Safety and Outcome of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Removal of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Lessons from 109 Patients in a Single Center and Review of the Literature

Assessment of arterial supply to the stomach after bariatric surgery using multidetector CT arteriography

PURPOSE

To describe residual arterial supply to the stomach after bariatric surgery via a systematic arterial-phase CT assessment approach that can aid in diagnosis and treatment of postoperative complications and facilitate planning for future procedures.

METHODS

Arterial-phase CT of 46 patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) at 3 academic institutions were retrospectively reviewed to assess patency of left gastric artery (LGA), right gastric artery (RGA), gastroepiploic artery (GEA), and left inferior phrenic artery (LIPA) and presence of gastric perforators.

RESULTS

In 25 RYGB and 21 SG patients, mean diameters were LGA 2.2 ± 0.4 mm, RGA 1.6 ± 0.5 mm, and GEA 1.7 ± 0.4 mm. On RYGB scans, all LGAs, RGAs, and 24/25 (96%) of GEAs were identified. Excellent to good patency was seen in 20/25 (80%) LGAs, 21/25 (84%) RGAs, and 23/24 (96%) GEAs. On SG scans, all LGAs, 18/21 (86%) of RGAs, and 20/21 (95%) GEAs were identified. Excellent to good patency was seen in 17/21 (81%) LGAs, 15/18 (83%) RGAs, and 20/20 (100%) GEAs. In terms of gastric perforators, LGA supply was seen on 23/25 (92%) of RYGB and 17/17 (100%) of SG scans. RGA supply was seen on 13/21 (62%) RYGB and 9/18 (50%) SG scans. GEA supply was seen on 19/23 (83%) RYGB scans. No gastric supply via GEA was seen on SG scans.

CONCLUSION

In this study, arterial supply to the stomach through the LGA was consistently identified in all RYGB and SG cases, indicating an uncomplicated surgical approach with regard to preserving the LGA. Dedicated CT angiography protocol or catheter-directed angiography is recommended for accurate and comprehensive assessment of the gastric blood supply, particularly before surgical re-intervention.

[Therapeutic Options for Regaining Weight after Bariatric Surgery]

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to create an overview of diagnostic and therapeutic options for weight regain (WR) and insufficient weight loss (IWL) after bariatric surgery (BS). With increasing popularity of BS, WR is becoming more relevant.

METHODS

We combined recent literature on WR and IWL with personal experience to suggest possible proceedings if WR or IWL is diagnosed.

RESULTS

If an anatomical-pathological cause can be detected, surgical therapy is the most effective. If WR or IWL is idiopathic, a multimodal therapeutic concept is necessary for sufficient therapeutic success. Depending on the initial BS, a combination of lifestyle intervention, medication and surgical therapy seems most effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive diagnostic testing is necessary prior to any surgical intervention. In idiopathic WR after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB), we suggest lengthening the biliopancreatic limb and shortening the common channel. After Sleeve-Gastrectomy (SG), we currently see RYGB as most effective in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and SADI-S as a feasible option if no GERD is present.

Feasibility and Short-Term Outcomes of One-Step and Two-Step Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revision Procedures for Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding Compared With Those After Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background: The practice of bariatric surgery was studied using the German Bariatric Surgery Registry (GBSR). The focus of the study was to evaluate whether revision surgery One-Step (OS) or Two-Step (TS) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has a large benefit in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (AGB). Methods: The data collection includes patients who underwent One-Step SG (OS-SG) or Two-Step SG (TS-SG) as revision surgery after AGB and primary SG (P-SG) between 2005 and 2019. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality, and operating time. Results: The study analyzed data from 27,346 patients after P-SG, 320 after OS-SG, and 168 after TS-SG. Regarding the intraoperative complication, there was a significant difference in favor of P-SG and TS-SG compared to OS-SG (p < 0.001). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly higher in the OS-SG (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in occurrence of staple line stenosis in favor of TS-SG (p = 0.005) and the occurrence of sepsis (p = 0.008). The mean operating time was statistically longer in the TS-SG group than in the OS-SG group (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.727). Conclusion: In general, our study shows that converting a gastric band to a SG is safe and feasible. However, lower complications were obtained with TS-SG compared to OS-SG. Despite acceptable complication and mortality rates of both procedures, we cannot recommend any surgical method as a standard procedure. Proper patient selection is crucial to avoid possible adverse effects.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Recent data demonstrates that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is found to be associated with high rates of weight loss failure and long-term complications. Therefore, the search for the optimal revisional bariatric procedure is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of converting a failed LAGB to laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a revisional procedure.

SETTING

Large, metropolitan, tertiary, university hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent OAGB after LAGB.Demographics, comorbidities, BMI before and after the procedure, complications, and length of stay were documented.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients underwent OAGB after LAGB. For 41 patients, the band was removed, and an OAGB was performed in a single procedure (71.9%), and 96.5% of the cases were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (15.7%), including one mortality. Average BMI decreased from 42.8 ± 7.0 to 31.3 ± 5.2 kg/m² at least 1 year after surgery, representing a mean %EWL of 64.5%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the 1-stage and 2-stage approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of a failed LAGB to OAGB is effective but carries higher complication rates. Randomized controlled studies comparing different procedures are necessary to further clarify the optimal revisional bariatric operation.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Stapling Bariatric Procedures: Single- or Two-stage Approach

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety of single- versus two-stage conversion of adjustable gastric band (AGB) to gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

AGB patients often present for conversion to RYGB or SG. The impact of single- or two-stage approach of such conversion remains unclear.

