Conversion from band to bypass in two steps reduces the risk for anastomotic strictures

Uncommon Complication of a Biliary Leak After Adjustable Gastric Band Removal: A Case Report

In the context of adjustable gastric band (AGB) placements and the prevalent issue of weight regain with associated complications, revision surgery for gastric bands becomes imperative. Such revisions may encompass band removal or conversion to bariatric procedures, often accompanied by an escalated risk profile, potentially contributing to a 20% morbidity rate. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has gained prominence due to its technical simplicity, effectiveness in weight loss, and lower complication rates. Specific cases involving LSG post-AGB complications are associated with staple line disruptions and leaks. This case report describes a rare complication in a 59-year-old patient following AGB removal and subsequent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The complication emerged six hours after the surgery, with approximately 400 cc of bile material reported in the drainage. A laparoscopic reintervention was conducted, revealing bile leakage from the second Couinaud hepatic segment. Successful management of the leakage was achieved through simple hepatic suturing using non-absorbable monofilament. Within 24 hours, no further leakage occurred, and the patient was discharged without additional complications. Our case also demonstrates how complex it can be to switch between different medical procedures, and it emphasizes the need for careful planning and precise surgery in the evolving world of bariatric medicine. It is worth noting that there is a dearth of literature addressing this specific complication. Consequently, this study has the potential to provide valuable insights for surgeons who may encounter a similar scenario in their clinical practice.

Propensity score matching analysis comparing outcomes between primary and revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective record-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB.

METHOD

A retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex.

RESULTS

Patients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (- 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. - 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (- 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (- 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. - 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastric Bypass as Redo Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-Observation Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the outcome of one-stage and two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revision procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent a one-stage RYGB (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) revision procedure after failing AGB between 2005 and 2019 were analyzed. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, operating time, change in weight and BMI, and remission of comorbidities at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Data from 230 patients after OS-RYGB and 197 after TS-RYGB were analyzed. The total perioperative complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups (overall p > 5%). In the category of other complications, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with a lower rate in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.020). Wound infections occurred more frequently after TS-RYGB than after OS-RYGB (p = 0.015). Mean operating time differed significantly between the two groups (OS-RYGB (149.9 min) and TS-RYGB 191 min; p < 0.001). The change in hypertension was significantly higher in OS-RYGB (37.9 vs. 21.1%; p = 0.007). Other comorbidities showed no significant change within 1 year after surgery. Regarding the change in BMI, %TWL, and %EWL, there were no significant benefits for either group (p = 0.574, 0.762, and 0.378, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Removing a failed AGB using the OS- or TS-RYGB is safe and feasible. The decision between OS- and TS-RYGB is still individual and depends on the patient's general condition, the desired goal of the procedure, and the personal competence of the surgeon. Further studies are needed to clarify long-term outcome and effect of both procedures.

Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with a 150-cm Biliopancreatic Limb After Failure of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Mid-Term Outcomes and Comparison Between One- and Two-Stage Approaches

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was a common procedure worldwide but associated with a high rate of long-term failure. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after failed LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database in a tertiary referral center for bariatric surgery. All cases of revisional OAGB with a biliopancreatic limb (BPL) of 150 cm after failed LAGB performed between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 215 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB. Indication for surgery was primary weight loss (WL) failure in 30.7% of cases and long-term complications in the remaining patients, with or without associated weight regain. At the time of OAGB, the mean age was 43.2 ± 10.5 years and the mean BMI was 42 ± 6.9. Overall postoperative morbidity was 13.5%. The postoperative abscess ± leak rate was 5.9% in the overall population. Two years after OAGB, 9.7% of patients were lost to follow-up, % excess weight loss (EWL) was 88.2 ± 23.9, and % total weight loss (TWL) was 38.7 ± 9.3. At 5 years, 16.6% of patients were lost to follow-up, %EWL was 82.4 ± 25, and %TWL was 36.1 ± 10. There was no statistical difference in complication rates or WL results between the one-stage and two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSION

OAGB with a 150-cm BPL represents a safe and effective option after failed LAGB. Both synchronous OAGB and two-step revisional OAGB guarantee satisfying results in terms of postoperative morbidity and WL outcomes.

