Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10:952-972. [PMID: 24776071 DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.014]

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Results in a Shorter Hospital Stay Following Revisional Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is rapidly growing within the field of bariatric surgery. The use of robotic assisted surgery, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). There are few studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RBS. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of laparoscopic and robotic RBS in a single accredited center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either laparoscopic (L-RBS) or robotic (R-RBS) RBS between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 was performed. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day major and minor complication rates, readmission rates, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were included in our analysis. Fifty-two patients underwent R-RBS (31%), and 115 underwent L-RBS (69%). Thirty-day major and minor complication rates for R-RBS and L-RBS were 1.9% and 5.8% vs 5.2% and 5.2%, respectively (p > .05). There was no difference in readmission rates (3.8% vs 8.7%, p > 0.05) or intraoperative blood loss (35.5 mL vs 37.4 mL, p > .05) between R-RBS and L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a shorter length of stay when compared with L-RBS (40.2 h vs 62.6 h, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

R-RBS has a decreased, albeit non-significant, rate of 30-day major complications with no difference in minor complications, readmission rates, or intraoperative blood loss when compared with L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a decreased length of stay when compared with L-RBS. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.

Outcomes with Intra-gastric Balloon Therapy in BMI < 35 Non-morbid Obesity: 10-Year Follow-Up Study of an RCT

PURPOSE

Intra-gastric balloon (IGB) therapy is the most established endoscopic treatment of obesity, but there is a paucity of literature on long-term efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the short- and long-term weight loss efficacy of IGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Double-blinded RCT with 6-month IGB vs with sham endoscopy, in body mass index (BMI) 27-35 patients. Anthropometric, fasting glucose, and lipid profile measurement as early outcomes (up to 2 years) and 10-year follow-up. Primary outcomes were total body weight loss (kg) and BMI. Secondary outcomes were new-onset diabetes mellitus, other new comorbidities, and willingness for further intervention.

RESULTS

Initial RCT recruited 99 patients (50 IGB vs 49 sibutramine group). Forty-nine patients (26 IGB vs 23 control group) participated in a 10-year review (follow-up rate of 51.6%). Total body weight loss at 6 (9.75 vs 7.48 kg, p = 0.03), 12 (6.52 vs 4.42 kg, p = 0.05), 18 (5.42 vs 3.57, p = 0.32), and 24 months (4.07 vs 2.93 kg, p = 0.56) favored the IGB group. Total weight loss (TWL) at 10 years (0.03 vs - 2.32 kg, p = 0.05) and %TWL (- 0.16 ± 12.8% vs - 2.84 ± 5.6%, p = 0.39) were not significantly different between groups. Follow-up BMI (30.97 ± 1.6 vs 30.38 ± 1.8 kg/m², p = 1.00) was similar. At 10 years, new-onset diabetes mellitus, sleep apnoea, metabolic syndrome, and arthralgia were not significant (p > 0.05). Twenty-three (81%) IGB group vs 13 (56%) control expressed a willingness for further intervention (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

IGB delivers weight loss to 2 years and is superior to control. However, new comorbidity development is not significantly different at 10 years. Patient that received IGB therapy were subsequently more willing for further bariatric metabolic intervention.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m², p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m² (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach.

Treatment Options for Poor Responders to Bariatric Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to evaluate the latest evidence on the treatment options for perceived poor responders to bariatric surgery and provide practitioners with a guide on when to consider revisional surgery and when to consider alternatives.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of adjuvant pharmacotherapy has been increasingly described in the literature as an adjunct to primary bariatric surgery, in order to attain more weight loss or better control of obesity-related complications. The newer anti-obesity and anti-diabetes drugs also have cardiorenal benefits, which are shown in recent cardiovascular outcome trials. Revisional bariatric surgery has emerged as a distinctive entity and can be broadly organized into three categories: corrective, conversion, and reversal surgeries. Careful patient selection and preoperative optimization are needed to ensure long-term favorable outcomes. Newer treatment modalities involving the use of anti-obesity medications and endoscopic bariatric interventions provide patients and healthcare providers with more options, when faced with the challenge of poor response after bariatric surgery.

Patient Risk Factors Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality Following Revisional Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery for Inadequate Weight Loss or Weight Recidivism: an Analysis of the ACS-MBSAQIP Database

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric operations are associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared with primary bariatric operations. The purpose of this study was to determine if preoperative patient variables are associated with an increased risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality following revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery for inadequate weight loss or weight recidivism and to generate expected model probabilities in order to risk stratify individual patients undergoing these operations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) from 2015 to 2016 were identified with the American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-MBSAQIP) database. The association of preoperative patient variables with 30-day morbidity and mortality was investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Predictive outcome models were developed for each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 13,551 patients met inclusion criteria; 5310 (39.2%) underwent revisional RYGB. Each of the available preoperative variables was associated with one or more of the 30-day morbidity and mortality outcomes of interest. The strength of the predictive models, as reflected by the area under the curve, ranged from 0.63 for 30-day unplanned hospital readmission to 0.92 for cardiac events.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative patient and surgical variables are associated with an increased risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality following laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery. With these results, we have built a risk calculator that can be used as a resource for prehabilitation and patient counseling prior to revisional bariatric surgery.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Gastric Plication in Morbidly Obese Patients

