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

Outcomes of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The performance of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) in patients with prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has not been characterized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective propensity score-matched study of ESG after LAGB at 2 centers with expertise in bariatric endoscopy. The primary outcome was total weight loss (TWL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included TWL at 3 and 6 months, 12-month excess weight loss (EWL), procedural characteristics, predictors of TWL, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-six adults (88.5% female, age 50.8 y, BMI 36.5 kg/m 2 ) with prior LAGB (median duration 8 y) underwent ESG at a median of 3 years after LAGB removal. A 2:1 age-matched, sex-matched, and BMI-matched comparator group was created, comprising ESG patients from the same organization and time frame but without prior LAGB. TWL for the LAGB-to-ESG cohort versus the ESG-only cohort was 10.1±5.5% versus 13.0±4.4% at 3 months ( P =0.0256), 12.4±7.2% versus 16.0±5.4% at 6 months ( P =0.0375), and 12.7±8.2% versus 18.4±6.5% at 12 months ( P =0.0149). At 12 months, the LAGB-to-ESG cohort had an EWL of 52.5±50.0%, and 75% achieved TWL ≥10%. There was no association between TWL at 3, 6, or 12 months and the following traits: age or BMI at the time of ESG, patient sex, and time from LAGB removal to ESG. No serious adverse events occurred in either cohort.

CONCLUSION

ESG after LAGB facilitates safe and clinically meaningful weight loss but is attenuated compared to primary ESG.

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

PURPOSE

Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years.

RESULTS

144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3-48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7-36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6-31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8-22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS).

BACKGROUND

Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS.

METHODS

Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years.

RESULTS

The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ± 10 years, 8.4 ± 5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ± 7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

Revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: an international, multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) facilitates significant and durable weight loss; however, weight recidivism and need for revisional surgery occur in a subset of patients. Reduction of a dilated LSG using the revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (R-ESG) approach is an appealing and minimally invasive alternative to surgical revision that is congruent with obesity as a chronic relapsing disease model. In this study, we examine the safety and efficacy of the technique in a large multicenter international cohort.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 9 centers for 82 consecutive adults who underwent R-ESG for weight regain after LSG using the OverStitch device (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex, USA) from March 2014 to November 2019 were reviewed. Total body weight loss (TBWL) and adverse events were reported up to 12 months. Univariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response at 12 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-two adults (92.7% female) experienced 27.9 ± 20.7 kg weight regain from post-LSG nadir weight, prompting R-ESG (mean age, 42.8 ± 10.4 years) at a mean weight of 128.2 ± 57.5 kg. Mean R-ESG procedure duration was 48.3 ± 20.5 minutes, and the median number of sutures used was 4 (interquartile range, 3-4). After R-ESG, TBWL (follow-up %) was 6.6% ± 3.2% at 1 month (81.7%), 10.6% ± 4.4% at 3 months (74.4%), 13.2% ± 10.1% at 6 months (63.4%), and 15.7% ± 7.6% at 12 months (51.2%). In a per-protocol analysis, ≥10% TBWL was achieved by 37 of 51 patients (72.5%) at 6 months and 34 of 42 patients (81.0%) at 12 months; ≥15% TBWL was achieved by 20 of 46 patients (43.5%) at 6 months and 22 of 42 patients (52.4%) at 12 months. Only 1 moderate adverse event occurred in the form of a narrowed gastroesophageal junction, which resolved after a single endoscopic dilation.

CONCLUSIONS

R-ESG is a safe and effective means of facilitating weight loss for weight recidivism after LSG, with sustained results at 1 year. R-ESG should be considered before pursuing more-invasive surgical revisional options.

Comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failure of gastric banding: a two-center study with a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies on series comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after failure of gastric banding (GB) are available. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of SG and RYGB after GB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2017, patients undergoing SG (n = 186) or RYGB (n = 107) for failure of primary GB were included in this two-center study. Propensity-score matching was performed based on preoperative factors with a 2:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was the weight loss at 2 years between the SG and RYGB groups. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, reoperation, correction of comorbidities and the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In our propensity score matching analysis, operative time was significantly less in the SG group (95 min vs. 179 min; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were lower in the SG group (9.5% vs. 35.4%; p = 0.003). At 2 years follow-up, the mean EWL was similar as same as comorbidities. There was a significant difference in favor of SG concerning the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Revision of GB by SG or RYGB is feasible, with a higher rate of early post-operative complications for RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years follow-up is similar; however, RYGB appears to result in a higher rate of adverse events than SG.

