Revisional vs. primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass--a case-matched analysis: less weight loss in revisions

Long-term outcomes of revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass post laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric surgeries following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) have demonstrated a dramatic increase worldwide. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become a contender as an appropriate revisional procedure; however, no long-term data currently exist on the effectiveness of it as a revisional surgery post-LSG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent LSG at a public hospital in Kuwait from 2008 to 2017. A list was obtained of those who underwent revisional OAGB surgery after initial LSG, after which a phone survey was performed and demographics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients underwent revisional OAGB post-initial LSG, of which 89.7% were female. Prior to LSG, the mean weight of the patients was 127.5 kg, and the mean BMI was 49.0 kg/m2. The mean weight loss after initial LSG was 43.8 kg, while the average duration until patients underwent revisional OAGB was 5.3 years. The cause for revision was weight regain (86.2%) or inadequate weight loss (13.8%). Prior to undergoing revisional OAGB, the weight and BMI of the patients was 110.9 kg and 42.4 kg/m2, respectively. Revisional OAGB demonstrated a %excess weight loss of 14.5%, 31.9%, 48.0%, 56.3%, 57.2%, and 54.7% at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively. Twelve morbidities were reported during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is technically demanding and may be associated with a high complication rate. However, OAGB as a revisional procedure has proven to be safe and effective in the long-term outcomes of revisional OAGB patients post-LSG.

Efficacy of the argon plasma coagulation in patients with weight regain after gastric bypass: a randomized control trial

Background and study aims  Endoscopic procedure using argon plasma coagulation (APC) promotes a progressive reduction in gastrojejunal anastomosis diameter. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the APC in patients with weight regain in the postoperative periods of gastric bypass. Patients and methods  This was a randomized controlled trial conducted with 66 patients who were randomly assigned selected (using lottery method) and divided into two groups: study group (SG), 38 patients (APC treatment); and control group (CG), 28 patients (only endoscopy procedure). We considered 30 days,180 days, and one year as short-term, medium-term, and long-term, respectively. The parameters analyzed were total weight loss (TWL), excess weight loss (%EWL), total weight loss (%TWL), and reduction of weight regain (%RWR). Furthermore, a biopsy for neoplastic histological changes was carried out for the APC group. For statistical analysis, values of P  < 0.05 were considered significant. Results  The %TWL and %RWR were higher in the SG in short, medium, and long terms, when compared to the same periods in the CG ( P  < 0.001). One year after follow-up, the final weight did not reach the statistical difference between groups. Biopsy performed in SG 1 year after APC did not reveal neoplastic histological changes. Conclusions  APC effectively treats weight regain after bariatric surgery in the short and medium-term. An important "new" weight gain was observed in the long-term, showing that obesity is a chronic disease that requires multidisciplinary and family care for life. Also, APC is a safe procedure with low adverse event rates.

Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is becoming more common, with an estimated increase of more than 300% from 2017 to 2018. For these complex procedures, the role of robotics is still debated. The purpose of our study is to report the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted RBSs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of electronic medical records was conducted for robotic-assisted RBSs performed at the Mayo Clinic in Florida, between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020. Peri- and postoperative data were analyzed, reviewing patient characteristics, indications for surgery, and outcomes.

RESULTS

From 160 RBSs performed during the study period, 67 were robotic-assisted and met inclusion criteria. Primary procedures included sleeve gastrectomy (26 [38.8%]), adjustable gastric band (24 [35.8%]), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (14 [20.9%]), vertical-banded gastroplasty (2 [3.0%]), and duodenal switch (1 [1.5%]). RBSs performed were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (49 [73.1%]), redo gastrojejunostomy (14 [20.9%]), and duodenal switch (4 [6.0%]). Rate of conversion to open procedure and rate of readmission 1 month after surgery were 6.0% and 7.5%, respectively. Rate of 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events was 4.5%. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Fifty-two patients presented with preoperative symptoms, and 69.2% reported improvement after RBS. Mean (SD) excess weight loss was 57.62% (23.80) 12 months after RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBSs are safe with low major adverse event rates. Symptom resolution and weight loss outcomes are acceptable.

Midterm results of revisional bariatric surgery postsleeve gastrectomy: resleeve versus bypass

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been shown to produce the most predictable weight loss results, with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most performed procedure as of 2014. However, inadequate weight loss may present the need for a revisional procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic resleeve gastrectomy (LRSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in attaining successful weight loss.