Background: Failure of adequate weight loss or weight regain has been reported after laparoscopic greater curve plication (LGCP). The primary aim of this retrospective study is to analyze weight loss outcome after revision of failed LGCP into laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Patients and Methods: Patients who experienced failure (insufficient weight loss/weight regain) after LGCP performed in our center from 2009 to 2012 were included. LSG was performed for all patients. Results: Among 127 who underwent LGCP, 42 patients (33%) underwent revision. Mean body mass index (BMI) at time of LGCP was 44 ± 6 kg/m². The highest % total weight loss (%TWL) after LGCP ranged from 11% to 34% (24.1 ± 5) (corresponding to % excess weight loss [%EWL] of 12%-47% [33.5 ± 12]). The time interval between LGCP and LSG ranged from 12 to 25 months (15.4 ± 3.8). After conversion, 2 patients (5%) experienced acute leakage managed by endoscopic stenting. After LSG, mean BMI (kg/m²) was 38, 32, 30, 28, 29, 30.2, and 30.4, while mean %TWL reached 9%, 19%, 24%, 29%, 25%, 25%, and 24% and mean %EWL reached 15%, 51%, 69%, 77%, 68%, 66%, and 64% at 1 month, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. Except for results at 1 month, all results showed statistical significance (P ≤ .05). After LSG, the incidence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension dropped from 15 (35%) and 13 (30%) to 2 (5%) and 3 (7%) patients, respectively. No follow-up data (0%) were missed. Conclusion: LSG after failed LGCP has promising weight loss outcomes.

Recommendations Based on Evidence by the Andalusian Group for Nutrition Reflection and Investigation (GARIN) for the Pre- and Postoperative Management of Patients Undergoing Obesity Surgery

In order to develop evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus for nutrition management of patients undergoing bariatric surgery and postoperative follow-up, we conducted a systematic literature search using PRISMA methodology plus critical appraisal following the SIGN and AGREE-II procedures. The results were discussed among all members of the GARIN group, and all members answered a Likert scale questionnaire to assess the degree of support for every recommendation. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery should be screened preoperatively for some micronutrient deficiencies and treated accordingly. A VLCD (Very Low-Calorie Diet) should be used for 4-8 weeks prior to surgery. Postoperatively, a liquid diet should be maintained for a month, followed by a semi-solid diet also for one month. Protein requirements (1-1.5 g/kg) should be estimated using adjusted weight. Systematic use of specific multivitamin supplements is encouraged. Calcium citrate and vitamin D supplements should be used at higher doses than are currently recommended. The use of proton-pump inhibitors should be individualised, and vitamin B12 and iron should be supplemented in case of deficit. All patients, especially pregnant women, teenagers, and elderly patients require a multidisciplinary approach and specialised follow-up. These recommendations and suggestions regarding nutrition management when undergoing bariatric surgery and postoperative follow-up have direct clinical applicability.

Re-suturing after primary endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for obesity

INTRODUCTION

Although primary endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (P-ESG) is effective, some patients may require revision procedures to augment weight loss. We hypothesized that a non-surgical approach using redo ESG (R-ESG) might be a viable option in such patients. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of R-ESG following P-ESG to treat obesity.

METHODS

We reviewed the outcome of patients who underwent R-ESG at our unit. We classified them as weight loss failure (WF)-< 10% total body weight (TBWL) at 6-months; weight regain (WR)-lost ≥ 10% TBWL and regained 50% of the maximum weight loss at or after 1-year; weight plateau (WP)-lost ≥ 10% TBWL but could not lose further over 3-months. We analyzed the feasibility, safety, and evaluated the efficacy of R-ESG in each group.

RESULTS

Of the 482 patients who underwent P-ESG, 35 (7%) required R- ESG (WF-12, WR-12, WP-11). The mean age, weight, BMI (38.2 kg/m²), and the number of sutures used during P-ESG were similar between the groups. The nadir %TBWL was lowest in WF group compared to WR and WP (6.5% vs. 20% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.001). The mean BMI at R-ESG was 33.6 kg/m². The time to R-ESG was longer in the WR group compared to WF and WP (22.3 vs. 13.4 vs. 13.7 months, p = 0.03). We placed a median of 3 (range 2-6) sutures. R-ESG was technically successful, and no serious complications occurred. All except two patients were discharged on the same day. The overall %TBWL achieved by R-ESG was significantly higher in WP (26%) as compared to WF (11.2%) and WR (12%), respectively (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The need for R-ESG after P-ESG is low. R-ESG is safe and induced weight loss in all patients. The maximum benefit was observed in WP.

