Revision of failed bariatric procedures to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)

Weight loss specific to indication, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after sleeve gastrectomy conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Long-term complications such as insufficient weight loss (IWL) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may necessitate SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The aim of this review was to determine the indication-specific weight loss and diabetes remission after SG conversion to RYGB (STOBY). Our objective was to extract all available published data on indication for conversion, weight loss, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after STOBY. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes following STOBY. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search identified 44 relevant studies. Overall short-term (12-mo) excess weight loss (EWL) was 54.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%-63%) in 23 studies (n = 712) and total weight loss (TWL) was 19.9% (95% CI, 14%-25%) in 21 studies (n = 740). For IWL, short-term (12-mo) pooled weight loss outcomes were 53.9% EWL (95% CI, 48%-59%) in 14 studies (n = 295) and 22.7% TWL (95% CI, 17%-28%) in 12 studies (n = 219), and medium-term (2-5 yr) outcomes were 45.8% EWL (95% CI, 38%-53%) in 7 studies (n = 154) and 20.6% TWL (95% CI, 15%-26%) in 9 studies (n = 206). Overall diabetes remission was 53% (95% CI, 33%-72%), and the perioperative complication rate was 8.2% (95% CI, 7.6%-8.7%). Revisional SG conversion to RYGB for IWL can achieve good weight loss outcomes and diabetes remission.

Feasibility of resection and plication "RAP" technique for management of medically refractory GERD in patients with altered gastric anatomy

Background and study aims  Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common, especially in patients after gastric surgery. Medical management of GERD is ineffective in up to 30 % patients and revisional gastric surgery for management of GERD is associated with higher morbidity. We aimed to assess the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of a novel endoscopic resection and plication (RAP) anti-reflux procedure for management of medically refractory GERD in patients with altered gastric anatomy. Patients and methods  The RAP procedure involves endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness plication over the right posterior-medial axis extending 15 mm above and 20 to 30 mm below the squamocolumnar junction. Adverse events, technical feasibility, GERD health-related quality-of-life (GERD-HRQL) scores, and medication use were prospectively recorded. Results  Twenty consecutive patients with previous gastric surgery underwent RAP between September 2018 and August 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.7 months. The median procedure duration was 66 minutes (IQR 53.8-89.5). RAP was technically successful in 19 patients. One patient developed gastric hemorrhage from suture dehiscence, which was managed endoscopically, and four patients developed esophageal stricture requiring endoscopic dilation. Following the RAP procedure, significant improvement in GERD-HRQL score was observed (mean 26.9, 95 %CI 23.36-30.55, P  < 0.01). Fourteen of 19 patients reported > 50 % improvement in GERD-HRQL scores. Sixteen of 18 patients reported reduction in requirement for or cessation of antacid therapy. Conclusions  Patients with refractory GERD after gastric surgery have limited therapeutic options. We have demonstrated that the RAP procedure is feasible, safe, and clinically effective at short-term follow-up. It provides a potential alternative to revisional surgery in patients with altered gastric anatomy.

Conversions of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to duodenal switch (SADI-S and BPD-DS) for weight regain

BACKGROUND

Duodenal switch is a choice of conversion when patients fail to lose or regain weight after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of duodenal switch as a secondary operation for patients who presented with insufficient weight loss or weight regain after a RYGB.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on 15 patients who underwent a conversion of RYGB to single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve (SADI-S) or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) due to weight regain between December 31, 2013 and October 31, 2018. For the body mass index (BMI) analysis, the multilevel model for change was used.

RESULTS

Of 15 patients, 10 underwent a conversion to SADI-S, and 5 underwent a conversion to BPD-DS. Also, 7 patients underwent the conversion in two-stages, while 8 did as single-stage. One patient had a duodenal stump leak after SADI-S, and another patient had a sleeve leak after BPD-DS. One patient underwent a reoperation to increase the common channel 20 months after the conversion to BPD-DS due to malnutrition. There was no mortality. Mean percentage of total weight loss (TWL) was 18.4% at 6 months, 25.0% at 12 months, 26.4% at 18 months, and 25.7% at 24 months after the conversion. The rate of decrease in BMI was slower in SADI-S patients than in BPD-DS patients (p < 0.01), adjusting for preoperative BMI.

