Outcomes of primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multicenter analysis of ten-year experience

Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease after Sleeve Gastrectomy: Effectiveness of Medical, Endoscopic, and Surgical Therapies

Introduction: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become the most frequently performed bariatric operation in the United States. One of the main disadvantages of this procedure is the risk of developing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after the operation. We aimed to analyze different approaches for the treatment of GERD after SG. Methods: A literature review was performed to identify all possible treatment options for post-SG GERD. All the studies were assessed for full eligibility by manual assessment of their aims, methodology, results, and conclusions. Records were individually reviewed by the authors comparing outcomes and complications between procedures. Results: Although some studies have shown improvement or even resolution of GERD symptoms after SG, most patients develop or worsen symptoms. Lifestyle modifications along with medical therapy should be started on patients with GERD after SG. For those who are refractory to medication, endoscopic and surgical therapies can be offered. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is consistently effective in treatment of GERD and is the ideal therapy in patients with associated insufficient weight loss. Endoscopic and alternative surgical procedures are also available and have shown acceptable short-term outcomes. Conclusions: Several treatment options exist for the treatment of GERD after SG. Although conversion to RYGB remains the most effective therapy, other emerging endoscopic and surgical procedures could avoid the potential morbidity of this procedure and should be further evaluated. An evidence-based algorithm for the management of GERD after SG is proposed to guide decision making.

The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15-20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions.

Outcomes of primary versus conversional Roux-En-Y gastric bypass after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Conversional surgery is common after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) because of suboptimal weight loss (SWL) or poor responders and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most common conversional procedure after LSG.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent primary RYGB (PRYGB) or conversional RYGB (CRYGB) at three specialized bariatric centers between 2008 and 2019 and tested for weight loss, resolution of GERD, food tolerance (FT), early and late complications, and the resolution of associated medical problems. This was analyzed by propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

In total, 558 (PRYGB) and 155 (CRYGB) completed at least 2 years of follow-up. After PSM, both cohorts significantly decreased BMI from baseline (p < 0.001). The CRYGB group had an initially more significant mean BMI decrease of 6.095 kg/m2 at 6 months of follow-up (p < 0.001), while the PRYGB group had a more significant mean BMI decrease of 5.890 kg/m2 and 8.626 kg/m2 at 1 and 2 years, respectively (p < 0.001). Food tolerance (FT) improved significantly in the CRYGB group (p < 0.001), while CRYGB had better FT than PRYGB at 2 years (p < 0.001). A GERD resolution rate of 92.6% was recorded in the CRYGB (p < 0.001). Both cohorts had comparable rates of early complications (p = 0.584), late complications (p = 0.495), and reoperations (p = 0.398). Associated medical problems at 2 years significantly improved in both cohorts (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CRYGB is a safe and efficient option in non- or poor responders after LSG, with significant weight loss and improvement in GERD. Moreover, PRYGB and CRYGB had comparable complications, reoperations, and associated medical problem resolution rates.

Outcome comparison between primary and revisional bariatric surgery: A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric procedures for weight recurrence are rising but are considered higher risk and less effective than primary bariatric procedures. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery for weight recurrence.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from adult patients who underwent revisional or primary bariatric surgery from 2016 to 2020 in an academic institution were reviewed. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy were performed primarily or as conversion procedures after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, vertical banded gastroplasty, and sleeve gastrectomy. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between revisional bariatric surgery and primary bariatric surgery, and logistic regression analysis was used to compare up to 2-year weight loss and comorbidity resolution outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of172 cases (86 revisional bariatric surgery versus 86 primary bariatric surgery) were included. Groups were matched for age, sex, preoperative body mass index, bariatric procedure, diabetes, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. Procedure duration (203 ± 78 vs 154 ± 69 minutes; P < .001) and length of stay (2.3 ± 2.1 vs 1.7 ± 1 days; P = .02) were longer for revisional bariatric surgery versus primary bariatric surgery, respectively. Total weight loss was less in revisional bariatric surgery compared with primary bariatric surgery at 1 year (23 ± 10% vs 32 ± 9%; P < .001) and 2 years (21 ± 12.% vs 32 ± 10%; P < .001) of follow-up; however, no differences were detected in postoperative occurrences, emergency department visits, readmissions, reintervention and reoperation rates, and comorbidity resolution.

