Bilio pancreatic diversion following failure of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Long-Term Outcomes of Revisional Malabsorptive Bariatric Surgery: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risk?

Purpose

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of revisional malabsorptive bariatric surgery.

Materials and Methods

Malabsorptive bariatric procedures are increasingly performed in the revisional setting. We collated and analysed prospectively recorded data for all patients who underwent a revisional Biliopancreatic diversion + / − duodenal switch (BPD + / − DS) over a 17-year period.

Results

We identified 102 patients who underwent a revisional BPD + / − DS. Median follow-up was 7 years (range 1–17). There were 21 (20.6%) patients permanently lost to follow-up at a median of 5 years postoperatively. Mean total weight loss since the revisional procedure of 22.7% (SD 13.4), 20.1% (SD 10.5) and 17.6% (SD 5.5) was recorded at 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. At the time of revisional surgery, 23 (22.5%) patients had diabetes and 16 (15.7%) had hypercholesterolaemia with remission of these occurring in 20 (87%) and 7 (44%) patients respectively. Nutritional deficiencies occurred in 82 (80.4%) patients, with 10 (9.8%) patients having severe deficiencies requiring periods of parenteral nutrition. Seven (6.9%) patients required limb lengthening or reversal procedures. There were 16 (15.7%) patients who experienced a complication within 30 days, including 3 (2.9%) anastomotic leaks. Surgery was required in 42 (41.2%) patients for late complications.

Conclusion

Revisional malabsorptive bariatric surgery induces significant long-term weight loss and comorbidity resolution. High rates of temporary and permanent attrition from follow-up are of major concern, given the high prevalence of nutritional deficiencies. These data question the long-term safety of malabsorptive bariatric procedures due to the inability to ensure compliance with nutritional supplementation and long-term follow-up requirements.

Graphical abstract

Key points

• Revisional bariatric surgery workload is increasing

• Revisional malabsorptive surgery is efficacious for weight loss and comorbidity resolution

• Revisional malabsorptive surgery is associated with high rates of nutritional deficiencies

• Attrition from follow-up in this specific cohort of patients is of particular concern due to the risk of undiagnosed and untreated nutritional deficiencies

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-022-06019-7.

Sustained weight loss after gastric banding revision for pouch-related problems

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on weight loss at 12 and 24 months.

BACKGROUND

There is no uniform consensus as to the optimal procedure for patients requiring revision after LAGB. Few studies address the issue of weight loss after band salvage procedures, despite this being a critical factor in deciding which reoperative procedure to choose.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of adult patients who underwent LAGB from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2009 at a single institution. Patients who required revision for pouch-related problems including band slippage, pouch dilation, and hiatal hernia were studied. Demographic data, body mass index (BMI), percentage excess weight loss (% EWL), and operative details were recorded. Weights were recorded at 12 and 24 months after revision. These were compared with initial weight, weight before revision, and weight in patients who did not have a reoperation.

RESULTS

Of 3876 patients, 390 patients were included in analysis of weight outcomes after revision. The procedure-related mortality was 0%. Early (30-day) complications occurred in 0.5%, late complications (erosion) in 0.5%, and 29 patients (7.4%) required a second revision. For patients undergoing revision, the initial weight was 124.06 ± 21.28 kg and BMI was 44.80 ± 6.12 kg/m. At reoperation, weight was 89.18 ± 20.51 kg, BMI was 32.25 ± 6.50 kg/m and, %EWL was 54.13 ± 21.80%. Twelve months postrevision, weight was 92.24 ± 20.22 kg, BMI was 33.32 ± 6.41 kg/m, and %EWL was 48.81 ± 22.71%. Weight was 92.42 ± 19.91 kg, BMI was 33.53 ± 6.25 kg/m, and %EWL was 47.50 ± 22.91% twenty-four months postrevision.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation for pouch-related problems after LAGB is safe and effective. Weight loss is maintained after reoperation.