SETTING

Public hospital following SG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent SG from 2008-2019. A list was obtained of those who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after initial SG, and their demographic characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2858 patients underwent SG, of whom 84 patients (3%) underwent either a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB) or LRSG. A total of 82% of the patients were female. The mean weight and body mass index (BMI) before SG for the LRSG and rLRYGB patients were 136.7 kg and 49.9 kg/m² and 133.9 kg and 50.5 kg/m², respectively. The mean BMI showed a drop from 42.0 to 31.7 (P < .001) 1 year post revisional surgery for the LRSG group and 42.7 to 34.5 (P < .001) for the rLRYGB group, correlating to an excess weight loss (EWL) of 61.7% and 48.1%, respectively. At 5 years post revisional surgery, LRSG patients showed an increase in BMI to 33.8 (EWL = 45.3%), while those who underwent rLRYGB showed a decrease to 34.3 (EWL = 49.2%). Completeness of follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years for rLRYGB and LRSG were 67%, 35%, and 24% and 45%, 21%, and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery is a safe and effective method for the management of failed primary SG. LRSG patients tended to do better earlier on; however, it leveled off with those who underwent rLRYGB by 5 years.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

Revisional Gastric Bypass Is Inferior to Primary Gastric Bypass in Terms of Short- and Long-term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Although Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the main primary bariatric procedure, it has also been utilized as revisional bariatric surgery. Our aim is to compare revisionary gastric bypass with primary gastric bypass through systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods

Available literature was searched for eligible studies up to December 2017. Inclusion criteria were reports on morbidity, %EWL, or diabetes remission. Secondary outcomes involved mortality, anastomotic leakage, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Random effect meta-analyses were undertaken.

Results

Initial search yielded 1164 references. Final meta-analysis involved 21 studies and revealed significant differences in terms of morbidity (RR1.54, p < 0.001) and EWL (WMD-19.9, p < 0.001). There were no differences in diabetes remission.

Conclusion

Revisionary RYGB has worse weight loss effect with greater morbidity rate than primary RYGB.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-018-3300-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Primary Versus Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Long-Term Results

AIMS

To compare the perioperative parameters and excess weight loss between patients operated by laporoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), as a primary operation or a revisional, for insufficient weight loss after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a LRYGB was performed for the period 2004-2011. Demographics, preoperative body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, operation time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, hospitalization period, and % of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-two laparoscopic gastric bypass operations were performed, 245 were primary, and 97 revisional. Median follow-up was 30 months (range 0-108 months). Mean BMI (kg/m²) before bypass was 45.2 for primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (pLRYGB) and 41.1 for revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB). Median operative time and length of stay were longer for rLRYGB 157.5 versus 235 min (p < 0.001) and 6 versus 6.5 days (p = 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy was performed in eight patients, 0.4% of primary and 7.2% of revisional. Morbidity rate was 6.5% in pLRYGB versus 10% in rLRYGB (NS). There was one death in the primary group. Percentage of EBMIL was significantly lower in the revisional group at 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional and primary gastric bypass have no statistical differences in terms of morbidity. The % of excess BMI loss is lower after revisional gastric bypass during the first 2 years of follow-up. The trend of weight loss or weight regain was similar in both groups.

Psychological and Behavioral Aspects of Primary and Reoperative Surgery: a 6-Month Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Problematic eating behaviors and general psychopathology have been associated with poor weight loss after bariatric surgery. However, little is known about how these aspects impact weight loss outcomes for the increasing number of patients undergoing reoperative surgeries. This study compares disordered eating and weight-related outcomes before and 6 months after surgery in patients undergoing primary (P-Group) and reoperative bariatric surgery (R-Group).

METHODS

This longitudinal study assessed 122 P-Group and 116 R-Group patients before and 6 months after surgery. The assessment included the eating disorder examination diagnostic items, and a set of self-report measures assessing eating disorder symptomatology, grazing, depression, anxiety, and negative urgency.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, no differences were found between the R- and P-Groups in terms of disordered eating-related variables (except for shape concern, which was higher for the R-Group). At 6 months after surgery, the R-Group revealed significantly higher values for restraint (F(1,219) = 5.84, p = 0.016), shape (F(1,219) = 5.59, p = 0.019), weight concerns (F(1,219) = 13.36, p = 0.000), depression (F(1,219) = 7.17, p = 0.008), anxiety (F(1,219) = 6.94, p = - 0.009), and compulsive grazing (F(1,219) = 6.13, p = 0.014). No significant pre- or post-surgery predictors of weight loss were found for the P-Group (χ2 = 0.70, p = 0.872). In the R-Group, post-surgery anxiety (Waldχ²(1) = 6.19, p = 0.01) and the post-surgery number of days with grazing in the previous month (Waldχ²(1) = 3.90, p = 0.04) were significant predictors of weight loss.

