Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedures after Adjustable Gastric Band: 5-Year Outcomes

From Bands to Bypasses: Navigating Safety of Band Conversions to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Single Anastomosis Duodenoileostomy Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery is associated with higher perioperative complications over primary procedures. Adjustable gastric bands (AGB) continue to be the most frequently converted bariatric configuration. This study examines trends in current clinical indication and safety profile of the most frequently pursued AGB conversions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MBSAQIP data from 2020 to 2022 was retrospectively analyzed in a cohort study examining 30-day postoperative outcomes after AGB conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), or single anastomosis duodenoileostomy (SADI). Descriptive statistics were used, including multivariable and 2:1 nearest neighbor matching analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 19,335 AGB conversions, of which most were to SG (n = 11,736) followed by RYGB (n = 7442) and SADI (n = 157). While a majority were completed for weight loss, there were differences in distribution of primary indication for each conversion cohort, such as higher proportion of RYGB conversion for gastroesophageal reflux disease (18.7%) compared to SG (7.92%) and SADI (5.10%). Multivariable analysis demonstrates conversion to RYGB has significantly higher odds of 30-day major complications (OR 1.75, p < 0.001), reoperation (OR 2.08; p = 0.001), readmission (OR 1.69; p = 0.001), and emergency department visits (OR 1.50; p = 0.001) over SG. These risks and odds of reintervention (OR 1.75; p < 0.001) remained significantly higher after conversion to RYGB versus SG on matched analysis. None of these risks is significantly different between conversions to SADI versus SG in either multivariable or matched analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to AGB conversion to SG, single-stage conversion to RYGB had increased odds of perioperative complications while risks of conversion to SADI were not significantly different.

Medium and Long-Term Weight Loss After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the current increase in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), data on the sustainability of weight loss remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess weight loss outcomes in adult patients undergoing RBS with follow-up > 2 years. Twenty-eight observational studies (n = 2213 patients) were included. The %TWL was 27.2 (95%CI = 23.7 to 30.6), and there was a drop in BMI of 10.2 kg/m2 (95%CI =  - 11.6 to - 8.7). The %EWL was 54.8 (95%CI = 47.2 to 62.4) but with a high risk of publication bias (Egger's test = 0.003). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Our data reinforce that current evidence on RBS is mainly based on low-quality observational studies, and further higher-quality studies are needed to support evidence-based practice.

Five-year outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery: gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery after an index adjustable gastric band (AGB) may be indicated to remedy weight relapse or band-related complications. We examined outcomes five years following revision from AGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (AGB-LSG) or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (AGB-RYGB).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review to identify patients (men and women, age 18-80) who underwent one revisional bariatric procedure with AGB as the index procedure at two medical centers in our healthcare system between January 2012 and February 2017. We only included patients with a pre-revision BMI > 30 kg/m2 for whom 5-year follow-up data were available. We compared 5-year weight loss and remission of comorbidities in patients undergoing AGB-LSG and AGB-RYGB conversion.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients met inclusion criteria (65 AGB-LSG, 49 AGB-RYGB). At 5-year post-revision, percent total weight loss (3.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.001), percent excess weight loss (7.0% vs 50.8%; p < 0.001) and decrease in BMI (1.5 vs 8.8; p < 0.001) was greater in AGB-RYGB vs. AGB-LSG. No significant difference in remission or development of new comorbidities was observed.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of AGB to RYGB is associated with superior intermediate-term weight loss compared to conversion of AGB to LSG. Future multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further describe the intermediate-term outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery.

Revisional One-Step Bariatric Surgical Techniques After Unsuccessful Laparoscopic Gastric Band: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has high reported rates of revision due to poor weight loss (WL) and high complication rates. Yet, there is yet to be a consensus on the best revisional procedure after unsuccessful LAGB, and studies comparing different revisional procedures after LAGB are still needed.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the outcomes of one-step revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (rOAGB), or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (rLSG) after LAGB. WL, complications, resolution of associated medical conditions, and food tolerance were assessed with a post hoc pairwise comparison one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) throughout a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 102 (rRYGB), 80 (rOAGB), and 70 (rLSG) patients. After 2 years, an equal percentage of excess weight loss was observed in rOAGB and rRYGB (both >90%; p=0.998), significantly higher than that in rLSG (83.6%; p<0.001). In our study, no leaks were observed. rRYGB had higher complication rates according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (10.8% vs. 3.75% and 5.7% in rOAGB and rLSG, respectively, p=0.754), and re-operations were not statistically significant. Food tolerance was comparable between rOAGB and rRYGB (p = 0.987), and both had significantly better food tolerance than rLSG (p<0.001). The study cohorts had comparable resolution rates for associated medical problems (p>0.60).