Safety and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band - Outcomes from a large UK private practice

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery is unavoidable in a proportion of patients. Despite its need, the development of this speciality has been hampered by its complexity and preferred delivery in institutional set ups. Although primary bariatric surgery can be delivered in the private sector; safety and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery remains unexplored in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery following previous Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band (LAGB) between 2008 and 2019 at a single private bariatric unit with a minimum follow up of at least 6 months were included. The primary aim was safety outcomes and 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

178 patients with BMI of 45.6 ± 8.2 kg/m² underwent revisional bariatric surgery. One stage conversion was performed for 86.5% of the cases. At 9.5 ± 5.3 months follow up, BMI and percentage excess BMI loss were 31.8 ± 6.2 kg/m² and 62.6 ± 40% respectively. There was no mortality, and the major complication rate was 2.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications based on one-stage vs. two-stage conversion (p = 0.52). There were no differences in weight loss outcomes post-revisional surgery according to the indication for revision (p = 0.446) or weight loss following primary surgery (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery can be delivered safely in the private sector with good outcomes. One-stage conversions are feasible and do not detrimentally affect the morbidity of the procedure or the weight loss outcomes. More importantly, success following revisional surgery is independent of the indication for revision and weight loss outcomes following primary surgery.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as revisional surgery

The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a worldwide-performed procedure as primary surgery, and as conversional procedure after complications and/or failure of other bariatric procedures. RYGB can be performed as revisional surgery after adjustable gastric banding, vertical banded gastroplasty, sleeve gastrectomy and one anastomosis gastric bypass. Each of these revisional procedures may be technically challenging, and accurate preoperative work-up and operative planning is required. If correctly performed, RYGB as revisional procedure is associated with satisfying outcomes and is indicated in the treatment of insufficient weight loss and postoperative complications of a primary bariatric procedure - such as chronic leak or gastroesophageal reflux after sleeve gastrectomy. The present article analyzes the most important indications, technical points and tips and tricks to safely perform RYGB as a secondary procedure.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m², p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m² (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach.

Revisional Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-One-Stage or Two-Stage Procedure?

BACKGROUND

Revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) is the preferred procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding. Little is known about whether a one-stage procedure (one surgery for band removal and R-LRYGB) or a two-stage procedure (first band removal and later R-LRYGB) is superior. Aim of this study is to compare early- and long-term results of both methods at our institution.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 165 (m 26/f 139) consecutive patients (98 one-stage, 67 two-stage) with R-LRYGB. Mean follow-up time was 50.1 ± 38.8 months. Indications for one-stage vs. two-stage procedures, operating time, peri- and postoperative complications, morbidity, mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. Data are reported as total numbers (%) and mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

Mean age at R-LRYGB was 43.9 ± 10.7 vs. 44.3 ± 10.7 years with a BMI of 37.1 ± 6.8 vs. 39.8 ± 7.1 (one-stage vs. two-stage). In the one-stage group, the main indication for revisional surgery was weight regain (57.1%), followed by dilatation of the esophagus or pouch (37.7%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (36.7%), whereas in the two-stage group, it was band erosion (52.2%) and dilatation of the esophagus or pouch (17.9%) and GERD (11.9%). There was no significant difference in operative time (208.5 ± 61.2 vs. 206.3 ± 73.5 min), LOS (8.6 ± 3.4 vs. 9.3 ± 5.7 days) or mortality (0% overall). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa) occurred similarly often in both groups: 15.3% vs. 16.9% (one-stage vs. two-stage).