CONCLUSION

Conversions of RYGB to SADI-S and BPD-DS can provide significant additional weight loss. However, complications and malnutrition can develop after the conversion, and further research is needed for evaluating safety.

The Use of the Overstitch for Bariatric Weight Loss

Obesity is a public health pandemic and leading contributor to morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic bariatric therapies have emerged as a viable minimally invasive treatment option to fill the therapeutic gap between conservative and surgical approaches. The ability to reliably place full-thickness sutures throughout the gastrointestinal tract has opened the door to novel endoscopic gastric restrictive procedures. A growing body of literature supports endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty as a safe, effective, and reproducible endoscopic treatment of obesity and metabolic syndrome. In addition, endoscopic sutured revision procedures following gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy are now first-line with demonstrable safety and long-term efficacy.

Technical Feasibility of a Murine Model of Sleeve Gastrectomy with Ileal Transposition

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition has been shown to be superior to sleeve gastrectomy alone for promoting weight loss in rat and porcine models. The absence of a mouse model for this procedure has impeded efforts to understand the molecular physiology underlying its efficacy. This study demonstrates the long-term survivability of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition in mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study of technical feasibility, a sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition (SGIT), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), or sham surgery (SH) was performed on 7- to 8-week-old C57Bl/6J mice (n = 8 for each). To evaluate long-term survivability, mice were placed on an obesogenic diet and weighed weekly for 10 weeks. The intestinal identity of the transposed segment was assessed with gene expression analysis of duodenal-, jejunal-, and ileal-specific hormones using quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Overall, SGIT better prevented weight gain than the SG or sham procedures (10-week post-operative weight: SH 45.3 ± 1.0 g, SG 41.25 ± 1.6 g, SGIT 35.4 ± 0.8 g). Gene expression pattern analysis of three markers of intestinal identity (gastrin, cholecystokinin, and peptide YY) suggests that the ileal identity of the transposed segment is maintained 10 weeks after transposition.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate for the first time a reproducible mouse model of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition. Future studies utilizing this model will expand our understanding of the molecular pathways through which the hindgut regulates satiety.

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.

Thoracic Complications of Bariatric Surgeries: Overlooked Entities

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgeries are increasingly performed to treat obesity worldwide. The currently available literature on these surgeries mainly focuses on their abdominal complications, giving less attention to their thoracic ones. Hence, the present work aimed to highlight the thoracic complications associated with bariatric surgeries.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive study was performed and involved the review of the medical charts of 390 patients who underwent different bariatric surgeries between January 2014 and January 2017 in our hospital or who were referred to us from other centers after their specific operations. The data of patients who developed thoracic complications and who required further intervention were identified and categorized by the modality of diagnosis, outcome, duration of hospital and ICU stays, and management. Patients with a history of a preexisting pulmonary disease were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were observed to have thoracic complications secondary to their bariatric surgeries. Twenty-two patients (84.6%) received post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LASG). Nine patients (34.6%) required ICU stays. Twenty patients (76.9) had incidences of pleural effusion in the postoperative period. The mean duration of hospital and ICU stays were 4.4 ± 11.67 days and 15 ± 19.36 days, respectively. Other reported thoracic complications included esophageal perforations, thoracic empyema, septic pericardial effusion, and pancreaticopleural fistula.

CONCLUSION

Bariatric surgeries are safe procedures in selected patients. There is a significant amount of literature describing abdominal, nutritional, neurological, and even ophthalmic complications after bariatric surgeries. Being that they are relatively rare, thoracic complications are underreported in the literature. The management of thoracic complications after bariatric surgery requires awareness and a high index of suspicion to prevent further morbidities and mortalities.

Bariatric Surgery for Obesity

In this review, the authors discuss the indications for and the published outcomes of commonly performed bariatric procedures, including weight loss, perioperative morbidity and mortality, late complications, as well as the impact of bariatric surgery on comorbidities, cardiovascular risk, and mortality. They also briefly discuss the mechanisms by which bariatric/metabolic surgery causes such significant weight loss and health gain.

Management of Complications and Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: 3-Year Experience at a Bariatric Center of Excellence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasingly common. A tailored decision-making process is advocated. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the RBS experience of a single center, analyzing perioperative complications to provide insight into management options and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Records from November 2011 to March 2015 were reviewed from prospectively maintained database. Six hundred eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures; of these, 81 (13.1 %) underwent RBS. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months (n = 77) were evaluated. Fifty-nine underwent revised laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 18 underwent revised Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Indications for RBS were inadequate weight loss or weight regain in 42 cases (54.5 %) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), procedure-related complications, or technical failure in 35 cases (45.5 %).

