Indications, safety, and feasibility of conversion of failed bariatric surgery to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective comparative study with primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Duodeno-ileal diversion with self-forming magnets in a sutureless neodymium anastomosis procedure (SNAP) for weight recidivism after sleeve gastrectomy: feasibility and 9-month results

BACKGROUND

The sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become the most common bariatric procedure worldwide. However, insufficient weight loss or weight recidivism is frequent, which may require effective and safe revisional procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the technical feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive, duodeno-ileal side-to-side anastomosis using a Sutureless Neodymium Anastomosis Procedure (SNAP) for patients with weight recidivism or inadequate weight loss following SG.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-arm, open-label pilot study that enrolled patients with obesity to assist in weight reduction following an SG performed > 12 months prior. For the SNAP, self-assembling magnets were deployed into the ileum (laparoscopically) and duodenum (per-oral endoscopy). Magnets were coupled under laparoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance to create a compression anastomosis. The primary endpoints were technical feasibility, weight loss, and rate of serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

Successful duodeno-ileal diversions were created with SNAP in 27 participants (mean age: 50.6 ± 9.1, mean BMI: 38.1 ± 4.6 kg/m2) with no device-related serious adverse events. Upper endoscopy at 3 months confirmed patent, healthy anastomoses in all patients. At 9 months, patients (n = 24) experienced 11.9 ± 6.2%, 14.5 ± 10.8%, and 17.0 ± 13.9% TBWL at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. There were no device-related SAEs.

CONCLUSION

The SNAP is technically feasible and relatively safe, with all patients presenting widely patent anastomosis at 3 months. Patients experienced a progressive, clinically meaningful weight loss. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Preoperative risk factors for early postoperative bleeding after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Although bariatric surgery is an effective intervention for obesity, it comes with risks such as early postoperative bleeding (EPB). Identifying preoperative risk factors for this complication can help patients' risk stratification and optimization. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to find predictors for early postoperative bleeding after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until November 2023. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to explore preoperative risk factors associated with early postoperative bleeding after RYGB. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by leave-one-out analyses.

RESULTS

23 studies were included, comprising 232,488 patients. Male gender (meta-analytical RR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.21-1.66, I2 = 18%, Q Cochran test p-value = 0.29) and revisional surgery (meta-analytical RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.12-1.62, I2 = 22%, Q Cochran test p = 0.21) were associated with higher risk of EPB. On average, patients with EPB were older than the remainder (MD for the mean age = 2.82 years, 95%CI = 0.97-4.67, I2 = 0.00%, Q Cochran test p = 0.46). Except for hypertension (meta-analytical RR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.02-1.73, I2 = 66%, Q Cochran test p < 0.0001), comorbidities were not associated with a higher risk of EPB.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative risk factors, including age, gender, hypertension, and revisional bariatric surgery, are associated with early postoperative bleeding after RYGB. Further primary studies, with higher methodological quality, are required to detail more risk factors.

Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving significant weight loss and remission of obesity-related comorbidities. However, a percentage of patients fail to lose enough weight, regain weight, or experience postoperative complications, requiring additional interventions. Revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS) involve the wide spectrum of procedures that aim to treat complications of the index operation or achieve further weight loss. These are technically challenging procedures due to adhesions of the internal organs, reduced working space, and a distorted anatomy. Indications, timing, and type of operation for RBS are not standardized, and there is no consensus on the best surgical approach. Some authors claim a robotic platform could be advantageous in these types of procedures that are performed in reduced, deep operating fields, or those requiring precision and accuracy. This review examines the most current and representative literature on the outcomes of robot-assisted RBS. Included studies demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach for RBS. However, long operative times and high costs remain major drawbacks of the device. Finally, if we consider that many centers have not yet completed the learning curve for robot-assisted RBS, the potential for improved outcomes seems promising.

Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding with the Adhesix® Bioring® for Weight Regain or Insufficient Weight Loss After a Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Midterm Data from the Pronto Registry

PURPOSE

Although Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is one of the most common bariatric procedures, insufficient weight loss is described to be as high as 20-35%. To treat weight regain/inadequate weight loss, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) could be a feasible revisional strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report on a prospective study which included 35 patients who presented inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain after primary RYGB (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL] at revision < 50%). All patients underwent revisional LAGB with the placement of an Adhesix® Bioring® adjustable gastric band (Cousin Biotech, Wervicq-Sud, France). Patients' weight loss, complications, frequency of revisions and quality of life were evaluated.

RESULTS

Follow-up data at 24 months are available for 80% of the included patients. The mean BMI before RYGB was 43.6 ± 5.4 kg/m² and before revisional LAGB was 38.8 ± 4.3kg/m². The %EWL before revisional surgery was 23.3 ± 24.8%. The average time between both procedures was 6.7 (mean) ± 3.6 (SD) years. Twenty-four months after revisional LAGB, the average BMI calculated from the weight at RYGB dropped to 32.0 ± 4.5 kg/m², with an additional %EWL of 49.9 ± 30.3% resulting in a total %EWL of 60.7 ± 28%. The reoperation rate for complications related to LAGB was 21.2%. No band erosions occurred, but two bands needed to be removed during the study.

CONCLUSION

Revisional LAGB may be considered a valid salvage procedure in patients with weight regain or inadequate weight loss after RYGB, though band- and port-related complications remain a notable concern.

Is the Sleeve Gastrectomy Sufficient or Does it Require Additional Surgical Procedures?

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is a relatively simple procedure and has become the most well-known bariatric surgical procedure in Korea and Western countries. However, this procedure has several disadvantages in terms of long-term weight loss and metabolic disease control. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and additional bypass (sleeve plus) procedures were recently introduced into bariatric surgery in order to combine the physiologic advantages of pyloric-saving reconstruction and the bypass effect. A sleeve gastrectomy was performed first, followed by a bypass procedure. This review describes sleeve plus procedures reported in the literature and compares their outcomes with the most frequently performed techniques.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with loop duodenojejunal bypass for obesity

Purpose

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) with loop duodenojejunal bypass (LDJB) is a combination of SG and one anastomosis gastric bypass surgeries. This study was intended to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SG-LDJB surgery.

Methods

This was a retrospective study analyzing SG-LDJB surgery using 250-cm length biliopancreatic limbs that was performed between May 2013 and December 2017 in 113 Indians with obesity. All demographic, clinical, operative, and follow-up data were analyzed for weight loss and diabetes remission efficacy. Weight-loss success was defined as percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) ≥ 25%. Diabetes remission was defined as hemoglobin A1c < 6% without the need for antidiabetic medications. Safety and feasibility were analyzed in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications and serum albumin, iron, and calcium levels.

Results

The %TWL was 35.0% and 31.0% at the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups, respectively. The weight-loss success rate was 91.3% and 78.1% at the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups, respectively. Sixty-six out of 113 patients had type 2 diabetes. Diabetes remission was 80.0% and 75.4% at the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups, respectively. Major perioperative complications occurred in 0.9% of the patients. The 30-day mortality rate was zero. None of the patients had serum albumin levels of <3 g/dL at the 1-year and 3-year follow-ups or symptoms of hypoproteinemia.

Conclusion

SG-LDJB surgery using a 250-cm biliopancreatic limb is a safe and effective procedure to treat obesity. It is technically complex but has the advantages of endoscopic access to the stomach and negligible postoperative complications or hypoproteinemia.

Comparative Effectiveness of Roux-en Y Gastric Bypass Versus Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy for Sustained Remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery results in rapid weight loss and resolution of comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to determine whether the type of surgical procedure-vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)-was associated with sustained remission from T2DM, and to identify other independent predictors of sustained remission.

