Revision Procedures After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety

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.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure: Could the Number of Previous Operations Influence the Outcome?

After a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as revisional surgery. Those patients that receive a second restrictive procedure fall into a small subgroup of patients with more than one restrictive procedure (MRP). If also the second restrictive procedure fails, the correct surgical strategy is a challenge for the surgeon. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be an option but there is no evidence in the literature on whether the procedure is effective in treating failures after MRP. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the previous number of restrictive interventions (MRP vs single LSG) in the results of RYGB as revisional surgery. We have retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent conversion from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or from multiple restrictive procedures (MRP), to RYGB for weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) between 2009 and 2019. The number of patients analyzed was 69 with conversion to RYGB after LSG and 44 after MRP. The reduction of excess weight (%TWL) at 3, 6, 12, 24 RYGB postoperative months was respectively of 11.03%, 16.39%, 21.43%, and 24.22% in the MRP group, and of 10.97%, 16.4%, 21.22%, and 22.71% in the LSG group. No significant difference was found in %TWL terms after RYGB for the MRP group and the LSG group with an overall %TWL, which was 11.00 ± 6.03, 16.40 ± 8.08, 21.30 ± 9.43, and 23.30 ± 9.91 respectively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The linear regression model highlighted a positive relationship between the %EWL post-bypass at 24 months and the time elapsed only between the LSG and RYGB in the MRP group patients (p < 0.001). RYGB has proved to be a reliable technique with good results in terms of weight loss after failed bariatric surgery both in patients who previously underwent MRP and in those who underwent exclusively LSG. RYGB showed better results in patients who experienced WR than in those who had IWL from previous techniques.

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.

Management of leaks following one-anastomosis gastric bypass: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 318 patients

INTRODUCTION

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) complication, such as leakage, can be dangerous and should be managed properly, yet little data exist in the literature regarding the management of leaks after OAGB, and there are no guidelines to date.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and 46 studies, examining 44 318 patients were included.

RESULTS

There were 410 leaks reported in 44 318 patients of OAGB published in the literature, which represents a prevalence of 1% of leaks after OAGB. The surgical strategy was very variable among all the different studies; 62.1% of patients with leaks had to undergo another surgery due to the leak. The most commonly performed procedure was peritoneal washout and drainage (with or without T-tube placement) in 30.8% of patients, followed by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 9.6% of patients. Medical treatment with antibiotics, with or without total parenteral nutrition alone, was conducted in 13.6% of patients. Among the patients with the leak, the mortality rate related to the leak was 1.95%, and the mortality due to the leak in the population of OAGB was 0.02%.

CONCLUSION

The management of leaks following OAGB requires a multidisciplinary approach. OAGB is a safe operation with a low leak risk rate, and the leaks can be managed successfully if detected in a timely fashion.

Revisional bariatric surgery after adjustable gastric band: a multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

BACKGROUND

Adjustable gastric band (AGB) hadbeen the preferred treatment for morbid obesity because it is minimally invasive and reversible. But now it seems to be slowly becoming a historic procedure due to the disappointing effects. The aim of the study was to systematize and present the available data on revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) after AGB among Polish patients.

METHODS

It is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic RBS after AGB in 12 Polish bariatric centers. The database included patient demographics, comorbidities and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The group consisted of 234 patients who underwent AGB, which accounted for 29% of revisional cases recorded in the Polish Revisional Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS). 195 were women (83%), and 39 were men (17%). One hundred seventy-five patients after AGB experienced a weight regain (74.5%), 36 patients a gastric band slippage (15.0%), 14 patients had gastric band intolerance (6.0%). Types of RBS included 116 sleeve gastrectomies (SG) (49.4%), 86 Roux-en Y gastric by-passes (RYGB) (36.6%), 20 one anastomosis gastric by-passes (OAGB) (8,5%). The highest weight loss expressed as %EBMIL was observed after OAGB (63.5 ± 32.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The main indication for RBS after AGB was weight regain. SG was the most frequently chosen type of RBS after AGB. RBS after AGB leads to weight loss and improvement in type 2 diabetes and hypertension with an acceptable low risk of complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05108532.

Efficacy and Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Conversion Following Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Given revision or conversion surgery is required in up to 60% of patients who had adjustable gastric band (LAGB), we compared safety and efficacy of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as conversion surgical procedures in patients with suboptimal response or weight recurrence following LAGB.