CONCLUSION

At 6 months after surgery, the R-Group presented more problematic eating and general psychological distress, which may put these patients at greater risk of poorer long-term weight outcomes.

Outcomes of Omega Loop Gastric Bypass, 6-Years Experience of 1520 Cases

BACKGROUND

Omega loop gastric bypass (OLGB) has been viewed with skepticism after the failure of the "old Mason loop." During the past 15 years, a growing number of authors worldwide approved that OLGB is a safe and effective procedure, which appears clearly from the operative outcome and long-term follow-up of consecutive cohort studies of patients who underwent OLGB. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of OLGB at the bariatric center of our university hospital between 2009 and 2015.

METHODS

The data of 1520 patients who underwent OLGB from November 2009 to December 2015 at our center were reviewed. Mean age was 37.15 years, mean preoperative BMI was 46.8 ± 6.6 kg/m², mean preoperative weight was 127.4 ± 25.3 kg, and 62.7% were women. Diabetes mellitus (DM) affected 683 (44.9%) of the 1520 patients, whereas 773 of the 1520 patients (50.9%) presented with hypertension. The mean operative time was 35 min.

RESULTS

The 1-year postoperative BMI mean decreased to 29.6 ± 3.1 kg/m², and at the 3-year follow-up, it was 27.5 ± 3.4 kg/m². The mean of weight decreased to 81.3 ± 16.7 kg and to 78.9 ± 16.9 kg at the 1-year and the 3-year follow-up, respectively. Mortality rate was 0.1%. Overall complications were 9.3%; 0.8% required reoperations. Early complications were encountered in 50 patients (3.3%), and the late complications rate was (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, greater excess weight loss was observed with OLGB which appeared to be a short, simple, low-risk, effective, and durable bariatric procedure.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Outcomes of a case-matched comparison of primary versus revisional surgery

Introduction:

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are popular bariatric procedures. Certain complications may necessitate revision. Adverse outcomes are reported after revisional bariatric surgery. We compared patients undergoing revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

Materials and Methods

This was retrospective comparative 1:1 case-matched analysis of revisional LRYGB Group A versus primary LRYGB (pLRYGB/Group B). Matching was based on body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities. BMI decrease at 6 and 12 months post-surgery, comorbidity resolution, operative time, morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. Total decrease in BMI, i.e., change from before initial bariatric procedure to 12 months after revision for Group A was also compared.

Results:

Median BMI (inter-quartile range) for Group A decreased to 44.74 (7.09) and 41.49 (6.26) at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for Group B corresponding figures were 38.74 (6.9) and 33.79 (6.64) (P = 0.001 and P = 0.0001, respectively). Total decrease in BMI (Group A) was 9.8, whereas BMI decrease at 12 months for Group B was 15.2 (P = 0.23). Hypertension resolved in 63% (Group A), 70% (Group B) (P = 0.6). Diabetes resolution was 80% (Group A), 63% (Group B) (P = 0.8). Operative time for Groups A, B was 151 ± 17, 137 ± 11 min, respectively (P = 0.004). There was no difference in morbidity and LOS.

Conclusion:

Comorbidity resolution after revisional and pLRYGB are similar. Less weight loss is achieved after revision than after pLRYGB, but total weight loss is comparable. Revisional surgery is safe when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centres.

Single Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-Comparative Short-Term Outcome Study of Conversional and Primary Procedures

BACKGROUND

Single anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) has been established as a safe and effective bariatric procedure. SAGB has also been suggested as a conversion option from other procedures, but so far not extensively explored in that direction.

METHODS

The study retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 154 consecutive SAGB procedures, including 48 conversional SAGB (cSAGB) and 106 primary SAGB (pSAGB). Preoperative physical dimensions and perioperative complications were obtained. Patients were followed 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, with weight measurements compared between groups.

RESULTS

Operative times were longer in the cSAGB group but length of hospital stay was the same for both groups. Sixty-five percent of the cSAGB group had adjustable banding as a primary operation, and 94 % opted for conversion due to insufficient weight loss or regain thereof. Follow-up data availability was 98, 82, and 79 % for the three checkpoints. Three and 6 months postoperatively, cSAGB had inferior mean excess weight loss (EWL) compared to pSAGB, though both groups were successful after 6 months (mean EWL >50 %). Body mass index loss was significantly higher for pSAGB for the first postoperative 3 months. Low complication rates in both groups precluded statistical comparison in that respect.

