropriate surgical interventions, the use of neuromonitoring, and clinical improvement during follow-up were reviewed for studies published between 1946 and January 23, 2021.
A total of 80 studies met inclusion criteria. Posterior fossa decompression with or without duraplasty or cerebellar tonsil reduction all appeared to show some benefit for symptom relief and syrinx reduction. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether duraplasty or cerebellar tonsil reduction was needed for specific patient groups. There was no strong correlation between symptom relief and syringomyelia resolution. Many surgeons follow patients for 6-12 months before considering reoperation for persistent syringomyelia. No benefit or harm was seen with the use of neuromonitoring.
This evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of CIM provide 1 Class II and 4 Class III recommendations. In patients with CIM with or without syringomyelia, treatment options include bone decompression with or without duraplasty or cerebellar tonsil reduction. Improved syrinx resolution may potentially be seen with dural patch grafting. Symptom resolution and syrinx resolution did not correlate directly. Reoperation for a persistent syrinx was potentially beneficial if the syrinx had not improved 6 to 12 months after the initial operation. The full guidelines can be seen online at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/browse-guidelines-detail/3-surgical-interventions .

Laparotomy incisions provide easy and rapid access to the peritoneal cavity in case of emergency surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) is a late manifestation of the failure of abdominal wall closure and represents frequent complication of any abdominal incision: IHs can cause pain and discomfort to the patients but also clinical serious sequelae like bowel obstruction, incarceration, strangulation, and necessity of reoperation. Previous guidelines and indications in the literature consider elective settings and evidence about laparotomy closure in emergency settings is lacking. This paper aims to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) project called ECLAPTE (Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency): the final manuscript includes guidelines on the closure of emergency laparotomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to deliver consensus recommendations for the clinical practice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
METHODS: Members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) and European Knee Society (EKS) were invited to attend a joint meeting in London, UK (December 2019). A formal consensus process was undertaken at the meeting incorporating a multiple round Delphi exercise, with group discussion of areas of agreement and disagreement between rounds. Eighty delegates attended the meeting and five consensus statements were considered and revised, with a threshold level of 80% agreement required as the definition consensus.
RESULTS: Five consensus statements with accompanying supporting evidence and text were agreed following two rounds of the process: (1) UKA should be offered as a successful alternative to TKA in patients undergoing arthroplasty who meet agreed indications; (2) When consenting a patient for UKA, information including the benefits and risks that are specific to UKA, should be tailored to and discussed with the individual patient; (3) Evidence suggests that surgeons should avoid low-volume use of UKA to optimise outcomes for their patients; (4) Surgeons should use the contemporary evidence-based indications and contraindications for medial UKA; (5) Knee arthroplasty surgeons should have exposure to and training in UKA.
CONCLUSIONS: The agreed joint BASK-EKS consensus statements on UKA practice are recommended as the contemporary basis of optimal care for these patients and should inform future training and service developments.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines established that hemithyroidectomy (HT) is an appropriate treatment for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer. HT rates increased since the ATA guidelines were released; however, the relationship between surgeon volume and the initial extent of surgery has not been established.
A statewide database was used to identify patients with thyroid cancer who underwent initial thyroidectomy from 2013 to 2020. High-volume thyroid surgeons were defined as those who performed >25 thyroid procedures per year. A mixed-effect logistic model was used to compare low- and high-volume surgeons\' initial extent of surgery pre-2015 and post-2015 ATA guidelines. Descriptive statistics were used to describe other surgical outcomes.
The analysis included 3199 patients with thyroid cancer who underwent initial thyroidectomy. Twenty-four surgeons (6%) were considered high-volume; they performed 48% (n = 1349) of the operations. After the 2015 ATA guidelines were released, the rate of HT increased significantly for low- (23% to 28%, P = 0.042) but not high-volume (19% to 23%, P = 0.149) surgeons. Low-volume surgeons had significantly higher rates of readmission (P = 0.008), re-operation (P = 0.030), complications (P < 0.001), and emergency room visits (P = 0.002) throughout the entire study period.
The publication of the 2015 ATA guidelines was associated with a significant increase in HT rates, primarily in low-volume thyroid surgeons. While low-volume surgeons began performing more HTs, they continued to have higher rates of readmission, reoperations, complications, and emergency room visits than high-volume surgeons.