METHODS

Using the IBM MarketScan database of privately insured patients in the United States, we performed a retrospective cohort study on individuals aged 18-65 y with T2DM on hypoglycemic medication, who underwent either VSG or RYGB from 2010 to 2016. Remission was defined as no refill of antidiabetic medication 180 d after a patient's medication was expected to run out and recurrence as medication refill after at least 180 d of remission.

RESULTS

Of 5119 patients in our cohort, 4127 (81%) experienced remission of T2DM, and 816 (19.8%) of the 4127 patients experienced recurrence. Patients who underwent RYGB had a 24% (HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.32) increased probability of achieving remission compared with VSG. RYGB had a 36% (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.74) decreased risk of recurrence compared with VSG. A higher number of diabetic medications at the time of surgery and a higher Charlson index score were associated with decreased probability of remission and an increased risk of recurrence of T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

While both procedures are initially effective, RYGB may be better than VSG at providing lasting remission of T2DM.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Introduction:

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

A comparison of revisional and primary bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is an important component of addressing weight regain and complications following primary bariatric surgery. Owing to provincial need and the complexity of this patient population, a specialized multidisciplinary revision clinic was developed. We sought to characterize patients who undergo revision surgery and compare their outcomes with primary bariatric surgery clinic data.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of bariatric revision clinic patients compared with primary bariatric surgery patients from December 2009 to June 2014.

RESULTS

We reviewed the charts of 2769 primary bariatric clinic patients, 886 of whom had bariatric surgery, and 534 revision bariatric clinic patients, 83 of whom had revision surgery. Fewer revision clinic patients underwent surgery than primary clinic patients (22% v. 32%). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.7 ± 9.5 in revision patients compared with 45.7 ± 7.6 in primary bariatric surgery patients. Most revision patients had a prior vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG; 48%) or a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB; 24%). Bands were removed in 36% of all LAGB patients presenting to clinic. Of the 134 procedures performed in the revision clinic, 83 were bariatric weight loss surgeries, and 51 were band removals. Revision clinic patients experienced a significant decrease in BMI (from 44.7 ± 9.5 to 33.8 ± 7.5, p < 0.001); their BMI at 12-month follow-up was similar to that of primary clinic patients (34.5 ± 7.0, p = 0.7). Complications were significantly more frequent in revision patients than primary patients (41% v. 15%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A bariatric revision clinic manages a wide variety of complex patients distinct from those seen in a primary clinic. Operative candidates at the revision clinic are chosen based on favourable medical, anatomic and psychosocial factors, keeping in mind the resource constraints of a public health care system.

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

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

Laparoscopic Conversion of Vertical Banded Gastroplasty into Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Laparoscopic conversion of vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) into Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is a technically demanding procedure. This article demonstrates the feasibility of conversion of failed VBG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP).We have a series of 15 patients who underwent conversion from VBG to RYGBP, and the results were satisfactory regarding the percent excess weight loss and the resolution of the comorbidities, without a significant increase in the complications. In patients with a difficult anatomy below the cardia, dividing the esophagus just above the esophagogastric junction and performing an esophagojejunostomy may be a safe alternative to converting to a Scopinaro-BPD. Laparoscopic conversion of failed VBG to RYGBP is safe and feasible.

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

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

Energy and macronutrient intake after gastric bypass for morbid obesity: a 3-y observational study focused on protein consumption

BACKGROUND

The effect of a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on body weight has been amply documented, but few studies have simultaneously assessed the evolution of energy and macronutrient intakes, energy expenditure, and changes in body composition over time after an RYGB.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated energy and macronutrient intakes, body composition, and the basal metabolic rate (BMR) in obese female patients during the initial 3 y after an RYGB.

METHODS

Sixteen women with a mean ± SEM body mass index (in kg/m(2)) of 44.1 ± 1.6 were included in this prospective observational study. The women were studied on 6 different occasions as follows: before and 1, 3, 6, 12 (n = 16), and 36 (n = 8) mo after surgery. On each occasion, food intake was evaluated from 4- or 7-d dietary records, body composition was assessed with the use of bio-impedancemetry, and energy expenditure was measured with the use of indirect calorimetry.