CONCLUSION

rOAGB and rRYGB had better outcomes after LAGB than rLSG regarding WL, feasibility, food tolerance, and safety. rOAGB had significantly higher rates of nutritional deficiencies.

Nissen Sleeve as a Redo Surgery Post Gastric Banding for Non-responders to Weight Loss and Therapy-Resistant Reflux

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) would be the procedure of choice for non-responders of weight loss and patients with reflux symptoms (GERD). However, not every patient is a candidate for RYGB, and sometimes, the patient can insist only on alternatives other than malabsorption procedures, as was the case with our patient. We report a case with symptomatic GERD who underwent a successful Nissen sleeve gastrectomy after band removal. To our knowledge, this is the first case using Nissen sleeve as a redo surgery after a previous bariatric procedure.

Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass

BACKGROUND

Adjustable gastric bands (AGB) are frequently converted to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to weight recurrence or band complications. Such conversions carry a higher-risk than primary procedures. Some patients undergo two conversions-from AGB to SG, and subsequently from SG to RYGB. This presents a unique situation with limited literature on indications and complication rates associated with these double conversions.

METHODS

We examined the 2020-2021 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Participant Use File to evaluate conversions from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. Patient and operative characteristics, along with outcomes, were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were applied.

RESULTS

We identified 276 patients who underwent a conversion from AGB to SG and then to RYGB. The primary reason for the second conversion (SG to RYGB) was gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) at 55.1%, followed by inadequate weight loss or weight regain (IWL/WR) at 36.9%. The remaining reasons included dysphagia, nausea, vomiting, or others. Patients converted for IWL/WR demonstrated a higher baseline body mass index and prevalence of sleep apnea compared to other cohorts (both p < 0.001). Meanwhile, patients in the "other reasons" group had the highest rate of open surgical approaches (9.1%) and concurrent lysis of adhesions (p = 0.001 and p = 0.022), with correspondingly higher rates of anastomotic leak, reoperations, serious complications, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing double conversions (AGB to SG to RYGB) do so primarily for GERD or IWL/WR. Further research is required to better define the optimal primary operation for each patient, aiming to reduce the necessity for multiple conversions.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy for Revision of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: 5-Year Outcomes

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is in continuous decline due to low effectiveness and high reoperation rates. This study aims to evaluate outcomes of converting LAGB to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for insufficient weight loss or weight regain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective comparative study, based on prospective registry database of a tertiary center (2012-2019).

RESULTS

In all, 276 LAGB patients were converted to OAGB (n = 125) and SG (n = 151). Body mass index (BMI) at revision was 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42.3 ± 9.6 kg/m2 (P = 0.34) in OAGB and SG patients, respectively. Time interval was longer in OAGB patients (p < 0.001). Major early complication rates were comparable (2.4% and 4%; p = 0.46). At 5-years, OAGB patients had lower BMI (31.9 vs. 34.5 kg/m2; p = 0.002), and a higher total weight loss (25.1% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.003), compared with SG patients. Resolution of type 2 diabetes was higher in OAGB patients (93.3% vs. 66.6%; p = 0.047), while resolution of hypertension was not significantly different (84.6% and 80.5%; p = 0.68). Revision due to delayed complications was required in five (4%) OAGB patients and nine (8.6%) SG patients (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

OAGB for revision after LAGB due to insufficient weight loss or weight regain is safe, and has better effectiveness in weight reduction and resolution of type 2 diabetes than SG.