Interdisciplinary European guidelines on metabolic and bariatric surgery

In 2012, an expert panel composed of presidents of each of the societies, the European Chapter of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity (IFSO-EC), and of the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO), as well as of the chair of EASO Obesity Management Task Force (EASO OMTF) and other key representatives from IFSO-EC and EASO, devoted the joint Medico-Surgical Workshop of both institutions to the topic of metabolic surgery in advance of the 2013 European Congress on Obesity held in Liverpool. This meeting was prompted by the extraordinary advancement made in the field of metabolic and bariatric surgery during the past decade. It was agreed to revise and update the 2008 Interdisciplinary European Guidelines on Surgery of Severe Obesity produced by focusing in particular on the evidence gathered in relation to the effects on diabetes and the changes in the recommendations of patient eligibility criteria. The expert panel allowed the coverage of key disciplines in the comprehensive management of obesity and obesity-associated diseases, aimed specifically at updating the clinical guidelines to reflect current knowledge, expertise and evidence-based data on metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Laparoscopic removal of poor outcome gastric banding with concomitant sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a significant incidence of long-term failure, which may require an alternative revisional bariatric procedure to remediate. Unfortunately, there is few data pinpointing which specific revisional procedure most effectively addresses failed gastric banding. Recently, it has been observed that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a promising primary bariatric procedure; however, its use as a revisional procedure has been limited. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSG performed concomitantly with removal of a poor-outcome LAGB.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent LAGB removal with concomitant LSG at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia between September 2007 and April 2012. Patient body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), duration of operation, length of hospital stay, complications after LSG, and indications for revisional surgery were all reviewed and compared to those of patients who underwent LSG as a primary procedure.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients (70 % female) underwent conversion of LAGB to LSG concomitantly, and 128 (66 % female) patients underwent primary LSG surgery. The revisional and primary LSG patients had similar preoperative ages (mean age 33.5 ± 10.7 vs. 33.6 ± 9.0 years, respectively; p = 0.43). However, revisional patients had a significantly lower BMI at the time of surgery (44.4 ± 7.0 kg/m(2) vs. 47.9 ± 8.2; p < 0.01). Absolute BMI postoperative reduction at 24 months was 14.33 points in the revision group and 18.98 points in the primary LSG group; similar %EWL was achieved by both groups at 24 months postoperatively (80.1 vs. 84.6 %). Complications appeared in two (5.5 %) revisional patients and in nine (7.0 %) primary LSG patients. No mortalities occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of LAGB by means of concomitant LSG is a safe and efficient procedure and achieves similar outcomes as primary LSG surgery alone.

Interdisciplinary European Guidelines on metabolic and bariatric surgery

In 2012, an outstanding expert panel derived from IFSO-EC (International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity-European Chapter) and EASO (European Association for the Study of Obesity), composed by key representatives of both Societies including past and present presidents together with EASO's OMTF (Obesity Management Task Force) chair, agreed to devote the joint Medico-Surgical Workshop of both institutions to the topic of metabolic surgery as a pre-satellite of the 2013 European Congress on Obesity (ECO) to be held in Liverpool given the extraordinarily advancement made specifically in this field during the past years. It was further agreed to revise and update the 2008 Interdisciplinary European Guidelines on Surgery of Severe Obesity produced in cooperation of both Societies by focusing in particular on the evidence gathered in relation to the effects on diabetes during this lustrum and the subsequent changes that have taken place in patient eligibility criteria. The expert panel composition allowed the coverage of key disciplines in the comprehensive management of obesity and obesity-associated diseases, aimed specifically at updating the clinical guidelines to reflect current knowledge, expertise and evidence-based data on metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has emerged as one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30 % of cases. Several revisional strategies have been proposed, but there is no consensus regarding the best surgical option. This systematic review was designed to determine which revisional surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch) is best suited to enhance weight loss following failed LAGB due to complications or inadequate weight loss.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched using the most comprehensive timeline for each database. A total of 24 relevant articles were identified. Two investigators independently extracted data, and differences were resolved by consensus. The weighted means were calculated for weight loss measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 106, 514, and 71 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPDDS), respectively. Before revisional surgery, the weighted mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.8 (6.9), 43.3 (8.1), and 41.3 (7.2) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The majority of data was reported at 12-24 months follow-up. The mean BMI within this interval was 28 (10.5), 32.2 (6.4), and 33 (5.7) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. In addition, the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 22 % (2.8), 57.8 % (11.7), 47.1 % (14) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The EWL reached 78.4 % (35) in the BPPDS group after 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Failed LAGB is best managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure. Stable weight loss occurs with salvage LRYGB. Although results for revisional BPPDS appear promising, additional research, with higher methodological quality, is needed.