RESULTS

Body weight evolution showed the typical pattern reported after an RYGB. Total energy intake was 2072 ± 108 kcal/d at baseline and decreased to 681 ± 58 kcal/d at 1 mo after surgery (P < 0.05 compared with at baseline). Total energy intake progressively increased to reach 1240 ± 87 kcal/d at 12 mo after surgery (P < 0.05 compared with at 1 mo after surgery) and 1448 ± 57 kcal/d at 36 mo after surgery (P < 0.05 compared with at 12 mo after surgery). Protein intake was 87 ± 4 g/d at baseline and ± 2 g/d 1 mo after surgery (P < 0.05 compared with at baseline) and increased progressively thereafter to reach 57 ± 3 g/d at 36 mo after surgery (P < 0.05 compared with at 1 mo after surgery). Carbohydrate and fat intakes over time showed similar patterns. Protein intake from meat and cheese were significantly reduced early at 1 mo after surgery but increased thereafter (P < 0.05). The BMR decreased from 1.12 ± 0.04 kcal/min at baseline to 0.93 ± 0.03, 0.86 ± 0.03, and 0.85 ± 0.04 kcal/min at 3, 12, and 36 mo after surgery, respectively (all P < 0.05 compared with at baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

Total energy, carbohydrate, fat, and protein intakes decreased markedly during the initial 1-3 mo after an RYGB, whereas the BMR moderately decreased. The reduction in protein intake was particularly severe at 1 mo after surgery, and protein intake increased gradually after 3-6 mo after surgery. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01891591.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Is conservative management for gastric perforation secondary to intragastric balloon possible? Case report and review of literature

Intragastric balloon (IGB) is one of the available options for the management of morbid obesity. The procedure is generally safe and of moderate efficacy in most of the cases. One of the reported complications of IGB is gastric perforation. The management of this complication is classically surgical. To our knowledge, conservative management for gastric perforation secondary to IGB has not been reported. A 27-year-old female patient presented with sudden abdominal pain in the left upper quadrant, 2 months after having an IGB placed. The provisional diagnosis was gastric perforation. Balloon extraction was performed and a conservative management of the gastric perforation was pursued successfully. We therefore propose that this sort of management might be adopted in carefully selected cases.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after successful weight loss with a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: rationales and early outcomes in patients of body mass index<35 kg/m(2.)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a number of well-established acute and chronic issues that can require revisional surgical procedures. There is no existing data to evaluate conversion of band patients with body mass index (BMI)<35 kg/m(2) from LAGB to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study aims to report on the indications for and the safety profile of conversion of the LAGB to RYGB in patients with BMI<35 kg/m(2).

METHODS

A review of data from 200 consecutive conversions of LAGB to RYGB was conducted. Fifty-two patients whose BMI was<35 kg/m(2) were included in this analysis. Indications for conversion, technical details, early morbidity, length of hospital stay, and weight loss data were assessed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic conversion to RYGB was performed in 100% of patients. The median BMI pre-RYGB was 32.8 kg/m(2). The most common indication for surgery was weight regain after removal of LAGB (28.8%). There was no mortality. Early morbidity was seen in 25% of patients; the most common complication was stricture of the gastrojejunal anastomosis (9 patients).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity resulting from conversion of LAGB to RYGB in patients with BMI <35 kg/m(2) is similar to that seen in the BMI>35 kg/m(2) population. The procedure is technically challenging and morbidity rates are higher than those reported for surgically 'naïve' patients. It is recommended that this procedure be undertaken by appropriately trained surgeons in high-volume bariatric centers to optimize safety and outcomes.

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.