CONCLUSION

Both approaches achieve good results. However, the one-stage R-LRYGB is the preferable procedure because it reduces costs and LOS by doing without an additional surgical procedure.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric procedures are increasingly common. With more primary procedures being performed to manage severe obesity and its complications, 5% to 8% of these procedures will fail, requiring revisional operation. Reasons for revisional bariatric surgery are either primary inadequate weight loss, defined as less than 25% excess body weight loss, or weight recidivism, defined as a gain of more than 10 kg based on the nadir weight; however, each procedure also has inherit specific complications that can also be indications for revision. This article reviews the history of each primary bariatric procedure, indications for revision, surgical options, and subsequent outcomes.

Gastric Band Removal in Revisional Bariatric Surgery, One-Step Versus Two-Step: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the safety of one-step versus two-step revisional bariatric surgery from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). There is debate on the safety of removing the gastric band and performing revisional surgery immediately or in a delayed, two-step fashion due to potential higher complications in one-step revisions. A systematic and comprehensive search of the literature was conducted. Included studies directly compared one-step and two-step revisional surgery. Eleven studies were included with 1370 patients. Meta-analysis found comparable rates of complications, morbidity, and mortality between one-step and two-step revisions for both RYGB and SG groups. This suggests that immediate or delayed revisional bariatric surgeries are both safe options for LAGB revisions.

A one-step conversion from gastric banding to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is as safe as a two-step conversion: A comparative analysis of 885 patients

AIMS

To achieve additional weight loss or to resolve band-related problems, a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be converted to a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). There is limited data on the feasibility and safety of routinely performing a single-step conversion. We assessed the efficacy of this revisional approach in a large cohort of patients operated in a high-volume bariatric institution.

METHODS

Between October 2004 and December 2015, a total of 885 patients who underwent LAGB removal with RYGB were identified from a prospectively collected database. In all cases, a single-stage conversion procedure was planned. The feasibility of this approach and peri-operative outcomes of these patients were evaluated and analyzed.

RESULTS

A single-step approach was successfully achieved in 738 (83.4%) of the 885 patients. During the study period, there was a significant increase in performing the conversion from LAGB to RYGB single-staged. No mortality or anastomotic leakage was observed in both groups. Only 45 patients (5.1%) had a 30-d complication: most commonly hemorrhage (N = 20/45), with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Converting a LAGB to RYGB can be performed with a very low morbidity and zero-mortality in a high-volume revisional bariatric center. With increasing experience and full standardization of the conversion, the vast majority of operations can be performed as a single-stage procedure. Only a migrated band remains a formal contraindication for a one-step approach.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal and outcome of subsequent revisional bariatric procedures: A retrospective review of 214 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) removal is required in cases of slippage, erosion, infection, intolerance, or failure in weight loss. The aim of the study was to follow up the patients who underwent band removal and analyze the outcome of subsequent revisional bariatric procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent LAGB removal during 3.5 years. All patients underwent a phone interview in early 2015. Patients were divided to three groups following band removal: without additional surgery, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and Redo LAGB(Re-LAGB). Outcome of different revisional procedures was compared according to causes and symptoms before band removal, patient satisfaction, weight loss, quality of life (QOL) questionnaire, and the bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system II (BAROSII) score.

RESULTS

Overall 214 patients (73.8% females) with mean age of 41.9 years were enrolled in the study. The mean time between LAGB placement and removal was 81.0 months. Mean % estimated weight loss (%EWL) was 29.6 at time of band removal. There was no difference between groups in patient age, gender, BMI before LAGB, and most co-morbidities. Patients with 1-5 outpatient visits preferred additional surgery. Patients suffering from vomiting from 1 to 10 times per week preferred revision as LSG or LRYGB. Patients with lower BAROS score underwent LSG or LRYGB. Most of the patients with band intolerance underwent conversion to another bariatric procedure, while patients with band erosion and infected band preferred Re-LAGB. Most of the patients without band gained weight. There was a significant improvement in %EWL (39.9 vs 29.6), QOL (1.08 vs 0.07), and BAROS(2.82 vs-0.11) in patients who underwent additional bariatric surgery before and after band removal irrespective of surgery type.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient selection for different revisional bariatric procedures after LAGB removal is a main point for surgery success. This results in high patient satisfaction, EWL, and QOL. All options (Re-LAGB, LSG, LRYGB) are feasible and safe.

