No abstract

Background Fasting during Ramadan is one of the five pillars of the Muslim faith. Despite the positive effects of fasting on health, there are no guidelines or clear recommendations regarding fasting after metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS). The current study reports the result of a modified Delphi consensus among expert metabolic/bariatric surgeons with experience in managing patients who fast after MBS. Methods A committee of 61 well-known metabolic and bariatric surgeons from 24 countries was created to participate in the Delphi consensus. The committee voted on 45 statements regarding recommendations and controversies around fasting after MBS. An agreement/disagreement ≥ of 70.0% was regarded as consensus. ResultsThe experts reached a consensus on 40 out of 45 statements after two rounds of voting. One hundred percent of the experts believed that fasting needs special nutritional support in patients who underwent MBS. The decision regarding fasting must be coordinated among the surgeon, the nutritionist and the patient. At any time after MBS, 96.7% advised stopping fasting in the presence of persistent symptoms of intolerance. Seventy percent of the experts recommended delaying fasting after MBS for 6 to 12 months after combined and malabsorptive procedures according to the patient's situation and surgeon's experience, and 90.1% felt that proton pump inhibitors should be continued in patients who start fasting less than 6 months after MBS. There was consensus that fasting may help in weight loss, improvement/remission of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus among 88.5%, 90.2%, 88.5%, 85.2% and 85.2% of experts, respectively. Conclusion Experts voted and reached a consensus on 40 statements covering various aspects of fasting after MBS.

Buerger's disease or thromboangiitis obliterans causes pain, ulceration, or gangrene in the lower or upper extremity. It is associated with chronic cigarette smoking and is believed to be an immune mediated vasculitis. The pathogenesis is still unknown but recent postulate of its association with odontal bacteria has generated much renewed interest. Despite its recognition more than a century ago, little progress has been made in its treatment. Until the pathogenesis is elucidated, abstinence from cigarette is the only effective therapy.

The guidelines pertaining to prescription of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent endocarditis during dermatological surgery appear clear and well-documented. The British Society for Dermatological Surgery, in agreement with the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, state that antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis is not required for routine dermatological surgery procedures even in the presence of a pre-existing heart lesion. Pre-existing cardiac lesions include prosthetic valves, history of bacterial endocarditis, congenital cardiac malformation, rheumatic or other acquired valvular dysfunction, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or mitral valve prolapse with regurgitation. It is important to distinguish between antibiotic prophylaxis for wound infection and that for bacterial endocarditis. Routine procedures, such as punches, shaves, curettage and simple excisions, performed on clean intact skin have an extremely low risk of wound infection (1-4%). The risk of wound infection increases to 5-15% with clean-contaminated skin surgery that includes procedures involving eroded or ulcerated skin, respiratory or buccal mucosa, flexural areas and protracted procedures such as Mohs' micrographic surgery. In such cases, antibiotic prophylaxis may be considered in patients with a cardiac lesion because a wound infection may result in bacteraemia and subsequent endocarditis. This should therefore not be considered 'routine' dermatological surgery. In contaminated, dirty and/or infected classes of wounds the risk of wound infection is higher (> 25%). Elective skin surgery should be postponed if possible until the wound infection is treated with therapeutic antibiotics.

Results of both methods were comparable and demonstrated that the ano-coccygeal support is at least as effective as LIS, without any short-term complications. Larger and randomised trials on the use of ano-coccygeal support for chronic anal fissures are awaited.