Challenges in Bariatric Surgery: Outcomes in Patients Having Three or More Bariatric Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Over the last two decades, a progressive increase in failure rate of bariatric surgery (BS) has occurred in conjunction with an exponential increase in BS worldwide. Bariatric surgeons are confronted with challenging situations in patients with a complex bariatric history. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of revisional BS in patients with at least two or more previous bariatric procedures.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively retrieved from a prospectively held database of bariatric procedures performed at our tertiary referral bariatric center and included procedures done from February 2013 up to April 2019 by a single center.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent a third bariatric procedure. The median age was 40 (18-57) and 54 (27-69) years at the time of the first and the last procedures, respectively. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was the first procedure in 26 patients. The complication rate was 33%; no patient required additional surgery because of postoperative complications. A total weight loss of 29.6% and an excess loss of 53.4% were obtained at a mean follow-up of 61 months after the last redo bariatric procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that redo BS either conversional or revisional is feasible and effective in patients with a complex bariatric history including two or more previous procedures. Careful patients' selection is mandatory and extensive information should be given on the increased risk of postoperative complications.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Revision of Restrictive Procedures: Mid-Term Outcomes and Analysis of Possible Outcome Predictors

PURPOSE

Revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) for insufficient weight reduction following primary restrictive procedures is still investigated. We report mid-term outcomes and possible outcome predictors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative study of revisional OAGB outcomes (2015-2018) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG); silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (SRVG) is separately discussed.

RESULTS

In all, 203 patients underwent revisional OAGB following LAGB (n = 125), SG (n = 64), and SRVG (n = 14). Comparing LAGB and SG, body mass index (BMI) at revision were 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42 ± 11.2 kg/m² (p = 0.64), reduced to 31.3 ± 8.3 and 31.9 ± 8.3 (p = 0.64) at mid-term follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) > 50% was achieved in ~ 50%, with EWL of 79.4 ± 20.4% (corresponding total weight loss 38.5 ± 10.4%). SRVG patients had comparable outcomes. Resolution rates of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension (HTN) were 93.3% and 84.6% in LAGB compared with 100% and 100% in SG patients (p = 0.47 and p = 0.46), respectively. In univariable analysis, EWL > 50% was associated with male gender (p < 0.001), higher weight (p < 0.001), and BMI (p = 0.007) at primary surgery, and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for EWL > 50% were male gender (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.27-6.18; p = 0.01) and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Revisional OAGB for insufficient restrictive procedures results in excellent weight reduction in nearly 50% of patients, with resolution of T2D and HTN at mid-term follow-up. Male gender and higher BMI at revision were associated with EWL > 50% following revisional OAGB. Identification of more predictors could aid judicious patient selection.

Postoperative morbidity and weight loss after revisional bariatric surgery for primary failed restrictive procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

revisional bariatric surgery is gaining increasing interest as long term follow-up studies demonstrate an elevated failure rate of primary surgery due to insufficient weight loss, weight regain or complications. This particularly concerns restrictive bariatric surgery which has been widely adopted from the '80s till present through different procedures, notably vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to define which revisional bariatric procedure performs the best after failure of primary restrictive surgery.

METHODS

a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 39 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol.

RESULTS

biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch guarantees the best results in terms of weight loss (1 and 3-years %TWL MD: 12.38 and 28.42) followed by single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (9.24 and 19.13), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (7.16 and 13.1), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (4.68 and 7.3) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy. Duodenal switch and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are associated to an increased risk of late major morbidity (OR: 3.07 and 2.11 respectively) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy while no significant difference was highlighted for the other procedures. Re-sleeve gastrectomy is the revisional intervention most frequently burdened by weight recidivism; compared to it, patients undergoing single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass have the lowest risk of weight regain (OR: 0.07).

CONCLUSION

considering the analyzed outcomes altogether, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass are the most performing revisional procedures after failure of restrictive surgery due to satisfying short and mid-term weight loss and low early and late morbidity. Moreover, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass has low risk of weight recidivism.

Revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failed gastric banding: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is technically demanding and is usually associated with higher intraoperative and perioperative risks than primary procedures. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients who had gastric bypass procedures performed as a rescue procedure for failed gastric banding, with those who had a primary gastric bypass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional gastric bypass for failed gastric band was matched in a 1:2 ratio with control patients who underwent a primary RYGB, based on gender, score, preoperative body mass index, and comorbidities. Data were retrospectively retrieved.