Revisions after failed gastric band: sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic gastric band is an appealing bariatric operation due to its simplicity and good short-term outcomes; however, it is associated with complications (slippage, erosion, prolapse) and failure in reaching target weight loss. This study describes our experience with failed gastric bands that required a revisional procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis includes all consecutive patients who underwent a gastric band removal and revisional surgery in our hospital from January 2008 to June 2014. A total of 81 patients were identified and divided in three groups: Group one included patients who just had the gastric band removed (43), group two consisted of patients who underwent a conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (26), and group three included patients who required a conversion to Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (12). Patient demographics, date of gastric band placement, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and % excess weight loss (%EWL) were recorded. Perioperative and clinical outcomes were compared between conversions to SG and RYGB.

RESULTS

In group two (n = 26), 21 conversions to SG were performed in concurrence with the band removal as a one-stage operation, while five procedures were performed in two-stages. There were no complications and no case was converted to open. Patients who underwent a one-stage procedure had a longer operative time, although it did not reach statistical significance. In group three, 12 patients underwent a conversion to RYGB as a revisional operation; 11 were performed as a one-stage procedure and only one patient underwent a two-stage procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

SG and RYGB are safe options to revise a failed gastric band. Both groups who received either a SG or RYGB had a low complication rate and acceptable %EWL with no statistical difference between the two.

Conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe as a single-step procedure

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been proposed as a revisional procedure for treatment of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been advocated as the procedure of choice for revision. In this study, we compare the single- and two-step approaches for the revision of failed LAGB to LRYGB.

METHOD

All patients who underwent bariatric surgery were included in a prospective database. For the purpose of this study, patients who underwent revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB were selected. Records for individual patients were completed by data review. Complication rates and weight development were recorded until 2 years postoperatively. Data were compared between both procedures and with complications rates reported in literature.

RESULTS

Revisional gastric bypass surgery was performed in 257 patients. This was done as a planned single-step procedure in 220 (86 %) patients without indications for acute band removal and in 32 patients as a planned 2 step procedure. Five patients were planned as a single-step procedure but were intraoperatively converted to a 2-step procedure based on poor pouch tissue quality. No postoperative mortality occurred in both groups. No differences in early major morbidity and stricture formation were seen between the two groups. Gastric ulceration was more frequently observed after 2-steps procedure (8.5 vs. 1.7 %, p < 0.05). In comparison with data reported in literature, the single-step procedure had similar to lower complication rates. Percentage excess weight loss two years after revisional gastric bypass procedure was, respectively, 53 versus 67 % (p = 0.147) for single- and two-step procedure.

CONCLUSION

In patients without indications for acute band removal, the planned conversion of gastric banding to Roux-Y gastric bypass can be safely done in a single-step procedure without increase in morbidity and no difference in postoperative weight loss.

Two stages conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass. A study of one hundred patients

INTRODUCTION

Conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) appears to be the treatment of choice after failed LAGB. To reduce the risk of postoperative complications, some surgeons routinely adopt a two-stage strategy. The purpose of this study was to analyze our institution's experience with the two-stage procedure for LAGB conversion to LRYGB MATERIALS AND METHODS: The bariatric database of our institution was reviewed to identify patients who had undergone conversion of LAGB to LRYGB from November 2007 to June 2012.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included. Of these, 62 (62%) required conversion to LRYGB for inadequate weight loss or weight regain and 38 for band-related complications. All the procedures were performed in two stages and laparoscopically. The average time between band removal and LRYGB was 17.3 months. The mean follow-up after LRYGB was 31 ± 18.7 months. The mean BMI prior to LRYGB conversion was 45.3 ± 5.2. Early complications occurred in 15 patients (15%), while late complications occurred in only 3 patients (3%). The average %EWL at 24 months and 48 months after conversion was 70.1 and 69.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although a two-stage conversion strategy increases the number of operations and hospital stay without decreasing the rate of early complications compared to one-stage conversion; it has shown to be associated with low rates of GJA stenosis and excellent %EWL.