RESULTS

There were no deaths or conversions to open surgery. After a mean follow-up of 22 months, body mass index (BMI) decreased from 40.9 ± 6.7 to 31.9 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), mean % excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58 ± 24.3 %, and 55.3 % of patients had resolution of comorbidities. Eight major complications (10.4 %) occurred: five leaks and three intra-abdominal hematomas. Non-surgical management succeeded in 50 % of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that RBS is challenging; a complication rate of 10 % is expected. Major surgery can be avoided when devoted endoscopists and radiologists are available. Intensive follow-up after complications allows early diagnosis and treatment of unfavorable sequelae. RBS induced a mean %EWL of 58 % at 2 years and resolution of comorbidities in 50 % of cases. However, the durability of these effects remains questionable.

Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: single-surgeon case series

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the only effective treatment for the long-term maintenance of significant weight loss. Minimally invasive revisional procedures are on the rise. Data is lacking in terms of safety, feasibility and outcomes with robotic revisional procedures.

METHODS

Robotic revisional bariatric procedures (RRBPs) of gastric band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, revision of gastro-jejunal anastomosis and stricturoplasty performed during 2009-2013 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

RRBPs were performed on 14 patients with mean age, pre-operative body mass index (BMI) and weight of 45.2 ± 11.4 years, 40.1 ± 8.7 kg/m² and 109.4 ± 26 kg, respectively. The mean operative time, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were 220.6 ± 64.3) min, 31 ± 22.7 ml and 3.3 ± 1.5 days, respectively. There were no conversions, blood transfusions, gastrointestinal leaks, intraoperative complications or mortalities.

CONCLUSION

RRBP can be performed safely without increased morbidity and with the added benefit of a minimally invasive approach. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 surgery after failed gastric banding: results of one-stage conversion to RYGB in 195 patients

BACKGROUND

The most performed restrictive bariatric procedure is the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). With many patients still receiving a LAGB in Europe and the United States, inevitably, the number of complications also increases. For many complications revisional bariatric surgery is necessary. In this study, the outcomes of one-stage LAGB conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at our institution are presented. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of RYGB performed as a one-stage procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The gastric band had to be in situ for at least 1 year and minimum postoperative follow-up was 12 months. The revisional RYGB had to be performed as a 1-step procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients were included while 3 were lost to follow up. Overall, 178 (91%) procedures were performed without perioperative complications, and only 8 (4%) patients required reoperation within 30 days. The mean follow-up was 40 months (±24) after RYGB. Mean excess weight loss (EWL) increased from 25% (±26/-50- 120%) to 60% (±21.2/0- 130), 65% (±23.5/0- 131), 63% (±24.2/2- 132), 60% (±24.1/0- 111) and 53% (±28.7/-39- 109) in the first 5 postoperative years.

CONCLUSION

Converting a gastric band to a RYGB in a one-stage procedure is safe and feasible, with acceptable complication rates when performed in a specialized institution. The RYGB conversion results in a good EWL of 65% after 2 years. However, proper patient selection is of the utmost importance.

Revision surgery for treatment of weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate results on revision surgery for weight regain after gastric bypass, based on surgical technique and follow-up.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of 29 patients who presented weight regain on follow-up after more than 5 years, divided into four groups according to revision surgery type: group 1 (n = 9) includes patients who underwent an increase in the length of the alimentary limb to 200 cm; group 2 (n = 13) are patients who underwent an increase in the length of the alimentary limb and placing of a silicon ring; group 3 (n = 2) are patients who underwent an increase in the length of the alimentary limb and gastric plication, and group 4 (n = 5) are patients who underwent gastric plication and placing of a silicon ring.

RESULTS

The average preoperative weight before revision surgery was 117.8 kg, and the average postoperative follow-up for revision surgery was 13.7 months. Weight loss after revision surgery was observed in all groups but was greater in patients with longer revisional postoperative follow-up. Patients who underwent placing of a silicon ring presented greater weight loss than those who had had such a band since the original gastric bypass operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that revision surgery may be a useful tool in achieving weight loss in patients presenting weight regain following gastric bypass, obesity, bariatric surgery, gastric bypass, weight regain, and revision surgery.

