Laparoscopic Gastric Banding: Game Over?

The Role of Devices in the Management of Pediatric Obesity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Approximately 20% of children and adolescents in the USA suffer from obesity with significant long-term effects well into adulthood. Metabolic and bariatric surgery, although well adopted in the adult population, has been underutilized in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are four categories of weight loss devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration for use in adults - gastric bands, gastric balloon systems, electrical stimulation systems, and gastric emptying systems. In this commentary we discuss the role these devices may play in increasing the adoption of procedural intervention for severe obesity in children and adolescents.

Revisional Adjustable Gastric Band in Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-Is It Worth It?

PURPOSE

A subset of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) presents with either insufficient weight loss or weight regain. Data on the revisional restrictive options including laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is scarce. This study analyzes the mid-term efficacy and safety of LAGB as a revisional procedure after RYGB.

METHODS

Data of all patients with revisional LAGB after primary RYGB between January 2011 and May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes included assessment of weight changes, resolution of comorbidities, and early and late complications during the study period.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included. The median Body Mass Index (BMI) before revisional LAGB was 34.8 (interquartile range [IQR] 31.9-38.1) kg/m2. After a median follow-up of 33.5 (IQR 19.5-76.5) months, the median BMI was 28.7 (IQR 26.1-32.2) kg/m2. The median additional Excess Weight Loss (EWL) was 37.6% (IQR 23-44.4), leading to a median total EWL of 79.5% (IQR 54.4-94.6). BMI and EWL post-LAGB improved significantly compared to BMI and EWL pre-LAGB (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome resolved 6 months after LAGB in one patient. Three band deflations occurred during the follow-up. Six patients underwent band removal after a median time of 19 (IQR 15.8-26) months. Overall, thirteen patients underwent a reoperation. There was no loss of follow-up until 5 years. After that, two patients were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

LAGB may be a salvage option after failed RYGB. However, the high rate of revisions after secondary LAGB needs to be taken into consideration.

Eroded Gastric Band: Where to Next? An Analysis of the Largest Contemporary Series

PURPOSE

Erosion of a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is a devastating problem. There is no clear evidence in literature to guide the choice of revisional procedure following an eroded LAGB. The purpose of this study is to analyse the largest series of erosions following LAGB published to-date with an aim to share our experience with this rare complication and how we managed this cohort of patients following explantation of their LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Patient data is maintained prospectively in a surgical database. The study period was from January 1996 to January 2019. The outcomes of patients who underwent an erosion of LAGB were studied.

RESULTS

Gastric band erosion was encountered in 4.7% of patients. Sixty patients opted for a revisional procedure which included 37 repeat LAGBs, 6 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies (LSG), 7 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (RYGB), 1 intragastric balloon, and 9 failed revisional procedures. Re-erosions were noted in 27% of patients who underwent a repeat gastric banding. Median %TWL at a 1-year follow-up was significantly higher in LSG and RYGB groups compared with that in LAGB (P < 0.008 and P < 0.000, respectively). There was no significant difference between the LSG and RYGB groups.

CONCLUSION

The risk of re-erosion is increased in patients who undergo repeat AGB following a previous episode of erosion. Repeat LAGB should not be offered after a previous erosion. LSG and RYGB should be considered as appropriate revisional procedures in a patient who experience weight regain following explantation of an eroded LAGB.

Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: an Underestimated Risk Factor for the Development of Esophageal Cancer?-a Nationwide Survey

BACKGROUND

Approximately 14% of Austria's 8.5 million inhabitants have a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m². The laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was introduced in Austria in 1994, where about 10.300 patients have received it so far. One of our LAGB patients developed an adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus 13 years after implantation.

OBJECTIVES

In order to calculate whether after LAGB patients are at higher risk for carcinoma of the esophagus, we performed a nationwide survey.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to all surgical departments in Austria, primarily in order to detect cases with esophageal carcinoma after LAGB, but also to evaluate the policy in Austria concerning preoperative work-up, operation, and follow-up in LAGB patients.

RESULTS

Since 1994, 37 of the 119 surgical departments in Austria have performed a total of about 10.300 LAGB implantations. Six patients have been identified with esophageal cancer following LAGB. The WHO statistical report on esophageal cancer shows an incidence of 2.8/100.000 per year in Austria, about 1/3 of which cases are adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus.

CONCLUSION

Following LAGB, the incidence of esophageal cancer might be up to fivefold higher than the aged standardized overall population of Austria.

Gastric Banding: Complications Identified by CT

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) used to be a common procedure at the turn of the century and is still frequently encountered on CT scans in common clinical practice. Our aim is to present the frequency and spectrum of complication associated with LAGB, as observed in CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After approval of our institutional review board, a retrospective search for LAGB in CT interpretations using the term "band" between December 2011 and April 2017 was conducted. CT scans were reviewed to identify complications. The findings were divided into two groups: symptomatic, in which the complications caused acute symptoms for which CT scans were conducted, and incidental, in which complications were incidentally identified. The frequency of complications was calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 160 patients who underwent LAGB and performed a CT scan. Complications were identified in 69/160 (43.1%) patients, with a total of 83 findings: 47/160 (29.4%) esophageal dilatation, 13/160 (8.2%) pulmonary complications, 6/160 (3.8%) abdominal abscesses, 5/160 (3.1%) small bowel obstructions, 4/160 (2.5%) intragastric band erosions, 4/160 (2.5%) tube disconnections, 3/160 (1.9%) port site and tube course infections, and 1/160 (0.6%) small pouch bezoars. When compared with patients' referral notes, 38/83 (45.8%) of the findings were associated with acute symptoms, whereas 45/83 (54.2%) of the findings were incidental. Eighteen percent of the incidental complications were clinically important.

CONCLUSION

Complications were found in 43% of CT scans of patients who underwent LAGB; less than half of the findings were symptomatic. Some of the incidentally identified complications had substantial clinical importance.