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.

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.

Single-stage versus 2-stage sleeve gastrectomy as a conversion after failed adjustable gastric banding: 30-day outcomes

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is being performed as a conversion after adjustable gastric banding (AGB), often in a single stage. However, some argue that it should be performed in 2 stages to improve safety. Few studies compare complications between 1-stage and 2-stage procedures. Our aim is to compare the 30-day complication rates among these two groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients converted from AGB to SG between 8/2008 and 10/2013 and compared patients undergoing 1-stage and 2-stage techniques. Primary outcome was overall 30-day adverse event rate (postoperative complication, readmission, or reoperation). Secondary outcomes included operating room (OR) time, length of stay (LOS), leak, infection, and bleeding rates, as well as mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients underwent SG after band removal; three were excluded due to short follow-up, leaving 60 1-stage and 20 2-stage. Mean time from band removal to SG for 2-stage was 438 days. Demographics, intraoperative technique (bougie size, staple reinforcement, oversewing staple line, and leak test), and mean follow-up were not statistically different. Mean OR time (132.1 min 1-stage vs. 127.8 min 2-stage, p = 0.702) and LOS (3.1 vs. 2.4 days, p = 0.676) were similar. Overall 30-day adverse event rate was 12 % for 1-stage versus 15 % for 2-stage procedures (p = 0.705). Differences in 30-day readmission (8 vs. 5 %) and reoperation (5 vs. 0 %) were not statistically significant (p = 0.999 and 0.569, respectively). Leak (3 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999), abscess (2 vs. 5 %, p = 0.440), and bleeding rates (2 vs. 0 %, p = 0.999) were not different. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

SG performed as a conversion after AGB is safe and feasible. Our findings indicate no statistical difference in 30-day outcomes when performed in 1 or 2 stages. Future studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further investigate these differences.

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.

Revisional surgery after failed adjustable gastric banding: institutional experience with 90 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery may be required in a high percentage of patients (up to 30 %) after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We report our institutional experience with revisional surgery.

METHODS

From January 1996 to November 2011, 90 patients underwent revisional surgery after failed LAGB. Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were proposed. In the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal dysmotility, hiatal hernia, or diabetes, RYGB was preferentially proposed.

RESULTS

In two cases, revisional surgery was aborted due to local severe adhesions. Eighty-eight patients (74 females; mean age 42.79 ± 10.03 years; mean BMI 44.73 ± 6.19 kg/m(2)) successfully underwent revisional SG (n = 48) or RYGB (n = 40). One-stage surgery was performed in 29 cases. Follow-up rate was 78.2 % (n = 61) and 40.9 % (n = 36) at 12 and 24 months respectively. One major complication after SG (staple-line leakage) was observed. Overall postoperative excess weight loss (%EWL) was 31.24, 40.92, 52.41, and 51.68 % at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up respectively. There was a statistically significant higher %EWL at 1 year in patients <50 years old (55.9 vs. 41.5 % in patients >50 years old; p = 0.01), of female gender (55.22 vs. 40.73 % in male; p = 0.04), and in patients in which the AGB was in place for <5 years (57.09 vs. 47.43 % if >5 years p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional surgery is safe and effective. Patients <50 years, of female gender, and with the AGB in place for <5 years had better %EWL after revisional surgery.

Mean fourteen-year, 100% follow-up of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity

BACKGROUND

Many studies of short-term to mid-term outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) have been published, but reliable long-term outcome reports with a minimum follow up ≥ 10 years in a sufficient number of included patients are still scarce. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term results after LAGB.