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.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band--a systematic review

The adjustable gastric band (L)AGB gained popularity as a weight loss procedure. However, long-term results are disappointing; many patients need revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The purpose of this study was to assess morbidity, mortality, and results of these two revisional procedures. Fifteen LRYGB studies with a total of 588 patients and eight LSG studies with 286 patients were included. The reason for revision was insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 62.2 and 63.9% in LRYGB and LSG patients. Short-term complications occurred in 8.5 and 15.7% and long-term complications in 8.9 and 2.5%. Reoperation was performed in 6.5 and 3.5%. Revision to LRYGB or LSG after (L)AGB is feasible and relatively safe. Complication rate is higher than in primary procedures.

Robotically assisted revision of bariatric surgeries is safe and effective to achieve further weight loss

BACKGROUND

As more bariatric operations are being performed in the USA every year, the number of revisions has increased. These operations are challenging and have a higher morbidity than the initial operation. We have reviewed our series of robotically assisted revisions.

METHODS

At the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, we reviewed robotic revision cases from 2004 through 2011 and found 99 bariatric revisions using robotic assistance. Selected endpoints included body mass index (BMI) at follow-up, percent excess weight loss (%EWL), complications, intubation time, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The average BMI at the time of revision was 44.8 kg/m(2) and fell to 29 kg/m(2) after 3 years. BMI was significantly lower at all time intervals (3, 12, 24, and 36 months) compared to initial BMI (p < 0.001). The %EWL was also significant at 1, 3, 12, 24, and 36 months post-revision (p < 0.001). There was a 24 % (13/55) 90-day readmission rate. The overall complication rate was 17 %, with each individual complication rate between 2 and 4 %. There were no deaths. The average operative time was 204 min, and the average length of hospital stay was 2.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Revising previous bariatric operations to gastric bypass is difficult and time consuming. Although robotically assisted revision can be done safely and can result in effective further weight loss, the high postoperative complication rate is an issue that warrants further attention.

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.

What happens after gastric band removal without additional bariatric surgery?

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is widely used for the treatment of morbid obesity. Many patients benefit from this procedure initially, but experience complications after a few years. The treatment for many complications is revisional bariatric surgery. A number of patients, however, request only band removal without secondary bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and medium term outcomes of patients who had their LAGB removed without secondary bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The LAGB had to be in situ for at least 1 year, and minimum postoperative follow-up had to be 12 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients who had their LAGB laparoscopically removed between 2000 and 2010 were included. Median follow-up after LAGB removal was 3.0 (1.4 to 8.9) years. Only 2 complications (5%) and no mortality occurred perioperatively. In the 21 patients who did not undergo additional bariatric surgery, the median excess weight loss (EWL) decreased from 41% (-12% to -100%) at band removal to 9% (-10% to 90%), 0% (-20% to 78%), and -11% (-12% to 56%) after 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Percentage weight loss (%WL) was 17% (-54% to -5%), 4% (-47% to -9%), 0% (-41% to 11%), and -5% (-29% to 9%) after these same time intervals, respectively. After a median 2.1 (.5 to 9.9) years, 17 patients underwent either a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (14 patients) or a Scopinaro (3 patients) all because of weight regain. The current EWL and %WL in these patients is 67% (24% to 113%) and 30% (12% to 53%), respectively compared with -11% (-33% to 57%) and -4% (-14% to 34%) in patients without a secondary bariatric procedure (P< .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who have their LAGB removed are guaranteed to suffer from weight regain. It is inadvisable to only remove the LAGB without performing an additional bariatric procedure when deemed technically feasible and safe. In this study, no patient was able to maintain the weight loss achieved with the LAGB after its removal.

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass as revisional bariatric procedures: retrospective evaluation of outcomes

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.