RESULTS

Thirty one (33.3%) patients underwent band removal and gastric bypass (group A) and 62 (66.6%) only primary gastric bypass (group B). Nonsignificant differences were seen in operative time, operative bleeding, or length of stay. Complications were more frequent in group A. Postoperative weight at 12-month follow-up was greater in group A, however, not statistically significant. Changes in weight, both absolute, and percentage were not different between groups. This observation was also true for BMI, in which no significant differences were seen. Overall, mean follow-up was 16 ± 3.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Gastric bypass can be performed as revisional bariatric surgery, with low complication rates and acceptable outcomes, though not with the same safety as a primary procedure. Gastric bypass is a satisfactory option for patients with a failed gastric band.

Long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after failed gastric band: a multicenter cross-matched cohort study

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is the bariatric procedure most likely subject to revisional surgery. Both laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) represent viable options, but the long-term results are still lacking. In 2014, we published the 2-year follow-up of our multicenter cohort of revisional LSG after failed LAGB. Evaluate the long-term follow-up (median 9.3 years) of the same cohort of patients. University and primary-care hospitals, Italy. We retrospectively examined a prospectively maintained database of the previously published multicenter cohort of 56 patients who underwent LSG after failed LAGB between 2008-2011. The control group included cross-matched non-revisional LSGs. The primary endpoint was weight loss, secondary endpoints co-morbidities, and the need for further bariatric surgery. The study group included 44 patients and the control group 56. We found %EWL 53% Vs. 67% (p = .021), %EBMIL (54 Vs. 68%, p = .018), %TWL (26 Vs. 34%, p = .002). We also found more severe GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) symptoms in the revisional than in the primary group (9.0 vs. 1.8% mild and 23.0 vs. 3.0% severe). Ten patients from the revisional group (22.7%) vs. eight in the primary group (13%) underwent further bariatric surgery (LRYGB). Our results showed less favorable weight loss in revisional than primary LSG after LABG, higher prevalence of GERD, and a more frequent need for further revisional surgery. Despite the study's limitations, the present data suggest that the long-term outcomes may offset the possible reduced short-term complication rate after revisional sleeve gastrectomy for a failed LABG.

Primary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Results in Greater Weight Loss at 15-Year Follow-Up Compared with Secondary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass After Failure of Gastric Band or Mason McLean Vertical Gastroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of patients treated with secondary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) with those of patients having primary RYGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing secondary RYGB after AGB or VBG between 1997 and 2004 with a minimal follow-up of 15 years were matched using a propensity score (according to gender, age, BMI, duration of follow-up) with comparable patients who underwent primary RYGB.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 16.50 years in the secondary RYGB group (N = 32) versus 16.33 years in the primary RYGB group (N = 32). Early postoperative complications rate was 6.25% in the secondary RYGBs versus 9.38% in the primary RYGBs (P = 1). Late postoperative complications and additional surgical procedures were 56.25% and 37.5% in the secondary and primary RYGB group, respectively (P = 0.21). Long-term (at 16-20 years) %TWL and %EWL were significantly lower (P < 0.01 and P = 0.013, respectively) after secondary RYGB (%TWL = 7.56%; %EWL = 17.15%) than after primary RYGB (%TWL = 24.51%; %EWL = 55.61%). Remission of obesity-related comorbidities was comparable (P > 0.05). Gastroesophageal reflux was more frequent after secondary RGYB-43.75% versus 25%, P < 0.05. Quality of life-Morehead-Ardelt II score (0.02 in secondary RYGB versus 0.69 in primary RYGB, P = 0.13), general self-assessment of health status and weight satisfaction were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Secondary RYGB after AGB or VBG is less efficient at weight loss, GERD remission and energy expenditure at 15 years after conversion. However, it is as effective for improvement/resolution of obesity-related comorbidities and is associated with similar QoL scores.

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.

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.

Is there an indication left for gastric band? A single center experience on 178 patients with a follow-up of 10 years

Background

Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB) has been widely performed in the past at our university bariatric center. Aim of this study was to retrospectively assess long term outcomes of LAGB at our university hospital, with special regard to non-response (EWL < 25%) and rate of band removal.

Methods

Retrospective search of prospectively maintained database of our university bariatric center was carried out to find all consecutive patients that had undergone LAGB at our department with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Collected data were sex, age, body mass index (BMI), obesity related diseases remission, complications and weight loss.