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch

The biliopancreatic diversion with a duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is a less commonly performed but very effective bariatric procedure that has been in existence for more than 20 years. It is particularly effective for the resolution of diabetes and is associated with the highest weight loss among other bariatric operations. Typically, the BPD-DS is not associated with postgastrectomy symptoms, such as dumping and marginal ulceration. Because of its complexity, it has usually been performed by laparotomy in the past; but, more recently, minimally invasive techniques are being used with acceptable risk.

Is biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch a solution for patients after laparoscopic gastric banding failure?

BACKGROUND

Weight loss failure after laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB) can occur in ≤ 25% of patients. Conversion to a malabsorptive procedure might provide more durable weight loss. The present study evaluated biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) after LAGB failure with a 3-year follow-up period.

METHODS

A total of 35 patients underwent BPD/DS after LAGB failure and were prospectively analyzed using a multidisciplinary approach. Weight indexes, co-morbidities, complications, morbidity/mortality, and nutritional status were analyzed.

RESULTS

Excess weight decreased from 91% (134 kg, body mass index 48 kg/m(2)) to 75% (124 kg, body mass index 44 kg/m(2)) after LAGB failure and decreased further to 40% (100 kg, body mass index 35 kg/m(2)) after BPD/DS. The mean percentage of excess weight loss was 55% after LAGB and BPD/DS together and 48% after BPD/DS alone. The incidence of co-morbidities, such as diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, joint problems, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was reduced after BPD/DS. Nutritional deficiencies were already present after LAGB failure (e.g., iron, ferritin, vitamins B(12), B(6), A, D, and E, albumin, and calcium) and either increased (folic acid, potassium, and vitamin B(12)), remained stable (iron, ferritin, vitamin A), or decreased after BPD/DS (albumin and vitamins B(6) and E).

CONCLUSION

BPD/DS provided substantial weight loss after LAGB failure and reduced the incidence of obesity-related co-morbidities during a 3-year period. Long-term nutritional follow-up is advocated for all patients after malabsorptive BPD/DS.

Conversion of failed gastric banding into four different bariatric procedures

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric operation in Europe, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), is reported to have a high incidence of long-term complications. Also, insufficient weight loss is reported. The optimal conversion technique is unknown. Our objective was to report our experience in the conversions of failed laparoscopic gastric banding procedures to 4 different bariatric procedures at a university hospital.

METHODS

From March 2006 to December 2010, 630 bariatric operations were performed. Of these patients, 45 underwent conversion of failed LAGB (n = 38) and nonadjustable gastric banding (n = 7). Using a prospectively collected database, we analyzed these procedures.

RESULTS

The 45 patients underwent laparoscopic conversion of failed LAGB (n = 38) and nonadjustable gastric banding (n = 7) to 4 different procedures. Of the 45 patients, 18 underwent conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 18 to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 7 to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, and 2 to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion. All conversions but 1 were completed laparoscopically. The mean operating time and hospital stay for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, and biliopancreatic diversion was 111 ± 28 minutes and 4.3 ± 1.4 days, 195 ± 59 minutes and 3.9 ± 1.5 days, 248 ± 113 minutes, and 5.9 ± 2.6 days, and 203 minutes and 6.5 days, respectively. No patient died. Perioperative complications occurred in 4 patients (9.8%). The mean body mass index decreased from 41.5 ± 8 kg/m(2) to 31.3 ± 6.8 kg/m(2) during a mean follow-up period of 13.7 ± 9.6 months. Although laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with and without duodenal switch had the greatest preoperative body mass index, they achieved the greatest excess weight loss.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of LAGB or nonadjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with or without duodenal switch is feasible and effective to treat the complications of LAGB and to further reduce the weight of morbidly obese patients.