DISCUSSION

Initial weight loss after conversional SAGB is inferior to primary SAGB after 6 months. The observed safety of cSAGB is comparable to previous evidence for this procedure in the conversional settings.

CONCLUSION

SAGB may be considered as a safe and effective conversional procedure, but not as effective as pSAGB for initial weight loss.

Management of Complications and Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: 3-Year Experience at a Bariatric Center of Excellence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasingly common. A tailored decision-making process is advocated. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the RBS experience of a single center, analyzing perioperative complications to provide insight into management options and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Records from November 2011 to March 2015 were reviewed from prospectively maintained database. Six hundred eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures; of these, 81 (13.1 %) underwent RBS. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months (n = 77) were evaluated. Fifty-nine underwent revised laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 18 underwent revised Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Indications for RBS were inadequate weight loss or weight regain in 42 cases (54.5 %) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), procedure-related complications, or technical failure in 35 cases (45.5 %).

RESULTS

There were no deaths or conversions to open surgery. After a mean follow-up of 22 months, body mass index (BMI) decreased from 40.9 ± 6.7 to 31.9 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), mean % excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58 ± 24.3 %, and 55.3 % of patients had resolution of comorbidities. Eight major complications (10.4 %) occurred: five leaks and three intra-abdominal hematomas. Non-surgical management succeeded in 50 % of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that RBS is challenging; a complication rate of 10 % is expected. Major surgery can be avoided when devoted endoscopists and radiologists are available. Intensive follow-up after complications allows early diagnosis and treatment of unfavorable sequelae. RBS induced a mean %EWL of 58 % at 2 years and resolution of comorbidities in 50 % of cases. However, the durability of these effects remains questionable.

Quality criteria in bariatric surgery: Consensus review and recommendations of the Spanish Association of Surgeons and the Spanish Society of Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has proven to be highly effective in controlling obesity and metabolic syndrome; the results of this surgery are not only expressed in terms of weight loss, but also in terms of resolution of comorbidities, improved quality of life and complications. The different parameters used to measure these outcomes require uniformity and reference patterns. Therefore, it is essential to identify those indicators and quality criteria that are helpful in defining the «best practice» principles in bariatric surgery. In this regard, the Section of Obesity of the Spanish Association of Surgeons, in collaboration with the Spanish Society for Bariatric Surgery (SECO), present as an objective to identify the key points that define «quality» in this type of surgery. We describe the main indicators based on the published literature as well as the criteria for referral of the main comorbidities according to the evidence found and grades of recommendation.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes with Respective Primary Procedures

Though primary bariatric surgery is now firmly established as the first-line treatment for morbid obesity, this is not the case with revisional bariatric surgery. Despite proven benefits and patient demand, revisional bariatric surgery continues to attract controversy. Even though it is widely believed to be riskier and less effective than primary bariatric surgery, there is currently no systematic review in literature addressing this point. This review aims to establish outcomes after revisional bariatric surgery in comparison with those after primary bariatric surgery. Since Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy is currently the commonest anatomy achieved after revisional bariatric surgery, this review focuses on the outcome of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with respective primary procedures.

Outcomes of revisional treatment modalities in non-complicated Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients with weight regain

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is an effective treatment modality for severe obesity. Failure of weight loss and/or weight regain due to lack of restriction has been reported in long-term follow-up studies. The aim of this study is to determine the safety and effectiveness of reestablishing the restrictive component of the operation by trimming the pouch and/or anastomosis for pouch and/or anastomotic enlargement using a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected database for all patients that underwent revisional surgery of RYGB for weight regain or failure of weight loss. Percent excess weight loss (%EWL) and BMI loss (BMIL) were characterized into the following three time periods: (1) primary operation to pre-revision, (2) pre-revision to post-revision, and (3) primary operation to post-revision. Post-operative follow-up was at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2011, a total of 121 patients in the database underwent revision of RYGB. Forty-four patients were identified that fulfilled the aforementioned parameters. In this group, 30 patients underwent trimming of the pouch and/or redo anastomosis (TPA), 8 TPA and conversion from retrocolic to antecolic Roux limb, and 6 TPA with remnant gastrectomy. Mean follow-up period was 26.1 ± 22.7 months. The post-revision mean %EWL was 38%, and the BMI loss was 7 kg/m(2). In the pre-revision to 48 months post-revision time period, mean %EWL and BMIL were 28.6% and 4.9 kg/m(2) in the TPA-only group, 52% and 8.8 kg/m(2) in the TPA with conversion to antecolic, antegastric group, and 33.4% and 5.9 kg/m(2) in the TPA with gastrectomy group, respectively (%EWL, p = 0.096; BMIL, p = 0.227). One patient (2.3%) developed a left upper quadrant hematoma. There was no mortality in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

Trimming of the pouch and/or anastomosis appears to be a safe and effective revisional modality for patients with insufficient weight loss or weight regain after gastric bypass in the hands of experienced surgeons.