Results

After 10 years, patients with the band (n = 144) in place had a BMI of 35.2 ± 7.5 kg/m2, while %EWL and % TWL were 40.8 ± 52.4 and 18.9 ± 20.7. Seventy-four (41.6%) achieved a success (%EWL > 50), while 38 (21.3%) were non-responders (%EWL < 25), 32 (18%) had an insufficient weight loss (25 < %EWL < 50) and 34 (19.1%) underwent band removal. Among these, 6 (3.4%) were removed for complications and 28 (15.7%) for insufficient weight loss. Weight regain occurred in 38 out of 144 (26.4%) subjects with the band in place at 10 years. Only one case of early vomiting with readmission for medical treatment was recorded. Slippage, erosion/migration and port/tube complications occurred in 4 (2.2%), 2(1.1%) and 9(5%) cases respectively.

Conclusion

LAGB is a safe and moderately effective bariatric procedure but it showed disappointing rates of removal, non-response and remission from comorbidities. However, LAGB could still be proposed for selected/motivated patients.

Sleeve gastrectomy as a rescue of failed gastric banding: comparison of 1- and 2-step approaches

BACKGROUND

Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure.

SETTING

University Hospital, France, public practice.

METHODS

Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission).

RESULTS

In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m² (27.0-69.0), while in the 2-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index was 43.5 kg/m² (31.5-61.7). Mean operating time was 109 minutes (50-240) in the 1-step group and 78.7 minutes (40-175) in the 2-step group (P = .22). In the 1-step group, 6 conversions to laparotomy occurred, while in the 2-step group, 2 conversions to laparotomy occurred (P = .75). One death (.2%, in the 2-step group) and 39 complications (30 in the 1-step group [11.1%] and 9 in the 2-step group [10.2%]) also occurred. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.2 days in the 1-step group and 4.1 days in the 2-step group. At 2-year follow-up, mean body mass index was 32.4 kg/m² in the 1-step group and 33.2 kg/m² in the 2-step group (P = .15), representing excess weight losses of 61.9 and 50.1 (P = .05), respectively. The rates of revisional surgery were .7% and 2.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach.

Clinical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Over recent decades, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been among the most common bariatric surgeries. Nowadays, many patients require revision surgery due to insufficient weight loss and band-related complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are the two most common revision surgeries for failed LAGB, but the conclusions about their efficacy and safety have been inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to review the clinical outcomes of SG and RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for articles that had studied the efficacy and safety of SG and RYGB. The most appropriate effects model was chosen based on the heterogeneity of the articles included in this meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0.

RESULTS

Of 586 articles that were retrieved, 16 articles which examined 2141 SG and 2990 RYGB patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients in RYGB groups showed increased percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 and 24 months after revision surgery but no statistically significant change was found about %EWL after 3, 6, or 36 months. In addition, RYGB was associated with a higher rate of complications, interventions, and readmission in addition to being of more operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggested that RYGB was more effective at demonstrating weight loss after 12 and 24 months, but comparisons of the long-term efficacy of RYGB with that of SG remain inconclusive. In addition, RYGB was accompanied by a greater number of post-operative complications, interventions, and readmissions. Thus, surgeons should consider the overall status of the patients and their comorbidities as crucial factors when selecting a form of revision surgery. Additional high-quality randomized controlled studies are required to further compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments with longer follow-up times.

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.

Hiatal hernia diagnosis prospectively assessed in obese patients before bariatric surgery: accuracy of high-resolution manometry taking intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) is common in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Preoperative traditional techniques such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) or barium swallow/esophagram do not always correlate with intraoperative findings. High-resolution manometry (HRM) has shown a higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional techniques in non-obese patients in the HH diagnosis, whereas there is a lack of data in the morbidly obese population. We aimed to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of HRM in HH detection, in comparison with barium swallow and UGIE, assuming intraoperative diagnosis as a standard of reference.

METHODS

Forty-one consecutive morbidly obese patients prospectively recruited from a tertiary-care referral hospital devoted to bariatric and metabolic surgery underwent a preoperative evaluation including standardized GERD questionnaires, barium swallow, UGIE, and HRM. The surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon who was blinded to the results of other investigations.

RESULTS

HH was intraoperatively diagnosed in 11/41 patients (26.8%). In 10/11 patients, the preoperative HRM showed an esophagogastric junction suggestive of HH. When compared to intraoperative evaluation, the sensitivity of the HRM was 90.9% and the specificity 63.3%, with a positive predictive value of 47.6% and a negative predictive value of 95.0%. HRM showed a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to barium swallow and UGIE.

