Revisional weight loss surgery after failed laparoscopic gastric banding: an institutional experience

Minimally Invasive Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a MBSAQIP Accredited High-Volume Center

Background

With the rising number of bariatric surgeries performed annually, there has also been an increase in revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RBS performed with a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis on a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent minimally invasive RBS between 2012 and 2019. Primary endpoints were conversion rate, major morbidity, mortality, and 30-day reoperation rate. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) vs. conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was performed.

Results

A total of 221 patients underwent minimally invasive RBS, 137 (62%) laparoscopically and 84 (38%) robotically. The most common RBS were LAGB to SG (59.3%) and LAGB to RYGB conversions (16.7%). The main indication was weight loss failure (88.7%). Conversion rate, major morbidity, and mortality were 0.9, 3.2, and 0.4%, respectively. Urgent reoperation was required in 3.2% of cases. Total weight loss at 1 and 2-years follow- were 14.3 and 17.3%, respectively. Comparative analysis of LAGB conversion to SG vs. RYGB showed similar major morbidity (SG: 2.3% vs. RYGB 0%, p = 1). Greater total weight loss was achieved in LAGB to RYGB conversions at 1-year (SG: 14.8% vs. RYGB 25.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive RBS can be performed safely in a broad patient population with low conversion and complication rates, and improved weight loss outcomes. LAGB to RYGB conversions are associated with greater weight loss. Further randomized trials are needed to draw more conclusive recommendations.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

Bridged one-anastomosis gastric bypass: technique and preliminary results

PURPOSE

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an established bariatric procedure performed worldwide. We developed a modification of OAGB leaving a bridge at the cranial 2 cm of the fundus as a gastro-gastric fistula to allow for endoscopic access to the bypassed stomach. We present the preliminary results of 44 patients who underwent this technique in our hospital.

METHODS

We analyzed, retrospectively, data collected prospectively on 44 patients who underwent our bridged one-anastomosis gastric bypass (BOAGB) procedure between September, 2018 and November, 2020.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 45.2 ± 9.3 years (range 20-66 years). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI), weight, and HbA1c values were 41.5 ± 6.4 kg/m² (range 35-59), 116 ± 22.7 kg, and 8.2 ± 2.1%, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 18 months (11-26 months), the mean postoperative BMI was 28.4 ± 3.2 kg/m² (range 21-38), the mean total weight loss was 35.8 ± 13.5 kg (range 20-80 kg), and the mean percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) and the percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) were 79.8 ± 16.1% (range 47-109) and 30.6 ± 6.9% (range 19-48), respectively. The mean postoperative HbA1c level was 6.3 ± 0.9%. There were two early complications (stenosis and bleeding) and one late complication (marginal ulcer).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent BOAGB lost weight similarly to those who underwent OABG as reported in the literature, without an apparent increase in complications related to the technique. Randomized studies with longer term follow-up are needed.

Long-term results of the patients who were applied laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Objectives

The most effective treatment step in morbid obesity is surgical treatment. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the long-term follow-up results and success rates in laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

Material and Methods

The change in body mass index, percentage of excess weight loss, comorbidities, and resulting complications were investigated in 220 patients who were morbidly obese and applied laparoscopic adjustable gastric band between April 2006 and February 2012, throughout the 6-year follow-up period. Forty-six patients who did not show up for their routine follow-ups were excluded from the study.

Results

In the present study, band removal percentage was 35.63%. The percentage of excess weight loss in patients who were followed up without removal of the band was 46.03%. Complications were observed in 46.5% of the patients. The most frequently observed complication among the major complications was band intolerance, which is also the most common cause of band removal. Band removal was considered as a failure in laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operations, and patients were referred to other surgical methods.

Conclusion

When improved patient compliance and careful and close patient follow-up are provided in the early stages of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band application, it may be possible to reach percentage of excess weight loss results that would be the nearest to those achieved by gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy methods. However, high complication rates and necessity to perform other bariatric surgical procedures in the majority of the patients in the long-term follow-up suggest that the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operation is not the first choice in bariatric surgery.

Liver Transplantation and Bariatric Surgery: Best Approach

Obesity has become increasingly prevalent, and the number of obese patients in need of liver transplant is expected to continue to increase. In addition, liver disease due to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is expected to become the leading cause of liver transplantation in the near future. However, obesity remains a relative contraindication in liver transplant. New strategies in managing this patient population are clearly needed. To this end, the authors review the current literature on the efficacy of bariatric surgery in the setting of liver transplantation in obese patients.