Weight Regain After Gastric Plication: Reoperative Sleeve Gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass?-Analysis of 116 Consecutive Cases

PURPOSE

In France, laparoscopic gastric plication (GP) has rarely been utilized as a weight loss procedure. Although relatively safe and efficient, its long-term results are still controversial. The goal of this study is to assess the indications and outcomes of revisional surgery post-GP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2010 and September 2017, patient characteristics undergoing GP were prospectively collected from our database. Failure of conservative treatment or presence of anatomical anomaly explaining weight loss insufficiency was an indication for revisional surgery (RS).

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were included, 41 patients were lost to follow-up (13.7%), 124 patients (41.3%) had total weight loss (TWL) > 30%, and 116 patients (38.7%) underwent RS. Revisional procedures were laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 72 patients (62.1%) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in 44 patients (37.9%). The median interval to RS was 29 months. The mean operative time was 60 min for the SG and 125 min for the RYGB (p < 0.0001). Mortality was nil. Significant morbidity occurred in eight patients (6.9%) including 4 non-abdominal complications, 1 gastric leak, 1 case of hemorrhage, 1 case of hematoma, and 1 intra-abdominal abscess. The mean length of hospital stay (LOS) was 2.9 days (range, 1-11) for the SG group vs 3.2 days (range, 2-8) for the RYGB group (p = 0.608).

CONCLUSION

GP is associated with a relatively high rate of weight regain or insufficient weight loss. When compared to SG, RYGB seems to be the safer revisional procedure with fewer surgical complications.

Resleeve for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite excellent long-term results, insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and pathologic gastroesophageal reflux disease may require revisional procedures after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Resleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) for failed LSG, has been proposed as an alternative to more complex malabsorptive procedures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the current evidence on the therapeutic role and outcomes of ReSG for failed LSG. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science data sets were consulted. A systematic review and Frequentist meta-analysis were performed. Ten studies published between 2010 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria for a total of 300 patients. The age of the patient population ranged from 20 to 66 years old and 80.5% were females. The elapsed time between the LSG and ReSG ranged from 9 to 132 months. The estimated pooled prevalence of postoperative leak and overall complications were 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .5%-4.7%) and 7.6% (95%CI = 3.1%-13.4%). The estimated pooled mean operative time and hospital length of stay were 51 minutes (95%CI = 49.4-52.6) and 3.3 days (95%CI = 3.13-3.51). The postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 36 months and the estimated pooled mean percentage excess weight loss was 61.46% (95%CI = 55.9-66.9). The overall mortality ranged from 0% to 2.2%. ReSG after failed LSG seems feasible and safe with acceptable postoperative leak rate, overall complications, and mortality. The effectiveness of ReSG in term of weight loss seems promising in the short-term but further studies are warranted to explore its effect on patients' quality of life, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease, and long-term weight loss.

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

BACKGROUND

Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards.

RESULTS

Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure.

CONCLUSION

This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions.

A Spanish Society joint SECO and SEEDO approach to the Post-operative management of the patients undergoing surgery for obesity

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery is the method of choice for the management or treatment of obesity. Bariatric surgery brings about several physiological changes in the body and is associated with set of complications. The aim of this study is to provide guidelines on post bariatric surgery management based on consensus by the Spanish society for Obesity Surgery (Sociedad Española de Cirugía de la Obesidad) (SECO) and the Spanish Society for the Study of Obesity (Sociedad Española para el Estudio de la Obesidad) (SEEDO).

METHOD

The boards proposed seven experts from each society. The experts provided the evidence and a grade of recommendation on the selected topics based on systematic reviews/meta-analysis. A list of clinical practical recommendations levels of evidence and grades of these recommendations was derived from the consensus statements from the members of these societies.

RESULTS

Seventeen topics related to post-operative management were reviewed after bariatric surgery. The experts came with 47 recommendations and statements. The mean number of persons voting at each statement was 54 (range 36-76).

CONCLUSION

In this consensus, we have designed a set of guidelines to be followed while managing patients after bariatric surgery. Expertise and knowledge of the clinicians are required to convey suitable considerations to the post-bariatric patients. There should also be extensive follow-up plans for the bariatric surgery patients.

Pros and Cons of Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are regarded as technically more demanding and riskier than primary interventions. While the use of the surgical robot has not yet proven to be advantageous in primary bariatric interventions, the question remains whether its use is justified for more complex revisional procedures.

Objective

To show that revisional bariatric surgery can be performed safely using the da Vinci® Xi surgical system.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data for revisional bariatric procedures between January 2016 and November 2019.