CONCLUSIONS

HRM has a high accuracy of HH detection in morbidly obese patients assuming an intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard. It could therefore be a very useful tool in the preoperative work-up of obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

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.

Hiatal hernia diagnosis prospectively assessed in obese patients before bariatric surgery: accuracy of high-resolution manometry taking intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) is common in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Preoperative traditional techniques such as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) or barium swallow/esophagram do not always correlate with intraoperative findings. High-resolution manometry (HRM) has shown a higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional techniques in non-obese patients in the HH diagnosis, whereas there is a lack of data in the morbidly obese population. We aimed to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of HRM in HH detection, in comparison with barium swallow and UGIE, assuming intraoperative diagnosis as a standard of reference.

METHODS

Forty-one consecutive morbidly obese patients prospectively recruited from a tertiary-care referral hospital devoted to bariatric and metabolic surgery underwent a preoperative evaluation including standardized GERD questionnaires, barium swallow, UGIE, and HRM. The surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon who was blinded to the results of other investigations.

RESULTS

HH was intraoperatively diagnosed in 11/41 patients (26.8%). In 10/11 patients, the preoperative HRM showed an esophagogastric junction suggestive of HH. When compared to intraoperative evaluation, the sensitivity of the HRM was 90.9% and the specificity 63.3%, with a positive predictive value of 47.6% and a negative predictive value of 95.0%. HRM showed a higher sensitivity and specificity compared to barium swallow and UGIE.

CONCLUSIONS

HRM has a high accuracy of HH detection in morbidly obese patients assuming an intraoperative diagnosis as reference standard. It could therefore be a very useful tool in the preoperative work-up of obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Conversion from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): preliminary data from a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been for a decade one of the most popular interventions for weight loss. After LSG and LAGB, some patients may require a second surgery due to weight regain or late complications. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a promising bariatric procedure, which provides effective long-term weight loss and has a favorable effect on type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively analyze data from 10 Italian centers on conversion from LAGB and LSG to OAGB.

SETTING

High-volume centers for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 10 high-volume centers were retrospectively reviewed. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss, reasons for redo, remission from co-morbidities (hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia), and major complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included in the study; 196 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB and 104 were converted from LSG. BMI was 45.1 ± 7 kg/m² at the time of first intervention, 41.8 ± 6.3 kg/m² at redo time, and 30.5 ± 5.5 kg/m² at last follow-up appointment. Mean percentage of excess BMI loss was 13.2 ± 28.2 at conversion and 73.4 ± 27.5 after OAGB. Remission rates from hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia were 40%, 62.5%, 58.7% and 52%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 20.8 (range, 6-156) months and overall complications rate was 8.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that OAGB is a safe and effective revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.

Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy Attenuates Hedonic Feeding Without Impacting Alcohol Drinking in Rats

OBJECTIVE

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery and vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) are the most commonly performed bariatric procedures. Whereas studies report new-onset alcohol misuse following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, the impact of VSG on alcohol intake is less clear. Hedonic feeding, alcohol drinking, and hypothalamic obesity-related gene expression following VSG were evaluated.

METHODS

Male Long-Evans rats underwent VSG or sham surgery. To evaluate hedonic feeding, rats received a high-fat diet following behavioral satiation on chow. Alcohol (5%-10% v/v) drinking was assessed in a two-bottle choice paradigm. Finally, polymerase chain reaction array evaluated gene expression.

RESULTS

VSG induced moderate but significant weight loss. Sham rats significantly escalated high-fat diet intake following behavioral satiation, an effect significantly reduced in VSG rats. A moderate decrease in alcohol intake was observed in VSG rats at low (5%) alcohol concentration. However, overall, no significant between-group differences were evident. Key hypothalamic orexigenic transcripts linked to stimulation of food and alcohol intake were significantly decreased in VSG rats.

CONCLUSIONS

VSG attenuated hedonic feeding without impacting alcohol drinking, an effect potentially mediated by alterations in genetic information flow within the hypothalamus. Importantly, these data highlight VSG as an effective bariatric procedure with a potentially reduced risk of developing alcohol use disorder.

Revisional surgery after removal of eroded adjustable gastric bands

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to present surgical techniques and treatment outcomes for re-banding and sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional surgery after removing eroded adjustable gastric bands.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed to study laparoscopic re-banding or sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for band erosion. Main outcome measures were success of therapeutic strategies, morbidity, body mass index, and percentage total excess weight loss before and after revision.