Preoperative Predictive Factors of Successful Weight Loss and Glycaemic Control 1 Year After Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity

BACKGROUND

Gastric bypass (GBP) is one of the most effective surgical procedures to treat morbid obesity and the related comorbidities. This study aimed at identifying preoperative predictors of successful weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission 1 year after GBP.

METHODS

Prospective longitudinal study of 771 patients who underwent GBP was performed at four Italian centres between November 2011 and May 2013 with 1-year follow-up. Preoperative anthropometric, metabolic and social parameters, the surgical technique and the previous failed bariatric procedures were analyzed. Weight, the body mass index (BMI), the percentage of excess weight lost (% EWL), the percentage of excess BMI lost (% BMIL) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were recorded at follow-up.

RESULTS

Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that BMI <50 kg/m(2) (p = 0.006) and dyslipidaemia (p = 0.05) were predictive factors of successful weight loss. Multivariate analysis of surgical technique showed significant weight loss in patients with a small gastric pouch (p < 0.001); the lengths of alimentary and biliary loops showed no statistical significance. All diabetic patients had a significant reduction of HbA1c (p < 0.001) after surgery. BMI ≥ 50 kg/m(2) (p = 0.02) and low level of preoperative HbA1c (p < 0.01) were independent risk factors of T2DM remission after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a useful tool for making more accurate predictions of best results in terms of weight loss and metabolic improvement.

Quality of life, weight loss and improvement of co-morbidities after primary and revisional laparoscopic roux Y gastric bypass procedure-comparative match pair study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of morbid obesity and its co-morbidities is dramatically increasing, as is the extent of weight loss surgery. A large number of patients after various bariatric procedures need revisional intervention for various reasons. We investigated the efficacy and the safety of revisional laparoscopic Roux Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) among our patients, who were revised as a consequence of inadequate weight loss or weight regain after previous bariatric interventions.

METHODS

A comparative, double-centre, match pair study was performed comparing the data of 44 patients after revisional surgery with 44 patients after primary gastric bypasses, focusing on weight loss, life quality and improvement of co-morbidities. Matching criteria were age, gender, preoperative BMI and follow-up period. Previous procedures consisted of 23 gastric bandings, 13 sleeve resections, 4 LRYGB and 4 vertical banded gastroplasties.

RESULTS

Extra weight loss (EWL) was significantly reduced after revisional gastric bypasses compared to primary intervention (EWL 66 vs. 91 %, p<0.05). Life quality scores were also decreased in the revisional group compared to the control group without statistical significance (SF 36 score 635 vs. 698.5, p=0.22; Moorehead-Aldert II score 1.4 vs. 2.0, p=0.10). The resolution rate of co-morbidities (T2DM, hypertension, gastro-oesophageal reflux (GER), osteoarthrosis, sleep apnoea) was also higher after primary gastric bypasses.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LRYGB is an effective and safe method for patients with inadequate weight loss after previous bariatric surgery concerning weight reduction, life quality and improvement of co-morbidities. Our results indicate lower efficacy of revisional compared to primary LRYGB reaching statistical significance in regard to weight loss.

Laparoscopic hand-sewn revisional gastrojejunal plication for weight loss failure after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery has become a widely accepted alternative for weight loss failure/regain after bariatric surgery. However, it is associated to higher morbi-mortality and lesser weight loss than primary bariatric procedure. Our aims are to present a novel technique for weight loss treatment after failed laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and to report its short-term results.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of patients submitted to a revisional hand-sewn double-layer gastrojejunal plication (GJP) for treatment of weight loss failure/regain after LRYGB. Analysis of demographics, body mass index (BMI), and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at the 6th month complications, and financial costs involved was included.