METHODS

Sixty consecutive patients (44 women, 16 men) were treated for morbid obesity by LAGB between 1996 and 1999. Median age of the patients at the time of operation was 45 years (range 21-64). Median preoperative body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) was 45 (range 35-55). All patients were asked to adhere to a strict follow-up program. Patients' BMI and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) were calculated in the hospital's database for bariatric patients, and excess weight was taken as the weight in kilograms above the weight at BMI of 25 kg/m(2).

RESULTS

Complete data on all 60 patients could be assessed; thus, the overall rate of follow-up was 100%. After a median (range) follow-up of 14.1 years (13.2-16.8 years), the mean BMI (SD) dropped from 45 (5) to 36 (6) kg/m(2), with a mean (SD) EWL of 49% (29). At 15 years of follow-up, 29 (48%) bands have been removed, and 38 (63%) reoperations have been performed in 29 (48%) patients. Almost 70% received further treatment for their morbid obesity after band removal. Of those patients with the band still in place at 14 years, 40% had more than 50% EWL and 20% had less than 25% EWL. There was no mortality related to the primary or revisional operations, but 2 patients died of unrelated causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean %EWL after LAGB after more than 14 years was fairly good-49%. However, a reoperation rate of more than 60% in 48% of the patients and a band removal rate of almost 50% may indicate that LAGB cannot be recommended as a primary procedure to the general morbidly obese population.

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.

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

Perioperative Morbidity, Mortality and Early Outcome of the First 360 Gastric Bypass Operations Performed in a District Hospital

Background and Aims:

We report the results for the first consecutive 360 Roux-en-Ygastric bypass (RYGB) operations performed in a district hospital in Finland.

Material and Methods:

Demographic data, perioperative characteristics, and follow-up data were entered prospectively in the hospital's database for bariatric patients.

Results:

We performed 325 primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Ygastric bypass (LRYGB) operations, one open RYGB, and 34 revisions. Mean BMI before the operations was 47.5 ± 7.8 kg/m2 (31.5–91.0 kg/m2). The percentage of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was high; 52.3% (170 patients). The mean operative time decreased from 110 minutes during the first 108 operations to 82 minutes for the second 108 operations, and to 74 minutes for the last 109 operations (P < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) for the last 109 patients compared to the first and second group of patients. Overall morbidity averaged 19.1% (62/325). Severe complications were detected in 15 patients (4.6%). There was a tendency to more serious complications in the first group of patients. There was one death (mortality 0.3%). With a follow-up rate of 97% at 3 months T2DM had resolved in 48.2%, and had resolved or improved in a minimum of 92.9% of the diabetic patients. Weight loss (WL) and excess weight loss (EWL) averaged 20% and 46% respectively.

Conclusions:

Operative time and postoperative hospital stay decrease significantly with increasing experience. The first one hundred patients may be at higher risk for complications. LRYGB operations may have an important impact on the resolution of T2DM in the operated population.

Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has emerged as one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30 % of cases. Several revisional strategies have been proposed, but there is no consensus regarding the best surgical option. This systematic review was designed to determine which revisional surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch) is best suited to enhance weight loss following failed LAGB due to complications or inadequate weight loss.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched using the most comprehensive timeline for each database. A total of 24 relevant articles were identified. Two investigators independently extracted data, and differences were resolved by consensus. The weighted means were calculated for weight loss measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 106, 514, and 71 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPDDS), respectively. Before revisional surgery, the weighted mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.8 (6.9), 43.3 (8.1), and 41.3 (7.2) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The majority of data was reported at 12-24 months follow-up. The mean BMI within this interval was 28 (10.5), 32.2 (6.4), and 33 (5.7) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. In addition, the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 22 % (2.8), 57.8 % (11.7), 47.1 % (14) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The EWL reached 78.4 % (35) in the BPPDS group after 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Failed LAGB is best managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure. Stable weight loss occurs with salvage LRYGB. Although results for revisional BPPDS appear promising, additional research, with higher methodological quality, 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.