Does previous abdominal surgery affect the course and outcomes of laparoscopic bariatric surgery?

BACKGROUND

Global experiences in general surgery suggest that previous abdominal surgery may negatively influence different aspects of perioperative care. As the incidence of bariatric procedures has recently increased, it is essential to assess such correlations in bariatric surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether previous abdominal surgery influences the course and outcomes of laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

SETTING

Seven referral bariatric centers in Poland.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 2413 patients; 1706 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) matched the inclusion criteria. Patients with no history of abdominal surgery were included as group 1, while those who had undergone at least 1 abdominal surgery were included as group 2.

RESULTS

Group 2 had a significantly prolonged median operation time for RYGB (P = .012), and the longest operation time was observed in patients who had previously undergone surgeries in both the upper and lower abdomen (P = .002). Such a correlation was not found in SG cases (P = .396). Groups 1 and 2 had similar rates of intraoperative adverse events and postoperative complications (P = .562 and P = .466, respectively). Group 2 had a longer median duration of hospitalization than group 1 (P = .034), while the readmission rate was similar between groups (P = .079). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the influence of the long-term effects of bariatric treatment on weight loss (percentage of follow-up was 55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Previous abdominal surgery prolongs the operative time of RYGB and the duration of postoperative hospitalization, but does not affect the long-term outcomes of bariatric treatment.

Revisional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in failed gastric banding and effects of exercise and frequent sweet-eating on its outcome

Objective:

To find out effectiveness of revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) in the patients who had laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and failed to reduce or regained the weight and effectiveness of sweet abstaining and exercise on postoperative weight loss.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study was conducted at AlMoosa Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from December 2011 to November 2016. The patients who failed to reduce, regained the weight or had complications after LAGB, were performed RLSG. They were followed-up at three, six, twelve and twenty-four months intervals. Their weight, percent excess weight loss (%EWL) and body mass index (BMI) at pre-RLSG were compared with post-RLSG. The data was recorded in SPSS 22 and analyzed.

Results:

Thirty-six patients with male/female ratio of 1:5 underwent RLSG. Twelve (33.3%) were frequent sweet-eaters and twenty-four (66.7%) were not. Fourteen (38.88%) did not have exercise, while twenty-two (61.11%) had daily regular exercise. Their mean pre-RLSG weight, percent excess weight loss (%EWL)and BMI were compared with post-RLSG at the period of three, six, twelve and twenty-four months. Their mean weight reduced from 111.69 kilograms to 96.94, 87.25, 79.56 and 76.11 kilograms respectively. Their mean of the percent excess weight loss (%EWL) reduced to 22.08, 45.75, 59.64 and 66.42 kilograms respectively. Their mean pre-RLSG BMI was 43.50 kg.m^-2, which reduced to the mean of 37.79, 34.02, 30.97 and 29.70 respectively. There were no post-operative complications in thirty (83.3%), mild like wound infection and seroma in four (11.1%) and bleeding in two (5.6%) patients. None of the patients had leakage. The patients who kept themselves abstained from sweet consumption and performed regular postoperative exercise had better results. They also had considerable reduction in appetite after RLSG.

Conclusion:

RLSG is an effective procedure after failed LAGB in terms of weight loss having minimal rate of complications. Moreover, abstaining from sweet consumption and continuing exercise postoperatively has better results.

Revision of primary sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: indications and outcomes from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become an accepted primary bariatric operation. Like other bariatric operations, inadequate weight loss and complications have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the indications and outcomes of revision of SG to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at a single community hospital.

SETTING

Community hospital, United States.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identifying SG operations done from February 2009 to June 2014. All patients who underwent revision from SG to RYGB were studied.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients underwent revision of SG to RYGB. Mean time to revision was 26 months (range, 2-60 mo) and mean follow up after RYGB was 20 months (range, 4-48 mo). Indications for revision were reflux (n = 14), inadequate weight loss (n = 11), reflux and inadequate weight loss (n = 16), stricture (n = 4), chronic leak (n = 1), and recurrent diabetes and reflux (n = 2). Reflux symptoms resolved in 96% of patients after revision, and hiatal hernias were repaired in 50% of patients. Percentage total weight loss at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 9.0%, 12.9%, 15.7%, 13.3%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall rate of complication was 31%. There were no mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision of SG to RYGB is a potentially effective means of treating SG complications, particularly reflux. Reflux was the most common indication for revision and was often associated with a hiatal hernia. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate the long-term maintenance of additional weight loss after revision of SG to RYGB.

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.