Barrett's esophagus: a late complication of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding has become a popular bariatric restrictive procedure in the USA. The increasing popularity of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band procedure could, in part, be related to the lower cost and lower morbidity compared with laparoscopic gastric bypass. Although its placement is related to a lower number of perioperative complications compared with laparoscopic gastric bypass, its morbidity may be substantial. Barrett's esophagus or esophageal intestinal metaplasia is a known complication of chronic gastro-esophageal reflux disease that, in rare occasions, progresses to dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Barrett's esophagus, after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding placement, is a rare but not unexpected complication after gastric band placement. The incidence of Barrett's esophagus after adjustable gastric banding is not known. We present a case of Barrett's esophagus as a result of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding placement due to a chronically and highly restrictive gastric band in a former morbidly obese patient.

Laparoscopic conversion of adjustable gastric banding and vertical banded gastroplasty to duodenal switch

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective consecutive study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the conversion of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and open vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) into duodenal switch (DS) by laparoscopy.

METHODS

From November 2003 to February 2007, laparoscopic conversion into DS was performed in 1-step in 43 patients, 31 after LAGB and 12 after VBG. The reason for conversion was weight loss issues, such as insufficient excess weight loss (EWL) or weight regain. The mean interval from LAGB and VBG to conversion to the DS was 42.7 +/- 28.7 months and 172.2 +/- 86.9 months, respectively. The mean %EWL at conversion was 8.3% +/- 19.3% after LAGB and 20.8% +/- 30% after VBG.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 205.8 +/- 44.8 minutes for LAGB and 210.9 +/- 53.7 minutes for VBG. No conversions to open surgery occurred. One patient in the LAGB group died on the third postoperative day of sudden death syndrome, as shown by the postmortem examination. Major complications occurred in 6.4% of patients with LAGB (1 hemoperitoneum and 1 ileoileostomy leak) and in 50% with VBG (1 sleeve gastrectomy leak with subsequent duodenoileostomy leak, 3 duodenoileostomy leaks, 1 pancreatitis, and 1 respiratory insufficiency). The mean hospital stay was 5.5 +/- 5 days for the LAGB group and 34.5 +/- 50.3 days for the VBG group. After a mean follow-up of 28 +/- 15.7 months for LAGB to DS and 43.5 +/- 6 months for VBG to DS, reoperations for late complications were required in 6 patients (20.6%) in the LAGB to DS group and in 5 patients (62.5%) in the VBG to DS group. Three patients (25%) died within 8 months after conversion of VBG. The 29 surviving patients (LAGB to DS) showed a mean %EWL and percentage of excess body mass index loss of (%EBMIL) 78.4% +/- 24.9% and 77.8% +/- 23.7%, respectively. The 8 surviving patients (VBG to DS) had a mean %EWL and %EBMIL of 85.1% +/- 20% and 85.8% +/- 18.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

According to these results, laparoscopic conversion of LAGB to DS seems feasible and effective, despite the 1 death. However, in our hands, laparoscopic conversion of VBG to DS had an unacceptable rate of complications and deaths.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery medical guidelines for clinical practice for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice are systematically developed statements to assist health-care professionals in medical decision making for specific clinical conditions. Most of the content herein is based on literature reviews. In areas of uncertainty, professional judgment was applied. These guidelines are a working document that reflects the state of the field at the time of publication. Because rapid changes in this area are expected, periodic revisions are inevitable. We encourage medical professionals to use this information in conjunction with their best clinical judgment. The presented recommendations may not be appropriate in all situations. Any decision by practitioners to apply these guidelines must be made in light of local resources and individual patient circumstances. The American Society for Parenteral & Enteral Nutrition fully endorses sections of these guidelines that address the metabolic and nutritional management of the bariatric surgical patient.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after gastric banding removal: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a commonly performed bariatric procedure. When LAGB fails, restrictive procedures such as gastric bypass have been performed. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been suggested as an alternative, but it has not yet been fully studied. Evaluated in this report are the experiences of patients who underwent LSG, a restrictive procedure, as a rescue procedure for failed LAGB.