RESULTS

Four patients were submitted to revisional GJP. Three patients were female and the mean age at revision was 30 ± 9 years (21-44). The median time interval between LRYGB and GJP was 51 months (24-120). The median BMI at the moment of GJP and the 3rd and 6th month was 35.6 kg/m2 (32.0-37.8), 32.2 kg/m2 (29.7-34.1), and 30.7 kg/m2 (28.1-32.1), respectively. The median %EWL at the 3rd and 6th month was 35.4% (13.6-38.9) and 46.2 % (45.1-55.5), respectively, reaching a cumulative (combined surgeries) %EWL of 62.9% (16.5-67.9) and 71.7% (65.1-77.6), respectively. There were no complications or mortality. Financial costs were significantly lower compared to revisional gastrojejunal stapled reduction (US $1400 cheaper).

CONCLUSION

Revisional GJP is a feasible, safe, and cost-effective novel procedure for treatment of weight loss failure/regain after LRYGB. Mid- and long-term results are necessary in order to establish its real effectiveness.

Greater weight loss with the omega loop bypass compared to the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Despite similar initial results on weight loss and metabolic control, with a better feasibility than the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP), the omega loop bypass (OLB) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of the laparoscopic OLB versus the RYGBP in terms of weight loss, metabolic control, and safety.

METHODS

Two groups of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery were selected: 20 OLB patients and 61 RYGBP patients. Patients were matched for age, gender, and initial body mass index (BMI). Data concerning weight loss, metabolic outcomes, and complications were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Mean duration of the surgical procedure was shorter in the OLB group (105 vs. 152 min in the RYGBP group; p < 0.001). Mean excess BMI loss percent (EBL%) at 6 months and at 1 year was greater in the OLB group (76.3 vs. 60.0%, p = 0.001, and 89.0 vs. 71.0%, p = 0.002, respectively). After adjustment for age, sex, initial BMI, and history of previous bariatric surgery, the OLB procedure was still associated with a significantly greater 1-year EBL%. Diabetes improvement at 6 months was similar between both groups. The early and late complication rates were not statistically different. There were three anastomotic ulcers in the OLB group, in smokers, over 60 years old, who were not taking proton pump inhibitor medication.

CONCLUSIONS

In this short-term study, we observed a greater weight loss with OLB and similar efficiency on metabolic control compared to RYGBP. Long-term evaluation is necessary to confirm these outcomes.

Meta-analysis of the predictive value of C-reactive protein for infectious complications in abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this analysis was to assess the predictive value of C-reactive protein (CRP) for the early detection of postoperative infectious complications after a variety of abdominal operations.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of seven cohort studies from a single institution was performed. Laparoscopic gastric bypass and colectomies, as well as open resections of cancer of the colon, rectum, pancreas, stomach and oesophagus, were included. The predictive value of CRP was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

Of 1986 patients, 577 (29·1 (95 per cent c.i. 27·1 to 31·3) per cent) had at least one postoperative infectious complication. Patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass (383 patients) or colectomy (285), and those having open gastric (97) or colorectal (934) resections were combined in a meta-analysis. Patients who had resection for cancer of the oesophagus (41) or pancreas (246) were analysed separately owing to heterogeneity. CRP levels 4 days after surgery had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0·76, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 0·78). Sensitivity and specificity were 68·5 (60·6 to 75·5) and 71·6 (66·6 to 76·0) per cent respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 50·4 (46·0 to 54·8) and 84·3 (80·8 to 87·3) per cent. The threshold CRP varied according to the procedure performed.

CONCLUSION

The negative predictive value of serum CRP concentration on day 4 after surgery facilitates reliable exclusion of postoperative infectious complications.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was 'surgical complications', and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of 'adverse events'. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

Perioperative risk and complications of revisional bariatric surgery compared to primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

INTRODUCTION

Growing number of patients requires revisional bariatric surgery. This study compares perioperative course and outcomes of revisional versus primary bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery from Jan 1997 to Sept 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Every revisional patient with BMI >35 and age <70 was matched with a primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass control patient based on preoperative BMI, age, sex, and year of surgery. Patients' preoperative indications, intraoperative/postoperative course, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty five patients underwent revisional bariatric surgery with resulting Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy while 1,674 patients underwent primary gastric bypass in the same time interval. Of 255 patients, 172 patients were paired with 172 primary gastric bypass patients. Revisional bariatric group had preoperative BMI 48 ± 9, age 52 ± 9 years, 93 % female, 44 % laparoscopic, 30 % diabetic, 60 % hypertensive. Primary bypass patients had preoperative BMI 49 ± 8, age 52 ± 9 years, 93 % female, 97 % laparoscopic, 49 % diabetic, 67 % hypertensive. Compared to primary bypass patients, revisional patients had significantly higher estimated blood loss (463.7 vs. 113.3 mL), longer operative time (272.5 vs. 175.5 min), greater risk for ICU stay (N = 24, 14 % vs. N = 2, 1 %), and longer hospital stay (5.6 vs. 2.5 days). There were significantly more intraoperative liver (N = 13, 8 % vs. N = 1, 1 %) and spleen (N = 18, 10 % vs. N = 0) injuries, and more enterotomies (N = 9, 5 % vs. N = 0) in the revisional group. There were also significantly more postoperative complications (N = 94, 55 % vs. N = 48, 28 %), readmissions (N = 27, 16 % vs. N = 12, 7 %), and reoperations (N = 16, 9 % vs. N = 3, 2 %) within 30 days of surgery. Mean percentage weight loss at 1 year was significantly less for revisional patients (27 vs. 37 %). There was no significant difference in 30 day mortality between the two groups (N = 6 vs. 0).