CONCLUSION

Although revisional bariatric surgery was associated with longer operation times, prolonged hospitalization, and lower weight loss than primary bariatric surgery, it was accomplished safely and led to substantial weight loss and comorbidity resolution. This information can guide patient counseling before revisional surgery for weight recurrence.

Assessment of predictors of early postoperative complications after primary robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is performed in an increasing number of bariatric centers worldwide. Previous studies have identified a number of demographic and clinical variables as predictors of postoperative complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Some authors have suggested better early postoperative outcomes after RRYGB compared to LRYGB. The objective of the present study was to assess potential predictors of early postoperative complications after RRYGB.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of two prospective databases containing patients who underwent RRYGB between 2006 and 2019 at two high volumes, accredited bariatric centers was performed. Primary outcome was rate of 30 day postoperative complications. Relevant demographic, clinical and biological variables were entered in a multivariate, logistic regression analysis to identify potential predictors.

Results

Data of 1276 patients were analyzed, including 958 female and 318 male patients. Rates of overall and severe 30 day complications were 12.5% (160/1276) and 3.9% (50/1276), respectively. Rate of 30 day reoperations was 1.6% (21/1276). The overall gastrointestinal leak rate was 0.2% (3/1276). Among various demographic, clinical and biological variables, male sex and ASA score >2 were significantly correlated with an increased risk of 30 day complication rates on multivariate analysis (OR 1.68 and 1.67, p=0.005 and 0.005, respectively).

Conclusion

This study identified male sex and ASA score >2 as independent predictors of early postoperative complications after RRYGB. These data suggest a potentially different risk profile in terms of early postoperative complications after RRYGB compared to LYRGB. The robotic approach might have a benefit for patients traditionally considered to be at higher risk of complications after LRYGB, such as those with BMI >50. The present study was however not designed to assess this hypothesis and larger, prospective studies are necessary to confirm these results.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair with selective use of biologic mesh

BACKGROUND

The use of biologic mesh in paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) has been associated with decreased short-term recurrence but no statistically significant difference in long-term recurrence. Because of this, we transitioned from routine to selective use of mesh for PEHR. The aim of this study was to examine our indications for selective mesh use and to evaluate patient outcomes in this population.

METHODS

We queried a prospectively maintained database for patients who underwent laparoscopic PEHR with biologic mesh from October 2015 to October 2018, then performed a retrospective chart review. The decision to use mesh was made intraoperatively by the surgeon. Recurrence was defined as the presence of > 2 cm intrathoracic stomach on postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series.

RESULTS

Mesh was used in 61/169 (36%) of first-time PEHRs, and in 47/82 (57%) of redo PEHRs. Among first-time PEHRs, the indications for mesh included hiatal tension (85%), poor crural tissue quality (11%), or both (5%). Radiographic recurrence occurred in 15% of first-time patients (symptomatic N = 2, asymptomatic N = 3). There were no reoperations for recurrence. Among redo PEHRs, the indication for mesh was most commonly the redo nature of the repair itself (55%), but also hiatal tension (51%), poor crural tissue quality (13%), or both (4%). Radiographic recurrence occurred in 21% of patients (symptomatic N = 4, asymptomatic N = 1). There was 1 reoperation for recurrence in the redo-repair group.

CONCLUSIONS

We selectively use biologic mesh in a third of our first-time repair patients and in over half of our redo-repair patients when there is a perceived high risk of recurrence based on hiatal tension, poor tissue quality, or prior recurrence. Despite the high risk for radiologic recurrence, there was only 1 reoperation for recurrence in the entire cohort.