Results

Of 78 revision operations, four (5.1%) were performed by open surgery, 30 (38.5%) by laparoscopic surgery, and 44 (56.4%) by robotic surgery. A comparative analysis of robotic (n = 41) versus laparoscopic (n = 18) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (rRYGB) revealed significant differences favoring the robotic approach for operative time (130.7 vs. 167.6 min), C-reactive protein values at days 1 (27.9 vs. 49.1 mg/L) and 2 (48.2 vs. 83.6 mg/L) after surgery, and length of stay (4.9 vs. 6.2 days). Lower complication rates (Clavien-Dindo II-V) were found after rRRYGB (7.3 vs. 22.2%, not significant).

Conclusions

Revisional bariatric surgery using a robotic system is safe. The operative time performing rRRYGB is significantly shorter than rLRYGB in our experience. Otherwise, results were largely comparable. Due to different indications, different index operations and a wide range of revisional procedures, further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted bariatric conversions and revisions

BACKGROUND

Conversions and revisions after bariatric procedures are inevitable and associated with longer operative time and higher complication rates. Because robot-assisted procedures allow better dissection, robotic conversions and revisions may be more beneficial to the patients than laparoscopic ones.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted conversions and revisions to laparoscopic procedures.

SETTING

Academic Hospital, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on 94 consecutive patients who underwent a bariatric conversion or revision (revision of gastrojejunostomy, conversions of vertical sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding to duodenal switch) between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2019. Of these, 30 underwent a robot-assisted conversion or revision.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent a robot-assisted approach were more likely to be older (45.4-versus 38.8-yr old) and lighter (44.6 versus 50.3 kg/m²) than patients who underwent a laparoscopic approach. The mean operative time was longer in the robot-assisted group (155.5 min) than in the laparoscopic group (113.3 min). No difference was observed between the 2 groups in the mean length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission rate, or 30-day reoperation rate. Results were similar when the baseline difference in age and body mass index were accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted conversions and revisions were as feasible and safe as laparoscopic procedures. However, operative time was longer in robot-assisted conversions.

Exploring racial disparity in perioperative outcomes following revisional bariatric surgery: A case-control matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery is associated with 20-30% weight recidivism. As a result, revisional bariatric operation is increasingly performed. Disparity in bariatric outcomes remains controversial and very little is known about revisional bariatric surgery outcomes in ethnic cohorts.

METHODS

Revisional bariatric cases were identified from the 2015 and 2016 Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data File. 1:1 case-control matching was performed and perioperative outcomes compared between racial cohorts.

RESULTS

24,197 cases were analyzed, including 20.78% Black patients. At baseline, there were differences in demographics and pre-existing conditions between racial cohorts. Matched analysis compared 7,286 Black and White patients. Operative duration (p = 0.008) and length of stay (p = 0.0003) were longer in Black patients. Readmission (6.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.009) was higher in Black patients. Bleeding (0.82% vs. 0.38%, p = 0.02) and surgical site infection (SSI) (2.6% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.01) were higher in White patients.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is safe. Apart from a higher rate of bleeding, SSI and readmission, outcomes were not mediated by race.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Revision of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with Limb Distalization for Inadequate Weight Loss or Weight Regain

BACKGROUND

Of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 15-35% of patients fail to achieve "adequate" weight loss or regain significant weight. Multiple solutions have been proposed, but not well studied. We report our experience with limb distalization with lengthening the biliopancreatic (BP) limb and shortening the common channel (CC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients undergoing laparoscopic limb distalization for excess weight loss (EWL) <50% or BMI >35 kg/m² after RYGB from 2012 to 2017. The BP limb was lengthened and CC was shortened to 100-200 cm. Perioperative outcomes such as morbidity, weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, comorbidity remission, and operative details were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included. The mean BMI prior to RYGB was 54.1 ± 8.5 kg/m² and 43.0 ± 5.5 kg/m² prior to limb distalization. The mean follow-up was 18.3 ± 12.9 months with a mean BMI change, %EWL, and %TWL (total weight loss) of 11.8 ± 7.4 kg/m², 62.3 ± 32.4%, and 25.4 ± 14.4%, respectively. The total mean BMI change, %EWL, and %TWL from RYGB was 22.2 ± 9.9 kg/m², 77.8 ± 23.6%, and 40.2 ± 13.3%, respectively. Of patients with persistent comorbidities, remission rates of diabetes, hypertension, and gastroesophageal reflux disease were 100%, 17%, and 38%, respectively. The mean operative time was 132.6 ± 54.4 min and mean hospital stay was 2.2 ± 1.3 days. Overall morbidity was 27.3%. Three patients (13.6%) developed nutritional deficiencies requiring reversal surgery.

CONCLUSION

In patients with inadequate weight loss or weight regain after RYGB, limb distalization with lengthening of the BP limb is an effective procedure for additional weight loss and further improvement of comorbidities. Nutritional complications are a risk, but can be minimized with close follow-up and patient compliance.

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.