METHODS

From June 2002 to June 2007, charts of patients who underwent LAGB were reviewed to find those who had undergone LSG as a rescue procedure.

RESULTS

Of 294 patients who underwent LAGB, 10 later underwent LSG. Median excess weight loss (EWL) prior to LSG had been 34%; after LSG, median EWL was 55%. Before LSG was performed, patients had a median 11.5 comorbidities, all of which improved after LSG. No major complications or deaths resulted.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest LSG might be a reasonable choice for patients who fail LAGB. A formal study comparing LSG with other rescue procedures should be performed.

Feasibility and technique of laparoscopic conversion of adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term efficacy of the conversion of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) because of inadequate weight loss.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were an inadequate percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), defined as <30% at > or =1 year after LAGB. From August 2002 to October 2007, 27 patients (17 women and 10 men) had undergone removal of their LAGB and conversion to LSG. The average age at LSG was 43.6 +/- 11.4 years (range 25-66). Before LAGB, the mean weight and body mass index was 129.8 +/- 21.9 kg (range 95-178) and 45 +/- 8.1 kg/m(2) (range 35-64), respectively. The average interval between LAGB and LSG was 51.2 +/- 30.1 months (range 22-132). Before conversion, the mean weight, body mass index, and %EWL was 117.9 +/- 27.3 kg (range 63-170), 39 +/- 9.6 kg/m2 (range 24-61), and 18.1% +/- 18.3%, respectively. Of the 27 patients, 12 had 19 obesity-related co-morbidities, including arterial hypertension in 7, type 2 diabetes mellitus in 2, degenerative joint disease in 7, and sleep apnea in 3.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 120.6 +/- 32.4 minutes (range 65-195). No conversion to open surgery was required, and no patient died. The postoperative complications included a subphrenic hematoma that required laparoscopic drainage; no postoperative leaks developed. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 +/- 1.4 days (range 2-8). After a mean follow-up of 18.6 +/- 14.8 months (range 1-59) for 23 patients (4 patients were lost to follow-up), the mean weight, body mass index, and weight loss was 100.7 +/- 23.5 kg (range 61-152), 34.6 +/- 8.7 kg/m2 (range 21-50.4), and 23 +/- 12.4 kg (range 2-55), respectively. The patients had had an additional 16.7% EWL after LSG for a total average %EWL of 34.8% +/- 21.8% (P <.05). Of the 12 patients with obesity-related co-morbidities, 5 had had resolution, including arterial hypertension in 1, type 2 diabetes mellitus in 1, degenerative joint disease in 2, and sleep apnea in 2.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study support the safety of LSG in the case of an inadequate %EWL after LAGB. However, the degree of weight loss and co-morbidity resolution is of concern.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice are systematically developed statements to assist healthcare professionals in medical decision making for specific clinical conditions. Most of the content herein is based on literature reviews. In areas of uncertainty, professional judgment was applied. These guidelines are a working document that reflects the state of the field at the time of publication. Because rapid changes in this area are expected, periodic revisions are inevitable. We encourage medical professionals to use this information in conjunction with their best clinical judgment. The presented recommendations may not be appropriate in all situations. Any decision by practitioners to apply these guidelines must be made in light of local resources and individual patient circumstances. The American Society for Parenteral & Enteral Nutrition fully endorses sections of these guidelines that address the metabolic and nutritional management of the bariatric surgical patient.

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch or gastric bypass for failed gastric banding: retrospective study from two institutions with preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Of patients who have undergone gastric banding, 11-25% will require a major reoperation with band removal and conversion to another bariatric procedure after they have failed to lose sufficient weight or have developed dysphagia or reflux. The aim of this study was to evaluate the respective benefits of Roux-en-Y gastric band (RYGB) or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) after failed gastric banding and whether 1 of the 2 procedures might be a better procedure for such cases.

METHODS

RYGB or BPD-DS was performed according to the institutional protocols with synchronous band removal, irrespective of the reason for failure.