Endoscopic treatment of gastric band prolapse

Complications of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) are well documented including migration, erosion, prolapse, infection, pouch dilatation, and gastric perforation. Band prolapse within the first 5 years after LAGB is observed in about 5% of cases, requiring an operative procedure. Here we report our experience of endoscopic treatment of band prolapses. From December 2007 to December 2013, 1,347 consecutive patients (202 male, 1,145 female) underwent LAGB; 47 patients had band prolapses and 7 were treated by endoscopy. All patients were women (median age, 34 years). The mean preoperative body mass index was 38.3 ± 2.9 kg/m2. The mean duration to band prolapse after LAGB was 10.6 ± 5.6 months. The mean duration of endoscopy was 12 ± 3 min. One patient had recurrence of the prolapse 3 months after the first endoscopy and was treated by endoscopy again. There was no operative procedure required and no mortality. Endoscopic treatment of band prolapses is effective without the need for an operative procedure.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: efficacy and consequences over a 13-year period

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a common bariatric surgery. Although it is a safe and effective method of weight reduction in short term, it may result in some problems in long term. The purpose of this study was to investigate the consequences of LAGB in long term among morbid obese patients.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 80 patients underwent LAGB using pars flaccida technique from 2001 to 2006. Long-term postoperative consequences and complications of these patients were recorded.

RESULTS

The preoperative mean values of weight and body mass index were 125.5 ± 22.5 kg and 44.5 ± 6.5 kg/m(2), respectively. Over the 13-year follow-up period, 56 patients (84.8%) experienced at least one complication. The most common complications were band erosion (20 patients) and weight regains (13 patients). Fifty-one patients (78.5%) required reoperation. The band of 48 patients (72.7%) was removed; of these, twenty patients (30.3%) underwent other bariatric surgeries. Percent of excess weight loss was 47.1% ± 30.1%, and the success rate was 48.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB is a successful method with low complications in short term; however, over long term, it results in various complications.

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.

Primary sleeve gastrectomy compared to sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery: weight loss and complications at intermediate follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) can be revised to sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) for various reasons. Data are limited on the safety and efficacy of single-stage removal of LAGB and creation of LSG.

METHODS

A retrospective review of cases was performed from 2010 to 2013. From the primary LSG group, a control group was matched in a 2:1 ratio.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent single-stage revision from LAGB to LSG, with a control group of 64. The most common indication for revision was insufficient weight loss (62.5%). Operative time for revision and control groups was 134 and 92 min, respectively (p < 0.0001). Hospital stay was 3.22 and 2.59 days, respectively (p = 0.02). Overall, the 30-day complication rate for revision and control patients was 14.71 and 6.25%, respectively (p = 0.20). There were no leaks, one stricture (3.13%) in the revision group, and one reoperation for bleeding in the control group (1.56%). For patients with BMI >30 at surgery, change in BMI at 12 months for revision and control was 8.77 and 11.58, respectively (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage revision can be performed safely, with minimal increases in hospital stay and 30-day complications. Weight loss is greater in those who undergo primary LSG compared to those who undergo LSG as revision.

Causes and outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery: initial experience at a single center

Purpose

Bariatric surgery has become more prevalent owing to the worldwide obesity epidemic. With the growing number of bariatric procedures performed annually, the requirement for revisional and secondary operations is increasing accordingly. This study aimed to evaluate the initial experience of revisional bariatric surgery at a single specialized center.

Methods

A retrospective review of the prospectively established database identified all patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery between January 2008 and August 2013. The causes, surgical outcomes, and efficacy of the revisional surgeries were analyzed.

Results

Twenty-two revisional surgeries were performed laparoscopically during the study period (13 laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, 9 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy). The most common indication for revision was weight regain or insufficient weight loss (12/23, 52.2%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was the most commonly performed secondary procedure (17/23, 73.9%, including four resectional RYGB procedures). Gastric pouch leak occurred in one patient following revisional RYGB, which required reoperation on the first postoperative day. The mean body mass index decreased from 35.9 to 28.8 kg/m² at a mean follow-up period of 10 months after revision. The percent excess weight losses at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were 18.8%, 41.1%, 40.1%, and 47.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

Revisional bariatric surgery can be successfully performed via a laparoscopic approach with acceptable risk. Deliberate selection for the proper revisional procedure can efficiently manage undesirable results from the primary surgery.

Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force

BACKGROUND

Reoperative bariatric surgery has become a common practice in many bariatric surgery programs. There is currently little evidence-based guidance regarding specific indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery. A task force was convened to review the current evidence regarding reoperative bariatric surgery. The aim of the review was to identify procedure-specific indications and outcomes for reoperative procedures.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting indications for and outcomes after reoperative bariatric surgery. Specifically, operations to treat complications, failed weight loss, and weight regain were evaluated. Abstract and manuscript reviews were completed by the task force members to identify, grade, and categorize relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 819 articles were identified in the initial search. After review for inclusion criteria and data quality, 175 articles were included in the systematic review and analysis. The majority of published studies are single center retrospective reviews. The evidence supporting reoperative surgery for acute and chronic complications is described. The evidence regarding reoperative surgery for failed weight loss and weight regain generally demonstrates improved weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after reintervention. Procedure-specific outcomes are described. Complication rates are generally reported to be higher after reoperative surgery compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSION

The indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery are procedure-specific but the current evidence does support additional treatment for persistent obesity, co-morbid disease, and complications.