CONCLUSION

Even in experienced hands, complex revisional bariatric surgery should be approached with significant caution, especially given that weight loss is less substantial.

Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications

BACKGROUND

There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3%) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1 ± 11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0 ± 13.7 kg/m2. Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6%). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n = 106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n = 48). In group A, 74.5% of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5% to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7 ± 29.3% after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6 ± 35.1% after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). In group B, the complications prompting revision were effectively treated by revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery effectively treated the undesirable results from primary bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic revisional surgery can be performed after both failed open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures without a prohibitive complication rate. Carefully selected patients undergoing revision for weight regain have satisfactory additional weight loss.

Relevance of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass volumetry using 3-dimensional gastric computed tomography with gas to predict weight loss at 1 year

BACKGROUND

Causes of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) failures are still controversial. Literature data suggest that gastric pouch or gastrojejunal anastomosis distentions over time could be a key factor. Making the hypothesis that progressive distention of RYGB volumes is 1 of the main factors of weight loss failure, the aim of our study was to evaluate bypass volumes changes using repeated 3-dimensional gastric computed tomography with gas and the possible negative correlation with weight loss results at 1 year.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients eligible for RYGB were prospectively included. Gastric bypass volumes were assessed at 3 and 12 months postsurgery performing 3-dimensional gastric computed tomography with gas and weight loss outcomes were recorded during the first postoperative year.

RESULTS

There was no loss to follow up. Mean % excess body mass index lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year was 66.7%. Seven patients (17.9%) did not reach Reinhold criteria and were considered as RYGB failures. We found no linear correlation between the 1 year %EBMIL and mean values of the gastric pouch (r=.01; P=.94), and the neo stomach (r=.09 ; P=.57) at 3 months. Revisional surgery was correlated negatively with %EBMIL at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Weight loss at 1 year does not seem to be correlated to RYGB volume changes. Behavioral factors probably play a major role in weight loss failure.

Long-term follow-up evaluation of endoscopic sclerotherapy for dilated gastrojejunostomy after gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sclerotherapy using sodium morrhuate has been used to treat patients with weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass whose presumed etiology is loss of restriction due to gastrojejunostomy dilation. Weight loss and stability have been demonstrated in several studies with short-term follow-up evaluation.

METHODS

This retrospective review evaluated all the patients who underwent sclerotherapy for a dilated gastrojejunostomy between 2007 and 2012.

RESULTS

The study identified 48 patients with a mean follow-up period of 22 months (range 12-60 months). The mean age of these patients was 47.5 ± 10.5 years, and 92 % were women. The average weight loss from the primary procedure was 132.5 ± 54.82 lb, and the average weight regain from the lowest weight to the maximum weight before sclerotherapy was 46 ± 40.32 lb. The median number of sclerotherapy sessions was two (range 1-4). The pre-procedure mean gastrojejunostomy diameter was 20 ± 3.6 mm, and the mean volume of sodium morrhuate injected per session was 12.8 ± 3.7 ml. The average weight loss from sclerotherapy to the final documented weight was 3.17 ± 19.70 lb, which was not statistically significant. The following variables in the multivariate analysis were not associated with statistically significant weight loss: volume of sodium morrhuate, patient age, gastrojejunostomy diameter, number of sclerotherapy sessions, decrease in gastrojejunostomy diameter between the first and second sessions, and number of follow-up years. Weight stabilization or loss was achieved by 58 % of our cohort, with a mean weight loss of 15.9 ± 14.6 lb in this subgroup.

CONCLUSION

The long-term follow-up evaluation of patients undergoing sclerotherapy of the gastrojejunostomy for weight regain after gastric bypass showed only a marginal weight loss, which was not statistically significant in our study population, although more than 50 % of the patients achieved weight loss or stabilization.