RESULTS

From March 2013 to June 2017, a total of 11 patients underwent the revisional surgery. Six patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy at median 15.7 months (13.2-73.3 months) after band removal, and 5 patients gastric re-banding at median 5.4 months (3.1-43.8 months). One of the six patients that underwent sleeve gastrectomy was diagnosed to have a minor leak. No other critical postoperative complication was observed in each group. Median BMI at revision in the sleeve gastrectomy group was 32.7 kg/m² (31.2-40.8 kg/m²). Median follow-up after revision was 33.8 months (15.5-63.7 months), and at last follow-up, median BMI was 26.4 kg/m² (23.6-34.6 kg/m²), and median %TWL was 17.6% (9.5-31.5%). In the rebanding group, median BMI at revision was 30.7 kg/m² (27.0-41.4 kg/m²). Median follow-up after revision was 25.5 months (13.5-45.4 months), and at last follow-up, median BMI was 23.5 kg/m² (22.0-30.1 kg/m²) and median %TWL was 23.9% (9.1-29.0%).

CONCLUSION

Given the surgical techniques adopted, both re-banding and sleeve gastrectomy were found to be safe and effective revisional surgery after removal of eroded gastric band.

Destiny of Failed Adjustable Gastric Bandings: Do All the Patients Need Further Bariatric Surgery?

PURPOSE

The number of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) removal has increased throughout the years. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes in patients undergoing LAGB removal with or without further bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data prospectively collected from consecutive patients undergoing LAGB removal from 2008 to 2016 at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Obesity-related comorbidities, complications, and body mass index (BMI) before removal and at 1-year follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in the study. Seventy-six patients had further surgery (SURG group): 55 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and 21 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Eighty patients underwent only LAGB removal (No-SURG group). The mean BMI was lower in the No-SURG group (33.9 vs 36.3 kg/m², p = 0.0055). Reasons for removal were different in the two groups: dysphagia, frequent vomiting, and LAGB-related complications requiring urgent treatment occurred more commonly in the No-SURG group (p < 0.05): 71.3 vs 51.3%, 67.5% vs. 38.2%, 28.8% vs. 6.6%, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, 96.3% of No-SURG patients regained weight after LAGB removal; two (2.5%) patients showed new-onset comorbidities, four (5%) needed adjustments in pharmacological therapy, and four (5%) complained from persistence of GERD symptoms. Additional surgery provided significant weight loss: the mean %TWL was 23.7% after LSGs and 27.2% after LRYGBs.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB is associated with a high rate of reoperation. Further bariatric surgery after LAGB removal should be considered due to weight regain, persistence of GERD symptoms, and new-onset comorbidities.

Gastric band conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass shows greater weight loss than conversion to sleeve gastrectomy: 5-year outcomes

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are often used as revisional surgeries for a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). There is debate over which procedure provides better long-term weight loss.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the weight loss results of these 2 surgeries.

SETTING

University hospital, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all LAGB to RYGB and LAGB to LSG surgeries performed at a single institution. Primary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), percent excess BMI lost, and percent weight loss. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications and reoperations.

RESULTS

The cohort included 192 conversions from LAGB to RYGB and 283 LAGB to LSG. The baseline age and BMI were similar in the 2 groups. Statistical comparisons made between the 2 groups at 24 months postconversion were significant for BMI (RYGB = 32.93, LSG = 38.34, P = .0004), percent excess BMI lost (RYGB = 57.8%, LSG = 29.3%, P < .0001), and percent weight loss (RYGB = 23.4%, LSG = 12.6%, P < .0001). However, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of reoperation (7.3% versus 1.4%, P = .0022), longer operating room time (RYGB = 120.1 min versus LSG = 115.5 min, P < .0001), and longer length of stay (RYGB = 3.33 d versus LSG = 2.11 d, P < .0001) than the LAGB to LSG group. Although not significant, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of readmission (7.3% versus 3.5%, P = .087).

CONCLUSION

Weight loss is significantly greater for patients undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB than LAGB to LSG. However, those undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB had higher rates of reoperation and readmission. Patients looking for the most effective weight loss surgery after failed LAGB should be advised to have RYGB performed, while also understanding the increased risks of the procedure.