METHODS

A statewide database was used to identify all patients who underwent AGB removal and concurrent (single-stage) or interval (two-stage) RYGB or SG. Propensity score matching schemes were constructed to account for differences in baseline comorbidities and demographics, allowing for matched pairs available for comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 4330 patients underwent AGB conversion. Complications, readmissions, and ED visits were noted in 394 (9.1%), 278 (6.42%), and 589 (13.6%) patients, respectively. Three hundred sixty-seven matched pairs underwent RYGB; single-stage patients experienced shorter length of stay (LOS) (median difference -1 d, P < 0.0001), less complications [risk difference (RD): -8.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI), -13.4% to -3.5%], readmissions (RD: -5.2%, 95% CI, -9.6% to -0.8%), and ED visits (RD: -5.7%, 95% CI, -11.3% to -0.2%). Eight hundred seventy-five matched pairs underwent SG; single-stage patients experienced improved outcomes in all measures examined. For single-stage procedures (809 pairs), RYGB was associated with longer LOS, and more complications (RD: 3.3%, 95% CI, 0.9%-5.8%), with similar readmissions, and ED visits.

CONCLUSIONS

AGB conversion procedures have low morbidity. Single-stage conversion is associated with lower morbidity compared with the two-stage approach. Conversion to SG seems to be safer than RYGB.

One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: First 407 Patients in 1 year

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a promising laparoscopic procedure with various benefits including shorter operating times and less operative complications. That said, it is yet to gain widespread acceptance. Here, we describe our first-year experience with OAGB in our department, in particular the safety and efficacy of this procedure.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent OAGB between March 2015 and March 2016 by our bariatric surgery unit. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed as well as outcomes during the first year.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seven patients underwent OAGB (254 females, average age 41.8 ± 12.05, BMI = 41.7 ± 5.77 kg/m²). Ninety-eight patients (24%) had prior bariatric surgery. Ninety-four patients (23%) had diabetes, 93 patients (22.8%) had hypertension, 123 (28.8%) had hyperlipidemia, and 35 patients (8.6%) suffered from obstructive sleep apnea. Eight patients (1.96%) had early minor complications (Clavien-Dindo 1-3a), and 10 patients (2.45%) suffered early major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3b). The average length of hospital stay was 2.2 ± 0.84 days (range 2-10 days). Twenty patients (4.8%) were readmitted, and 10 patients underwent reoperation. Patients who had had previous bariatric surgery had higher rates of complications, a prolonged hospital admission, higher rates of readmission, and early reoperations. The average excess weight loss (%EWL) 1 year following surgery was 88.9 ± 27.3 and 72.8 ± 43.5% in patients that underwent primary and revision OAGB, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAGB is both safe and effective as a primary as well as a revision bariatric surgery.

Risk factors of perioperative morbimortality after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a club coelio multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative complications after Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) can dramatically compromise patient's outcome. The aim of this study is to analyze the per- and postoperative short-term outcomes after LSG and to assess predictive risk factors of complications.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 790 patients (610 women and 180 men) who underwent LSG In 2014. All interventions were performed by 18 experienced surgeons members of the Club Coelio. Data about preoperative work-up, surgical techniques, 30-days postoperative morbidity and mortality were collected. Endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality and assessment of potential risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

Mean age and body mass index were respectively 39 years and 41.5kg/m². Ninety-one patients (11.5%) had previous bariatric surgery. Morbidity rate was 4.7% (37/790) including 16 leaks (2.0%) and 9 bleedings (1.1%) and no deaths. Risk factors for leak were: previous adjustable banding (p = .0051), with no difference between removal of the banding and LSG in 1 or 2 steps, and type of endostapler (p = .0129).

CONCLUSIONS

Leakage after Sleeve was rare but still observed even in experienced hands. The leak rate is particularly high when LSG is performed after adjustable gastric banding removal.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for diabetics - 5-year outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Although the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is increasingly performed for morbid obesity, gastric bypass is still considered by many to be the gold standard procedure for obese diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term results of SG in morbidly obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Diabetic patients who underwent SG at a single center between 2009 and 2011 were included. Outcomes assessed included postoperative complications, weight loss, and resolution or improvement in co-morbidities with an emphasis on diabetes, including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) and medication status.

RESULTS

Fifty-one diabetic patients underwent SG, 35 females and 16 males, with a collective mean age of 49 years and a mean body mass index of 43.2 kg/m². On average, patients had had diabetes for 5.4 ± 7.3 years before surgery. Mean HbA1C and fasting glucose levels were 7.9 ± 1.6% and 166.9 ± 63 mg/dL, respectively. Eleven patients (22%) were insulin dependent at the time of surgery. Average body mass index at a mean follow-up of 5 years after surgery was 34.4 ± 5.8 kg/m², with an average HbA1C of 6.6 ± 1% and an average fasting glucose of 123 ± 60 mg/dL. Only 3 patients remained insulin dependent.

CONCLUSION

SG offers retainable weight loss results, accompanied by longstanding resolution or improvement of diabetes. Prospective, randomized controlled studies are warranted to better compare long-term outcomes between SG and gastric bypass.