Revisional bariatric surgery by conversion to gastric bypass or sleeve--good short-term outcomes at higher risks

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from 34 patients who had revisional bariatric surgery at a single centre. The aim was to report the indications for revisional surgery, operative time, conversion to open surgery, mortality, hospital stay, early and late complications, reoperations and short-term efficacy. From 2006 to 2011, 31 patients who formerly had been operated for morbid obesity with restrictive operations and 3 patients who had been operated in the upper abdomen for other morbidities (fundoplications 2, Heller's myotomy 1) underwent a revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass operation (n = 30) or sleeve gastrectomy (n = 4). Demographic data, perioperative characteristics and follow-up data were entered prospectively in the hospital's database for bariatric patients. Twenty-five operations were done by laparoscopic and nine by open technique. The mean operative time was 113.17 (33.98, 54-184) min. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.25 (5.71, 1-32) days. Intra-operative complications occurred in six patients (17.65%), postoperative complications in nine (26.47%), and major complications in three patients (8.82%), including leakage in the gastrojejunal anastomosis in two (5.88%) patients. The conversion rate to open surgery was 2.94% (one emergency patient). There was no mortality. Excess weight loss (%, ± SD) at 3 months follow-up averaged 42.31%, ± 21.54. Revisional bariatric surgery can be performed with an increased but acceptable risk, with at least short-term weight loss comparable to primary operations.

Effect of primary versus revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: inferior weight loss of revisional surgery after gastric banding

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a popular and effective restrictive bariatric procedure. However, with longer follow-up, it has become clear that a considerable number of patients require revisional surgery, of which Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed procedure. Studies that compared the outcomes of primary RYGB and revisional RYGB have not been conclusive. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in the 1-year outcomes between primary RYGB (prim-RYGB) and revisional RYGB after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (rev-RYGB) at a major training hospital in The Netherlands.

METHODS

All prim-RYGB and rev-RYGB procedures performed from 2007 to 2009 were analyzed. Data were collected regarding weight loss, hospitalization, operative time, postoperative complications, and co-morbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 292 RYGB procedures were performed: 66 rev-RYGB and 226 prim-RYGB procedures. The operative time was significantly shorter in the prim-RYGB group (136.6±37.5 versus 167.5±40.6 min; P<.0001). No significant differences were found in hospitalization time (4.4±1.7 versus 4.9±2.4 d; P= .063) or complication rate (14.7% versus 15.2%; P=.962). No deaths occurred in either group. The number of patients with resolved diabetes and hypertension did not differ between the 2 groups (50.1% versus 23.1%; P=.116; and 40.7% versus 25.0%; P=.384, respectively). Weight loss was significantly greater in the prim-RYGB group in terms of excess weight loss (71.6%±20.8% versus 48.4%±26.8%; P<.0001), body mass index reduction (13.0±3.8 versus 10.2±5.6 kg/m(2); P<.0001), absolute weight loss (37.4±11.5 versus 29.3±17.2 kg; P=.001), and percentage of weight loss (29.7%±8% versus 21.7%±11.5%; P<.0001).

CONCLUSION

rev-RYGB is a safe procedure with outcomes similar to those of prim-RYGB in terms of complication rate, hospitalization time, and effect on co-morbidity. Weight loss, however, was significantly less after rev-RYGB than after prim-RYGB.

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

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered the "gold standard" revision procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of primary laparoscopic RYGB (pLRYGB) to revisional open or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (rRYGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent pLRYGB or rRYGB from January 2003 to December 2009 has been performed. Demographics, indications for revision, and complications have been reviewed. The rRYGB and pLRYGB patients have been compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients underwent rRYGB, and 652 patients underwent pLRYGB. Mean follow-up was 35 and 45 months, respectively. Fifty-six rRYGB procedures were performed laparoscopically. The primary operations had consisted of laparoscopic gastric banding (n = 28), laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 19), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (n = 6), laparoscopic RYGB (n = 3), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (n = 16). Indications included weight regain (n = 29), malabsorption (n = 16), gastrogastric fistula (n = 5), band-associated problems (n = 3), and refractory stomal ulceration (n = 1). There was no significant difference in early or late postoperative complications when comparing rRYGB to pLRYGBP patients (11.1% vs. 5.52%, P = 0.069 and 19.4% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.465 respectively). Five rRYGB patients (7.04%) required reintervention (3 internal hernias, 1 ventral hernia, 1 laparoscopic exploration) compared with 101 pLRYGB patients (15.71%; P = 0.051). None of the patients died. Mean hospital stay was not significantly longer in the rRYGB group (5.38 vs. 4.95 days, P = 0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality of rRYGB were not significantly higher compared with pLRYGB. Furthermore, we believe that this type of revisional bariatric surgery should be performed in high-volume bariatric centers.