One Versus Two-Step Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass After Gastric Banding—Data Analysis of the German Bariatric Surgery Registry

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high technical and weight loss failure rates. We evaluate here the 1-year morbidity, mortality, and weight loss of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) as a feasible conversion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent LRYGB from July 2004 to December 2019 were selected from an electronic database at our center. Patients had a conversion to LRYGB at the same time (one-stage approach) or with a minimum of 3 months in between (two-stage approach). Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1295 patients underwent a conversion from LAGB to LRYGB at our center: 1167 patients (90.1%) in one stage and 128 patients (9.9%) in two stages. There was no mortality. An early (30-day) postoperative complication occurred in 93 patients (7.2%), with no significant difference found between groups. Hemorrhage was the most common complication in 39 patients (3.0%), and the reoperation was required in 19 patients (1.4%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, the mean %EWL 72.8%, and the mean %EBMIL 87.0%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to LRYGB can be considered as a safe and effective option with low complication rate and good weight loss outcomes at 1 year. One-stage conversion provides the same early outcome as two-step surgery with a competent surgeon.

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.

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.

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.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

Safety of Revision Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Roux-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Gastric Banding: Analysis of the MBSAQIP

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of revisional surgery to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) compared to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

BACKGROUND

The number of reoperations after failed gastric banding rapidly increased in the United States during the last several years. A common approach is band removal with conversion to another weight loss procedure such as gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in a single procedure. The safety profile of those procedures remains controversial.

METHODS

Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files 2015 were selected for all patients who underwent a 1-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (conv-LSG) or LRYGB (conv-LRYGB). Conv-LSG cases were matched (1:1) with conv-LRYGB patients by age (±1 year), body mass index (±1 kg/m(2)), sex, and comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, venous stasis, and sleep apnea.

RESULTS

A total of 2708 patients (1354 matched pairs) were included in the study. The groups were closely matched as intended. The mean operative time in conv-LRYGB was significantly longer in comparison to conv-LSG patients (151 ± 58 vs 113 ± 45 minutes, P < 0.001). No mortality was observed in either group. Patients after conv-LRYGB had a clinically increased anastomotic leakage rate (2.07% vs 1.18%, P = 0.070) and significantly increased bleed rate (2.66% vs 0.44%, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission rate was significantly higher in conv-LRYGB patients (7.46% vs 3.69%, P < 0.001), as was 30-day reoperation rate (3.25% vs 1.26%, P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was longer in conv-LRYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-stage conversion of failed LAGB leads to greater morbidity and higher complication rates when converted to LRYGB versus LSG in the first 30 days postoperatively. These differences are particularly notable with regards to bleed events, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, operative time, and hospital stay.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one anastomosis gastric bypass as rescue therapy after failed adjustable gastric banding: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

To date, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding remains the third most commonly performed surgical procedure for weight loss. Some patients fail to get acceptable outcomes and undergo revisional surgery at rates ranging from 7% to 60%. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are among the most common salvage options for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to RYGB, OAGB, or SG.

METHODS

Data collected from 7 experienced bariatric centers around the world were retrospectively collected, reviewed, and analyzed. Final body mass index (BMI), change in BMI, percentage excess BMI loss, and major complications with particular attention to leaks, hemorrhage, and mortality were reported.

RESULTS

Of 1219 patients analyzed, 74% underwent RYGB, 16% underwent OAGB, and 10% underwent SG after banding failure. The mean age was 38 years (±10 yr), and 82% of patients were women. The mean follow-up was 33 months. The follow-up rate was 100%, 87%, and 52% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. At the latest follow-up, percentage excess BMI loss >50% was achieved by 75% of RYGB, 85% of OAGB, and 67% of SG patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 13% of patients after RYGB, 5% after OAGB, and 15% after SG.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that it is possible to achieve or maintain significant weight loss with an acceptable complication rate with all 3 surgical options.

[Quality indicators for metabolic and bariatric surgery in Germany : Evidence-based development of an indicator panel for the quality of results, indications and structure]

An expert committee was appointed by the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery to develop a panel of appropriate quality indicators to collate the quality of results, indications and structure in metabolic and bariatric surgery. This entailed assimilating the available evidence (systematic literature search), results from the national registry of the society (StuDoQ|MBE) and specific socioeconomic aspects (e. g. severely limited access to metabolic and bariatric surgery in Germany). These quality parameters were to be incorporated into the national guidelines and the rules of procedure for certification in the future. The committee concluded that mortality, MTL30 and severe complications needing intervention (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) are suitable indicators to measure surgical outcome quality due to their relevance, scientific soundness and practicability. As a systematic follow-up is mandatory after bariatric surgery, a minimum follow-up quota is now required using reported quality of life data as an indicator of process quality. As intestinal bypass procedures have been shown to be superior in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, these procedures should be offered to eligible patients and also be performed. The proposed threshold values based on the results of the available literature and StuDoQ registry are to be considered as preliminary and need to be validated and adjusted if necessary in the future. The StuDoQ|MBE is considered a valuable tool to gather this information and also represents the appropriate infrastructure for the collation of relevant risk adjustors.

Bariatric Surgery Registries: Can They Contribute to Improved Outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical registries systematically collect prospective information about patients with a particular medical condition, who have had a medical device implanted or who have undergone a particular procedure. When these variables are collected with pre-defined quality indices included, the benched-marked risk-adjusted data may be a valuable resource for providing feedback on outcomes, including performance, to practitioners, patients, health services and device manufacturers.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are examples of feedback from clinical registries positively influencing patient care. The Australian National Joint Registry identified a poorly performing hip prosthesis which was ultimately withdrawn from the market. Feedback from the Victorian State Prostate Cancer Registry has contributed to improved patient care and fewer positive surgical margins noted over a 5-year reporting period. There are several national and regional registries collecting information on patients undergoing bariatric surgery, however, few currently focus on quality outcome measures. Whilst, current bariatric registries have contributed to improved understanding of some of the clinical situations relating to bariatric surgery, as well as developing composite risk scores and measuring quality cultures, they have not as yet demonstrably directly influenced patient care. This may reflect the fact that many of the registries do not hold data that are mature enough for proper analysis, but may also reflect problems with systematic data collection, bias from missing results and lack of appropriate funding. It will be important in the future that bariatric surgery registries actively seek to measure and validate their contribution to patient 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.