Reoperations After Bariatric Surgery in 26 Years of Follow-up of the Swedish Obese Subjects Study

Importance

Bariatric surgery is an established treatment for obesity, but knowledge on the long-term incidence of revisional surgery is scarce.

Objective

To determine the incidence and type of revisional surgery after bariatric surgery in 26 years of follow-up of participants in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The SOS study is a prospective nonrandomized controlled study comparing bariatric surgery (banding, vertical banded gastroplasty [VBG], and gastric bypass [GBP]) with usual care. The bariatric surgeries in the SOS study were conducted at 25 public surgical departments in Sweden. Men with body mass index values of 34 or higher and women with body mass indexes of 38 or higher were recruited to the surgery group of the SOS study between September 1, 1987, and January 31, 2001, and follow-up continued until December 31, 2014. Data analysis occurred from November 2016 to April 2018.

Interventions

Banding, VBG, or GBP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Revisional surgeries, analyzed using data from questionnaires, hospital records, and the Swedish National Patient register through December 31, 2014.

Results

A total of 2010 participants underwent surgery. The age range was 37 to 60 years. A total of 376 participants underwent banding (18.7%), while 1365 had VBG (67.9%) and 266 had GBP (13.2%). During a median follow-up of 19 years, 559 participants (27.8%) underwent first-time revisional surgery, including 354 conversions to other bariatric procedures (17.6%), 114 corrective surgeries (5.6%), and 91 reversals to normal anatomy (4.5%). Revisional surgeries (conversions, corrective surgery, and reversals) were common after banding (153 of 376 [40.7%]) and VBG (386 of 1365 [28.3%]) but relatively rare after GBP (20 of 266 [7.5%]). Patients who had banding and VBG primarily underwent conversions to GBP or reversals. Incidence of reversals was 5 times higher after banding than after VBG (40.7% vs 7.5%; unadjusted hazard ratio, 5.19 [95% CI, 3.43-7.87]; P < .001). Corrective surgeries were equally common irrespective of the index surgery (72 of 1365 patients who had VBG [5.3%]; 23 of 376 patients who had banding [6.1%]; 19 of 266 patients who had GBP [7.1%]). Revisional surgery indications, including inadequate weight loss, band-associated complications (migration, stenosis, and slippage), staple-line disruptions, and postsurgical morbidity, varied depending on index surgery subgroup. Most corrections occurred within the first 10 years, whereas conversions and reversals occurred over the entire follow-up period.

Conclusions and Relevance

Corrective surgeries occur mainly within the first 10 years and with similar incidences across all 3 surgical subgroups, but indications varied. Conversions (mainly to GBP) and reversals occurred after many years and were most frequent after banding and VBG, reflecting a higher overall revisional surgery demand after these operations.

Low Postoperative Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are an Early Predictor for an Uncomplicated Course After Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective, Validated Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is popularly used to treat or prevent morbidity in severely obese patients. Severe complications are rare, but their early detection has a significant impact on clinical outcomes. We aimed to determine whether blood tests in the first few postoperative days are reliable predictors for complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 1073 patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2018 at our center. Clinical outcome was correlated with postoperative serum C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, and vital signs, analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. A total of 570 procedures between 2009 and 2015 were used to calculate the best cutoff values (calculation group), which were validated with 330 different patients operated upon between 2016 and 2018 (validation group).

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (4.2%) developed anastomotic or staple-line leakages in the calculation group. The ROC curve showed a good reliability for CRP levels on day 2 (area under the ROC curve=0.86); the highest Youden index existed for a cutoff of 119 mg/L. White blood cell count and heart rate were poor predictors. Even though several characteristics differed in the validation cohort, test quality of the cutoff was high (sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 94.9%; positive predictive value, 23.8%; negative predictive value, 99.3%). The prediction was excellent especially for leakages appearing on days 2 to 9 (sensitivity 100.0%, negative predictive value 100%). Leakages from day 10 were rare and prediction poor (sensitivity 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

A CRP level on day 2 <120 mg/L is a good predictor of a postoperative course without leakage, even though the predictive value goes down for late-appearing events. An earlier CRP measurement added no predictive benefit. The cutoff value was validated in an internal cohort and could be applied to different populations.

Technical Feasibility of a Murine Model of Sleeve Gastrectomy with Ileal Transposition

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition has been shown to be superior to sleeve gastrectomy alone for promoting weight loss in rat and porcine models. The absence of a mouse model for this procedure has impeded efforts to understand the molecular physiology underlying its efficacy. This study demonstrates the long-term survivability of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition in mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study of technical feasibility, a sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition (SGIT), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), or sham surgery (SH) was performed on 7- to 8-week-old C57Bl/6J mice (n = 8 for each). To evaluate long-term survivability, mice were placed on an obesogenic diet and weighed weekly for 10 weeks. The intestinal identity of the transposed segment was assessed with gene expression analysis of duodenal-, jejunal-, and ileal-specific hormones using quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Overall, SGIT better prevented weight gain than the SG or sham procedures (10-week post-operative weight: SH 45.3 ± 1.0 g, SG 41.25 ± 1.6 g, SGIT 35.4 ± 0.8 g). Gene expression pattern analysis of three markers of intestinal identity (gastrin, cholecystokinin, and peptide YY) suggests that the ileal identity of the transposed segment is maintained 10 weeks after transposition.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate for the first time a reproducible mouse model of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition. Future studies utilizing this model will expand our understanding of the molecular pathways through which the hindgut regulates satiety.