RESULTS

Of the 53 patients, 32 underwent laparoscopic RYGB for a body mass index (BMI) of 43.1 +/- 6.4 kg/m(2) (BMI 45.8 +/- 6.4 kg/m(2) before laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding) and 21 underwent BPD-DS for a BMI of 46.0 +/- 5.5 kg/m(2) (BMI 49.6 +/- 5.2 kg/m(2) before laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding). BPD-DS required significantly longer operative times (239.7 +/- 55.8 versus 135 +/- 26.7 minutes) and resulted in more complications (62% versus 12.5%; P <.002). No patients died postoperatively. The 2 groups of patients had a similar BMI at 12 and 18 months after revision (BMI 33.4 +/- 5.6 kg/m(2) and 31.4 +/- 3.5 kg/m(2)). The weight loss was greater after BPD-DS than after RYGB compared with the prerevision weight loss (66.2% versus 58.8% excess weight loss) or initial weight (73% versus 61.8%), although this was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Despite an excessive rate of complications that were, in part, related to the learning curve in this series, BPD-DS resulted in greater weight loss compared with RYGB. However, both procedures were successful after failed gastric banding. A more accurate definition of failure could help to determine the respective indications for revisional surgery.

Interdisciplinary European guidelines on surgery of severe obesity

In 2005, for the first time in European history, an extraordinary expert panel named BSCG (Bariatric Scientific Collaborative Group), was appointed through joint effort of the major European scientific societies which are active in the field of obesity management. Societies that constituted this panel were: IFSO - International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity, IFSO-EC - International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity - European Chapter, EASO - European Association for Study of Obesity, ECOG - European Childhood Obesity Group, together with the IOTF (International Obesity Task Force) which was represented during the completion process by its representative. The BSCG was composed not only of the top officers representing the respective scientific societies (four acting presidents, two past presidents, one honorary president, two executive directors), but was balanced with the presence of many other key opinion leaders in the field of obesity. The BSCG composition allowed the coverage of key disciplines in comprehensive obesity management, as well as reflecting European geographical and ethnic diversity. This joint BSCG expert panel convened several meetings which were entirely focused on guidelines creation, during the past 2 years. There was a specific effort to develop clinical guidelines, which will reflect current knowledge, expertise and evidence based data on morbid obesity treatment.

Gastric banding: conversion to sleeve, bypass, or DS

A review of conversions of gastric banding for obesity to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, gastric sleeve, or duodenal switch attempts to determine which revisional procedure best enhances weight loss. Indications for these conversions are multiple and include hardware problems, motility problems, and miscellaneous like inadequate weight loss. Analysis of band conversions to band of 193 patients, and bands to gastric bypass in 214 patients reveals better weight loss with the latter strategy. Smaller cohorts of patients who underwent a biliopancreatic diversion or simply a sleeve gastrectomy are too small to conclude on their efficacy. Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine which revisional procedure is best in the setting of inadequate weight loss of excessive weight regain after gastric adjustable banding for severe obesity.

Poor weight loss despite biliopancreatic diversion and subsequent revision to a 30-cm common channel after initial laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: an analysis of 8 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) fails in 5% of patients due to band-related complications or patient intolerance. A subset of patients subsequently managed with biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) have failed to achieve a percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) > 50% or a body mass index (BMI) < 35 kg/m(2) even after a further procedure shortening the common channel to 30 cm.

METHOD

A computerized obesity database was used to identify the study group and collect preoperative and outcome data. Patient outcomes were analyzed in 2 groups: LAGB removed either because of a failure to lose weight (FTLW) or because of a band-related complication (eg, recurrent gastric prolapse, gastric erosion, intractable dysphagia).

RESULTS

A total of 2300 patients underwent LAGB between 1996 and 2003. LAGB failed in 95 (4%) of these patients, 79 of whom had subsequent BPD. Of these 79 patients, 8 (10%) failed to lose further weight and had their common channel shortened to 30 cm. Six patients were identified who, despite this revision surgery, still had a BMI > 35 kg/m(2) or %EWL < 50 and are considered failures. Two further patients failed to lose any weight after revision for what they saw as an unsatisfactory outcome. There was minimal evidence of malabsorption in these 8 patients, and 4 had slow intestinal transit down the alimentary limb of the BPD.