BACKGROUND: A 2014 SSO-ASTRO guideline on surgical margins aimed to reduce unnecessary reoperation after breast conserving surgery (BCS). We investigate whether publication of the guideline was associated with a reduction in reoperation in Western Australia (WA).
METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study, cases of newly-diagnosed breast cancer were identified from the WA Cancer Registry. Linkage to the Hospital Morbidity Data Collection identified index BCS for invasive cancer between January 2009 and June 2018 (N = 8059) and reoperation within 90 days. Pre-guideline (2009-2013) and post-guideline (2014-2018) reoperation proportions were compared, and temporal trends were estimated with generalised linear regression.
RESULTS: The pre-guideline reoperation proportion was 25.8% compared with 21.7% post-guideline (difference -4.0% [95% CI -5.9, -2.2, p < 0.001], odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.72, 0.89, p < 0.001]). Absolute reductions were similar for repeat BCS (16.3% versus 14.6%; difference -1.8% [95% CI -3.4, -0.2, p = 0.03]) and conversion to mastectomy (9.4% versus 7.2%; difference -2.2% [95% CI -3.4, -1.0, p < 0.001]). Over the study period, there was an annual absolute change in reoperation of -0.8% (95% CI -1.2, -0.5, p < 0.001). Accounting for this linear trend, the difference in reoperation between time periods was -0.5% (95% CI -4.3, 3.3; p = 0.81), reflecting a non-significant reduction in conversion to mastectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of pre- versus post-guideline time periods in WA showed reductions in reoperation that were similar to international estimates; however, an annual decline in reoperation predated the guideline. Analyses that do not account for temporal trends are likely to overestimate changes in reoperation associated with the guideline.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common metabolic and bariatric surgical (MBS) procedure worldwide. Despite the desired effect of SG on weight loss and remission of obesity-associated medical problems, there are some concerns regarding the need to do revisional/conversional surgeries after SG. This study aims to make an algorithmic clinical approach based on an expert-modified Delphi consensus regarding redo-surgeries after SG, to give bariatric and metabolic surgeons a guideline that might help for the best clinical decision.
Forty-six recognized bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 25 different countries participated in this Delphi consensus study in two rounds to develop a consensus on redo-surgeries after SG. An agreement/disagreement ≥ 70.0% on statements was considered to indicate a consensus.
Consensus was reached for 62 of 72 statements and experts did not achieve consensus on 10 statements after two rounds of online voting. Most of the experts believed that multi-disciplinary team evaluation should be done in all redo-procedures after SG and there should be at least 12 months of medical and supportive management before performing redo-surgeries after SG for insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, experts agreed that in case of symptomatic GERD in the presence of adequate weight loss, medical treatment for at least 1 to 2 years is an acceptable option and agreed that Roux-en Y gastric bypass is an appropriate option in this situation. There was disagreement consensus on efficacy of omentopexy in rotation and efficacy of fundoplication in the presence of a dilated fundus and GERD.
Redo-surgeries after SG is still an important issue among bariatric and metabolic surgeons. The proper time and procedure selection for redo-surgery need careful considerations. Although multi-disciplinary team evaluation plays a key role to evaluate best options in these situations, an algorithmic clinical approach based on the expert\'s consensus as a guideline can help for the best clinical decision-making.

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) updated its guidelines on overlapping surgery in 2016. The objective was to examine differences in postoperative outcomes after overlapping surgery either pre-ACS guideline revision or post-guideline revision, in a coarsened exact matching sample.
A total of 3327 consecutive adult patients undergoing single-level posterior lumbar fusion from 2013 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were separated into a pre-ACS guideline revision cohort (surgery before April 2016) or a post-guideline revision cohort (surgery after October 2016) for comparison. The primary outcomes were proportion of cases performed with any degree of overlap, and adverse events including 30-day and 90-day rates of readmission, reoperation, emergency department visit, morbidity, and mortality. Subsequently, coarsened exact matching was used among overlapping surgery patients only to assess the impact of the ACS guideline revision on overlapping outcomes, and controlling for attending surgeon and key patient characteristics known to affect surgical outcomes.
After the implementation of the ACS guidelines, fewer cases were performed with overlap (22.0% vs. 53.7%; P < 0.001). Patients in the post-ACS guideline revision cohort experienced improved rates of readmission and reoperation within 30 and 90 days. However, when limited to overlapping cases only, no differences were observed in overlap outcomes pre-ACS versus post-ACS guideline revision. Similarly, when exact matched on risk-associated patient characteristics and attending surgeon, overlapping surgery patients pre-ACS and post-ACS guideline revision experienced similar rates of 30-day and 90-day outcomes.
After the ACS guideline revision, no discernable impact was observed on postoperative outcomes after lumbar fusion performed with overlap.