Gastric Bypass as a Third Bariatric Procedure-Our Experience with 42 Cases

BACKGROUND

It is not uncommon to encounter patients seeking a third, fourth, or even fifth bariatric procedure. With higher expected complication rates and questionable patient benefit, the indication for multiple revisions is still in doubt. To evaluate the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing gastric bypass after two previous bariatric surgeries or more.

METHODS

We identified all patients that underwent gastric bypass following at least 2 previous bariatric surgeries. We looked at patient demographics, previous bariatric surgeries, pre-operative body mass index (BMI) and obesity-related co-morbidities, perioperative complications, length of stay (LOS), re-admissions and re-operations, percentage of excess weight loss, and resolution or improvement in comorbidities.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients met the inclusion criteria, the majority being females (31, 73.8%). Average age was 45.6 years (range 27-62), average weight and BMI was 116 kg (range 75-175 kg) and 41.1 kg/m² (range 25.6-58.7 kg/m²), respectively. Thirty-two patients had two previous bariatric surgeries (73.8%), and 10 patients had 3 former bariatric surgeries (23.8%), and for one patient, this was the fifth bariatric procedure (2.4%). Mean LOS was 10 days (range 2-56 days). Eight patients (19%) needed re-admission and 5 (11.9%) needed re-operation. At a median follow up of 48 months (range 7-99 months), the average BMI was 34.5 kg/m² (range 23.7-55.1 kg/m²) reflecting an excess BMI loss of 43.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric bypass as a third or more bariatric procedure is effective yet associated with high complication rates, re-admissions, and re-operations.

Outcomes of Reoperation After Laparoscopic Gastric Plication Failure

BACKGROUND

Management of failed laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP), defined as weight regain or inadequate weight loss, is a challenging issue.

METHODS

This prospective investigation was conducted in individuals with morbid obesity who had undergone LGP from 2000 to 2016. Patients with weight loss failure, weight regain, and regain-prone cases were indicated for reoperation. Re-plication, laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB), and modified jejunoileal bypass were done as revisional surgery.

RESULTS

Revisional surgery was performed in 102 of 124 patients who needed reoperation. Overall, 39 re-plication, 38 LOAGB, and 25 malabsorptive procedures were performed. Re-plication was the shortest surgery and had the shortest length of hospital stay. The percentage of TWL at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up was 20.5%, 25%, and 26.8% for re-plication; 20.2%, 27%, and 30.5% for LOAGB; and 22.9%, 28.9%, and 32.6% for the malabsorptive procedure, respectively. In addition, the percentage of EWL at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up was 62%, 74.6%, and 79.6% for re-plication; 51.6%, 68.2%, and 75.9% for LOAGB; and 55.4%, 70.1%, and 79.1% for malabsorptive procedure, respectively. In long-term follow-up, according to %TWL, LOAGB and malabsorptive procedure had better outcome compared to re-plication, whereas there was no statistically significant difference in %EWL among the three surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of weight loss, reoperation on failed LGP was completely successful and no treatment failure was reported. All three revisional procedures, including re-plication, LOAGB, and malabsorptive procedure showed promising results and provided substantial weight loss. Since there is little information about the long-term efficacy and safety of revisional surgery on failed LGP, we highly recommend further investigations to confirm our results.

Fast Track Program in Conversion Bariatric Surgery, as Safe as in Primary Bariatric Surgery?

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the safety of fast track (FT) surgery program in patients undergoing primary and revisional bariatric surgery (conversion from one procedure to another); identify limiting factors for early discharge and predictive factors for readmission.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 730 consecutive morbidly obese patients who underwent bariatric surgery between January 2016 and December 2017. Fast track protocol was applied on all patients. Target discharge was after one-night stay. The primary end point is length of stay. The secondary end point is frequency of hospital contact after discharge, readmissions and reinterventions within 30 days.