CONCLUSION

The reasons for the failure of malabsorption and restrictive surgery in these patients appear to be physiological, not psychological. Uncontrolled hunger, particularly in the patients with FTLW, and an abnormally slow metabolism are likely to be important.

Long-term results and gastroesophageal reflux in a series of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

During the past decade, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding has become the most popular surgical procedure in treating morbid obesity. On the other hand, significant drawbacks such as inadequate long-term weight loss, a high prevalence of reoperations, and frequent postoperative symptoms have been reported in the literature. This analysis summarizes our Department's experience with this operation. Thirty-one patients (27 women and 4 men) with a mean body mass index of 46.5 kg/m(2) (range, 38.3-59.8 kg/m(2)) were operated upon laparoscopically between September 1997 and January 2003. The preoperative work-up of all patients included a psychological evaluation. Mean follow-up was 59.3 months (range, 19-84 months). Sixteen patients had esophageal pH-metry and 18 patients had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy preoperatively and postoperatively. Data were collected prospectively during the outpatient visits. Mean preoperative excess weight was 65.6 kg (range, 37.4-96.1 kg). Mean excess weight loss after 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 months was 40.3%, 50.5%, 51.9%, 48.9%, 46.2%, 51.8%, and 30.2%, respectively. In total, six patients (19.4%) had an abdominal reoperation, including four patients (12.9%) for band removal. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed in 18 patients after 30.1 months (range, 5-67 months), showing a high prevalence of esophagitis (30.0%; grade 1: n=3, grade 2: n=3). Conversely, postoperative esophageal pH-metry performed in 16 patients was pathologic in 43.8%. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding produces significant weight loss even after long-term follow-up. However, the reoperation rate is high and postoperative symptoms are frequent. The high incidence of gastroesophageal reflux and esophagitis remains a matter of concern.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band

Only a fraction of morbidly obese patients have come forward for bariatric surgery. This article confirms that the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is a safe, effective, primary weight-loss operation for morbidly obese patients. The LAGB offers a simple, genuinely minimally invasive approach, with the potential to be attractive to many more patients. The key questions are whether it is effective in the longterm and whether it is safe. The midterm data confirm that, so far, LAGB is living up to its early promise as an effective tool. LAGB surgery is safe, and the change to the pars-flaccida approach will lead to even higher patient satisfaction and lower incidence of band removal.

Obesity surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The increasing prevalence of morbid obesity together with the development of laparoscopic approaches has led to a steep rise in the number of bariatric operations. These guidelines intend to define the comparative effectiveness and surrounding circumstances of the various types of obesity surgery.

METHODS

A consensus panel representing the fields of general/endoscopic surgery, nutrition and epidemiology convened to agree on specific questions in obesity surgery. Databases were systematically searched for clinical trial results in order to produce evidence-based recommendations. Following two days of discussion by the experts and a plenary discussion, the final statements were issued.

RECOMMENDATIONS

After the patient's multidisciplinary evaluation, obesity surgery should be considered in adults with a documented BMI greater than or equal to 35 and related comorbidity, or a BMI of at least 40. In addition to standard laboratory testing, chest radiography, electrocardiography, spirometry, and abdominal ultrasonography, the preoperative evaluation of obesity surgery patients also includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or radiologic evaluation with a barium meal. Psychiatric consultation and polysomnography can safely be restricted to patients with clinical symptoms on preoperative screening. Adjustable gastric banding (GB), vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) are all effective in the treatment of morbid obesity, but differ in degree of weight loss and range of complications. The choice of procedure therefore should be tailored to the individual situation. There is evidence that a laparoscopic approach is advantageous for LAGB, VBG, and GB (and probably also for BPD). Antibiotic and antithromboembolic prophylaxis should be used routinely. Patients should be seen 3 to 8 times during the first postoperative year, 1 to 4 times during the second year and once or twice a year thereafter. Outcome assessment after surgery should include weight loss and maintainance, nutritional status, comorbidities and quality-of-life.