Revisional bariatric surgery is more effective for improving obesity-related co-morbidities than it is for reinducing major weight loss

BACKGROUND

Patients having previous bariatric surgery are at risk for weight regain and return of co-morbidities. If an anatomic basis for the failure is identified, many surgeons advocate revision or conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The aim of this study was to determine whether revisional bariatric surgery leads to sufficient weight loss and co-morbidity remission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2005-2012, patients undergoing revision were entered into a prospectively maintained database. Perioperative outcomes, including complications, weight loss, and co-morbidity remission, were examined for all patients with a history of a previous vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with a history of RYGB and 56 with a history of VBG were identified. Following the revisional procedure, the RYGB group experienced 35.8% excess weight loss (%EWL) and a 31.8% morbidity rate. For the VBG group, patients experienced a 46.2% %EWL from their weight before the revisional operation with a 51.8% morbidity rate. Co-morbidity remission rate was excellent. Diabetes (VBG:100%, RYGB: 85.7%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (VBG: 94.4%, RYGB: 80%), and hypertension (VBG: 74.2%, RYGB:60%) demonstrated significant improvement.

CONCLUSION

Revision of a failed RYGB or conversion of a VBG to a RYGB provides less weight loss and a higher complication rate than primary RYGB but provides an excellent opportunity for co-morbidity remission.

Revisional versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been a widely performed bariatric procedure. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30% of cases. Data comparing revisional and primary gastric bypass procedures are scarce. This study compared revisional malabsorptive laparoscopic very very long limb (VVLL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with primary VVLL RYGB and tested the hypothesis that one-stage revisional laparoscopic VVLL RYGB is an effective procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In this study, 48 revisional VVLL RYGBs were matched one-to-one with 48 primary VVLL RYGBs. The outcome measures were operating time, conversion to open surgery, excess weight loss (EWL), and early and late morbidity.

RESULTS

Surgical and medical morbidities did not differ significantly. No conversions occurred. The revisional group showed an EWL of 41.8% after 12 months of follow-up evaluation and 45.1% after 24 months based on the pre-revisional weight. The total EWL based on the weight before the LAGB was calculated to be 54.3% after 12 months and 57.2% after 24 months. The EWL in the primary RYGB group was significantly higher for both types of calculation: 41.8%/54.3% versus 64.1 % (p < 0.001 and <0.01) after 12 months and 45.1%/57.2% versus 70.4% (p < 0.001 and <0.002) after 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional laproscopic VVLL RYGB can be performed as a one-stage procedure by experienced bariatric surgeons but shows less effective EWL than primary RYGB procedures.

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass as revisional bariatric procedures: retrospective evaluation of outcomes

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.

Endoscopy in the management of obesity

Obesity affects more than one third of adults in the United States and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs compared with normal weight adults. Current therapies include medical management consisting of therapeutic lifestyle change and pharmacotherapy, which has limited effectiveness, and bariatric surgery, which is currently the most effective therapy, but is limited by complications, long-term weight regain, and limited access. Endoscopic therapies are currently under investigation to treat weight regain after bariatric surgery and as a primary treatment for obesity, addressing the current gap in the treatment of obesity.

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

Case-matched analysis comparing outcomes of revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most common approaches used to revise post-bariatric patients with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain. Previous studies have analyzed the outcomes of open revisional RYGB versus primary RYGB, but no case-control matched analysis comparing revisional LRYGB versus primary LRYGB has been performed.

METHODS

Our cohort includes 37 consecutive patients who underwent revisional LRYGB because of unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain matched in a 1:2 ratio with 74 control patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Matching included the following parameters: age, gender, preoperative body mass index and comorbidities (diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and hypertension).

RESULTS

The revisional group had longer length of stay compared with the primary group (3.8 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.02) and a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (10.8 vs. 0 %, P = 0.01). The revisional group had a higher 30-day morbidity compared with the primary group (27 vs. 8.1 %, P = 0.02). There were no deaths in both groups. The two groups had similar 30-day readmission and 30 day reoperation rates. At 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the revisional LRYGB group had significantly lower percent of excess weight loss (EWL) than the primary LRYGB group (3 months, 30 vs. 38.4, P = 0.001; 6 months, 36.3 vs. 52.9, P = 0.001; 12 months, 46.5 vs. 68.2, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LRYGB is characterized by lower EWL and higher morbidity than primary LRYGB. However, our data suggest that revisional LRYGB is still capable of providing significant weight loss in these high-risk patients.