RESULTS

Primary procedures (n = 633) were banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (BRYGB, 79.3%), sleeve gastrectomy (10.7%), gastric band (4.7%) and others (5.3%). Mean age (± SD) was 44.32 ± 11.26 years, and mean BMI (± SD) was 43.58 ± 6.12 kg/m². Conversion procedures (n = 97) were gastric band to BRYGB (40.2%), or to adjustable BRYGB (39.2%), Mason to BRYGB (11.3%), sleeve to BRYGB (4.1%) and others (5.2%). Mean age (± SD) was 47.22 ± 9.1 years, and mean BMI (± SD) was 37.9 ± 7.27 kg/m². Mean LOS in primary patients was 1.3 ± 0.99, and that in conversion patients was 1.5 ± 1.4. Successful discharge at one night or less was achieved in 650 cases (573 primary and 77 conversion). After one-night discharge, incidence of contact to the hospital, readmission and reintervention was 23.9%, 5.9% and 1.9%, in the primary group and 31.2%, 13% and 5.2% in the conversion group.

CONCLUSION

One-night discharge in FT managed conversion procedures is safe, compared to primary procedures. It is associated with higher readmission rates; however, the postdischarge hospital contacts and surgical complications were not statistically significant different.

Comparative analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative outcomes from the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

There are limited data evaluating the role of robotics in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) compared with laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic RBS.

SETTING

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

The 2015 to 2017 MBSAQIP database was queried for patients undergoing revisional robotic and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches, adjusting for demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, and operative time.

RESULTS

A total of 17,012 patients underwent revisional SG with 15,935 (93.7%) laparoscopic and 1077 (6.3%) robotic, and 12,442 patients underwent revisional RYGB with 11,212 (90.1%) laparoscopic and 1230 (9.9%) robotic. Overall morbidity was higher in robotic SG compared with laparoscopic SG (6.7% versus 4.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.51; P < .01) which was not the case after adjustment for operative time. Robotic RYGB was associated with comparable overall morbidity to laparoscopic (9.3% versus 11.6%; adjusted odds ratio .83; P = .07) although respiratory complications, pneumonia, superficial surgical site infections, and postoperative bleeding were lower with robotic RYGB. The robotic approach with both procedures was associated with longer operative time (P < .01). Length of stay was longer in the robotic group for SG (P < .01) but was not different for RYGB (P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic RBS has an increased complication profile compared with the laparoscopic approach for SG and decreased for RYGB. Further analysis is needed regarding variability in surgeon technique and operative experience to determine what factors contribute to these differences.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Risk Prediction Model for Severe Postoperative Complication in Bariatric Surgery

Background

Factors associated with risk for adverse outcome are important considerations in the preoperative assessment of patients for bariatric surgery. As yet, prediction models based on preoperative risk factors have not been able to predict adverse outcome sufficiently.

Objective

This study aimed to identify preoperative risk factors and to construct a risk prediction model based on these.

Methods

Patients who underwent a bariatric surgical procedure in Sweden between 2010 and 2014 were identified from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg). Associations between preoperative potential risk factors and severe postoperative complications were analysed using a logistic regression model. A multivariate model for risk prediction was created and validated in the SOReg for patients who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden, 2015.

Results

Revision surgery (standardized OR 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14–0.24, p < 0.001), age (standardized OR 1.10, 95%CI 1.03–1.17, p = 0.007), low body mass index (standardized OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.82–0.98, p = 0.012), operation year (standardized OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.85–0.97, p = 0.003), waist circumference (standardized OR 1.09, 95%CI 1.00–1.19, p = 0.059), and dyspepsia/GERD (standardized OR 1.08, 95%CI 1.02–1.15, p = 0.007) were all associated with risk for severe postoperative complication and were included in the risk prediction model. Despite high specificity, the sensitivity of the model was low.

Conclusion

Revision surgery, high age, low BMI, large waist circumference, and dyspepsia/GERD were associated with an increased risk for severe postoperative complication. The prediction model based on these factors, however, had a sensitivity that was too low to predict risk in the individual patient case.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a Complex Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Utilization of the robotic platform has become more common in bariatric applications. We aim to show that robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) can be safely performed in a complex patient population with perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS).

METHODS

Retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (LRBS) or robotic revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS) at our institution from September 2007 to December 2016. Patients undergoing planned two-stage bariatric procedures were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients who underwent LRBS (n = 66) or RRBS (n = 18) were included. The index operation was adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in 39/84 (46%), sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) in 23/84 (27%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 13/84 (16%), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) in 9/84 (11%). For patients undergoing conversion from AGB (n = 39), there was no difference in operative time, length of stay, or complications by surgical approach. For patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (n = 45), the robotic approach was associated with a shorter length of stay (5.8 ± 3.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.04) with equivalent operative time and post-operative complications. There were three leaks in the LRBS group and none in the RRBS group (p = 0.36). Major complications occurred in 3/39 (8%) of patients undergoing conversion from AGB and 2/45 (4%) of patients undergoing conversion from a stapled procedure (p = 0.53) with no difference by surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

RRBS is associated with a shorter length of stay than LRBS in complex procedures and has at least an equivalent safety profile. Long-term follow-up data is needed.