Bariatric emergencies: current evidence and strategies of management

BACKGROUND

The demand for bariatric surgery is increasing and the postoperative complications are seen more frequently. The aim of this paper is to review the current outcomes of bariatric surgery emergencies and to formulate a pathway of safe management.

METHODS

The PubMed and Google search for English literatures relevant to emergencies of bariatric surgery was made, 6358 articles were found and 90 papers were selected based on relevance, power of the study, recent papers and laparoscopic workload. The pooled data was collected from these articles that were addressing the complications and emergency treatment of bariatric patients. 830,998 patients were included in this review.

RESULTS

Bariatric emergencies were increasingly seen in the Accident and Emergency departments, the serious outcomes were reported following complex operations like gastric bypass but also after gastric band and the causes were technical errors, suboptimal evaluation, failure of effective communication with bariatric teams who performed the initial operation, patients factors, and delay in the presentation. The mortality ranged from 0.14%-2.2% and increased for revisional surgery to 6.5% (p = 0.002). Inspite of this, mortality following bariatric surgery is still less than that of control group of obese patients (p = value 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Most mortality and catastrophic outcomes following bariatric surgery are preventable. The awareness of bariatric emergencies and its effective management are the gold standards for best outcomes. An algorithm is suggested and needs further evaluation.

The economic impact of weight regain

Background. Obesity is well known for being associated with significant economic repercussions. Bariatric surgery is the only evidence-based solution to this problem as well as a cost-effective method of addressing the concern. Numerous authors have calculated the cost effectiveness and cost savings of bariatric surgery; however, to date the economic impact of weight regain as a component of overall cost has not been addressed. Methods. The literature search was conducted to elucidate the direct costs of obesity and primary bariatric surgery, the rate of weight recidivism and surgical revision, and any costs therein. Results. The quoted cost of obesity in Canada was $2.0 billion-$6.7 billion in 2013 CAD. The median percentage of bariatric procedures that fail due to weight gain or insufficient weight loss is 20% (average: 21.1% ± 10.1%, range: 5.2-39, n = 10). Revision of primary surgeries on average ranges from 2.5% to 18.4%, and depending on the procedure accounts for an additional cost between $14,000 and $50,000 USD per patient. Discussion. There was a significant deficit of the literature pertaining to the cost of revision surgery as compared with primary bariatric surgery. As such, the cycle of weight recidivism and bariatric revisions has not as of yet been introduced into any previous cost analysis of bariatric surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative morbidity is determined by type of procedure

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric procedures are on the rise. The higher complexity of these procedures has been reported to lead to increased risk of complications. The objective of our study was to compare the perioperative risk profile of revisional bariatric surgery with primary bariatric surgery in our experience.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery by three fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons from June 2005 to January 2013 at a center of excellence was reviewed. Patient demographics, type of initial and revisional operation, number of prior gastric surgeries, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were recorded. These outcomes were compared between revisional and primary procedures by the Mann-Whitney or Chi square tests.

RESULTS

Of 1,556 patients undergoing bariatric surgery, 102 patients (6.5%) underwent revisional procedures during the study period. Indications for revisions included inadequate weight loss in 67, failed fundoplications with recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease in 29, and other in 6 cases. Revisional bariatric procedures belonged into four categories: band to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 23), band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 25), fundoplication to bypass (n = 29), and other (n = 25). Revisional procedures were associated with higher rates of readmissions and overall morbidity but no differences in leak rates and mortality compared with primary procedures. Band revisions had similar length of stay with primary procedures and had fewer complications compared with other revisions. Patients undergoing fundoplication to bypass revisions were older, had a higher number of prior gastric procedures, and the highest morbidity (40%) and reoperation (20%) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands, many revisional bariatric procedures can be accomplished safely, with excellent perioperative outcomes that are similar to primary procedures. As the complexity of the revisional procedure and number of prior surgeries increases, however, so does the perioperative morbidity, with fundoplication revisions to gastric bypass representing the highest risk group.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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