30-Day Outcomes of Revisional Bariatric Stapling Procedures: First Report Based on MBSAQIP Data Registry

INTRODUCTION

The number of bariatric revisional cases has nearly doubled since 2011, and now comprises 13.6% of the total number of cases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and safety of the two most common stapling revisional procedures, namely, sleeve and gastric bypass in comparison to primary stapling procedures using the MBSAQIP data registry.

METHODS

We reviewed all the sleeve and gastric bypass cases entered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, in the MBSAQIP data registry. We, then, identified sleeve and bypass patients who have had a previous bariatric procedure. Demographics and 30 day outcomes of all sleeve and gastric bypass patients were analyzed. We conducted within group comparisons comparing primary sleeve gastrectomy (PS) and primary gastric bypass (PB) patients to revisional sleeve (RS) and revisional gastric bypass (RB) patients, respectively. We, then, conducted group comparisons comparing RS to RB patients.

RESULTS

The total number of patients analyzed was 141,577 (98,292 or 69% sleeve patients and 43,285 or 31% gastric bypass patients). Among the sleeve patients, 92,666 (94%) had a PS and 5626 (6%) had RS. Among the bypass patients, 39,567 (91%) had a PB and 3718 patients (9%) had RB. 30-day readmission rate of RS was significantly higher as compared to PS (4.1 vs 0.4%, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention within 30 days following RS was twice as high as compared to PS (1.9 and 2% for RS vs 0.9 and 1.1% for PS respectively, p < 0.05). Length of stay and 30 day mortality rates for PS and RS were the same. 30-day readmission rate of RB as compared to PB was 8.3 vs 6.3% (p < 0.05). Also, the incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention following RB was 3.9 and 4%, respectively vs 2.4 and 2.7% for PB (p < 0.05). In addition, readmission rates and unplanned admission rates to the ICU were significantly higher for RB compared to RS (8.3 and 2% for RB vs 4.1 and 0.9% for RS respectively, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one reoperation or one intervention following RB were also significantly higher compared to RS (3.9 vs 1.9% and 4 vs 2% respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Revisional stapling procedures are safe but the rates of complications following RS and RB are twice as high compared to PS and PB. Also, RB are more likely to develop complications compared to RS.

Endoscopic techniques for weight loss and treating metabolic syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The endoscopic armamentarium against obesity and metabolic syndrome is rapidly growing and improving. Novel devices have been tested and recent data either support or reject their use. We aim to discuss current data on new endoscopic procedures addressing overweight, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four-year follow-up of the aspiration therapy have shown efficacy and safety at long term. A recent consensus on intragastric balloon gathered experience from more than 40 000 procedures and standardized most steps of the treatment. The TransPyloric Shuttle has been proven effective at short term but carries high rates of adverse events. The endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty promotes similar weight loss to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in mildly obese patien. The endoluminal magnetic partial jejunal diversion promoted good weight loss and a significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) but most cases required laparoscopic assistance to couple the magnets. One-year follow-up demonstrated that the duodenal mucosal resurfacing carried a 1.0% reduction in HbA1c.

SUMMARY

Innovative endoscopic procedures focused on the treatment of overweight and related diseases are available and there is growing evidence supporting their use. Nonetheless, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COG/A25.

Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case-controlled study of the MBSAQIP database

Introduction

Revisional bariatric surgery is being increasingly performed and is associated with higher operative risks. Optimal techniques to minimize complications remain controversial. Here, we report a retrospective review of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant User Files (PUF) database, comparing outcomes between revision RBS and LBS.

Methods

The 2015 and 2016 MBSAQIP PUF database was retrospectively reviewed. Revision cases were identified using the Revision/Conversion Flag. Selected cases were further stratified by surgical approach. Subgroup analysis of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass cases was performed. Case–controlled matching (1:1) was performed of the RBS and LBS cohorts, including gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts separately. Cases and controls were match by demographics, ASA classification, and preoperative comorbidities.

Results

26,404 revision cases were identified (93.3% LBS, 6.7% RBS). 85.6% were female and 67% white. Mean age and BMI were 48 years and 40.9 kg/m². 1144 matched RBS and LBS cases were identified. RBS was associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001), LOS (p = 0.0002) and a higher rate of ICU admissions (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.05). Aggregate bleeding and leak rates were higher in the RBS cohort. In both gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy cohorts, the robotic-assisted surgery remain associated with longer operative duration (p < 0.0001). In gastric bypass, rates of aggregate leak and bleeding were higher with robotic surgery, while transfusion was higher with laparoscopy. For sleeve gastrectomy cases, reoperation, readmission, intervention, sepsis, organ space SSI, and transfusion were higher with robotic surgery.

Conclusion

In this matched cohort analysis of revision bariatric surgery, both approaches were overall safe. RBS was associated with longer operative duration and higher rates of some complications. Complications were higher in the robotic sleeve cohort. Robotic is likely less cost-effective with no clear patient safety benefit, particularly for sleeve gastrectomy cases.