METHODS

Conversion surgery was performed in 335 patients between 2016 and 2020. Weight loss, early and late-stage complications, and comorbidity outcomes were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three patients underwent cSG (BMI: 38.3 ± 8.3 kg/m²), and 172 patients underwent cOAGB (BMI: 45.2 ± 9.3 kg/m²). Percent total body weight loss (%TWL) was 28.7 ± 9.9% at 12 months, 30.3 ± 12.8% at 2 years, 31.0 ± 14.5% at 3 years, and 31.1 ± 14.7% at 4 years following OAGB, which was significantly higher than SG; 18.4 ± 8.7%, 18.8 ± 9.8%, 19.3 ± 11.1%, and 16.9 ± 10.9%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Remission of comorbidities, regardless of conversion procedure type, was 20.8% for hypertension (HT), 52% for dyslipidemia (DLD), 60% for type 2 diabetes (DM), 64% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and 76% for insulin resistance (IR).There were no leaks or deaths following SG or OAGB. A twofold greater frequency of complications was seen in the OAGB group vs SG group (15.1% and 6.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Significant weight loss, acceptable complication rates, and similar remission of comorbidities were seen regardless of the type of conversion procedure. Prospective randomized clinical trials are recommended for further elucidation of long-term outcomes.

Bariatric Surgery Conversions in MBSAQIP Centers: Current Indications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The demand for revisional bariatric surgery has increased, and bariatric conversions (BC) to a different procedure represent most of the revisional cases. The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditfnation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was expanded to include additional variables on BC. This study aims to analyze the indications and outcomes of BC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP database was performed. Patients who underwent BC were included in the analysis. Index procedures, rates, and indications for BC of the different bariatric operations were described. Outcomes of the most frequent BC were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 168,548 bariatric surgeries were done; 20,387 (12.1%) were revisional, and from those 15,031 (73.7%) were BC. The most converted index operations were sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (49.3%) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (45.9%). The most frequent conversions were SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (40.3%) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (54.2%) and weight loss failure (WLF) (35.8%), AGB to SG (27%) or RYGB (16.2%) for WLF (67% and 61.3%, respectively), and SG to biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (3.2%) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (2%) for WLF (91.2% and 92.4%, respectively). Postoperative overall morbidity, serious morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates ranged from 5.3 to 20.8%, 2.3 to 19.2%, 1.5 to 10%, and 0 to 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC represents the most frequent revisional bariatric procedure. GERD and WLF are the main causes for BC. Further research is needed to define the ideal BC according to the index procedure and indication.

Adjustable Gastric Banding Conversion to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Data Analysis of a Multicenter Database

INTRODUCTION

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has been proposed as a rescue technique for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders.

AIM

We sought to analyze, complications, mortality, and medium-term weight loss results after LAGB conversion to OAGB.

METHODS

Data analysis of an international multicenter database.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-nine LAGB-to-OAGB operations were retrospectively analyzed. Eighty-seven (46.0%) were converted in one stage. Patients operated on in two stages had a higher preoperative body mass index (BMI) (37.9 vs. 41.3 kg/m², p = 0.0007) and were more likely to have encountered technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (36% vs. 78%, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications occurred in 4.8% of the patients (4.6% and 4.9% in the one-stage and the two-stage group, respectively). Leak rate, bleeding episodes, and mortality were 2.6%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively. The final BMI was 30.2 at a mean follow-up of 31.4 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 100%, 88%, and 70%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Conversion from LAGB to OAGB is safe and effective. The one-stage approach appears to be the preferred option in non-complicate cases, while the two-step approach is mostly done for more complicated cases.

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 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.

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.

IFSO Update Position Statement on One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB)

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued a position statement on the role of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in the field of bariatric/metabolic surgery in 2018 De Luca et al. (Obes Surg. 28(5):1188-206, 2018). This position statement was issued by the IFSO OAGB task force and approved by the IFSO Scientific Committee and IFSO Executive Board. In 2018, the OAGB task force recognized the necessity to update the position statement in the following 2 years since additional high-quality data could emerge. The updated IFSO position statement on OAGB was issued also in response to inquiries to the IFSO by society members, universities, hospitals, physicians, insurances, patients, policy makers, and media. The IFSO position statement on OAGB has been reviewed within 2 years according to the availability of additional scientific evidence. The recommendation of the statement is derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature and available knowledge. The IFSO update position statement on OAGB will again be reviewed in 2 years provided additional high-quality studies emerge.

Revisional One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Restrictive Index Surgery-a Metaanalysis and Comparison with Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) was established as a recognized bariatric procedure in the 2018 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) position statement. This study evaluates the outcomes of revisional OAGB (rOAGB) after a restrictive index procedure, and to compare it to revisional RYGB (rRYGB).

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines on papers published from inception till February 2020. Original studies involving patients who underwent rOAGB after a primary failed restrictive procedure were included. The primary outcome measured was postrOAGB weight loss. Secondary outcome measures include comorbidity resolution, operative duration, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies with 1377 patients were included. Five studies compared rOAGB versus rRYGB. Majority of the patients (76%) were female, with mean age of 43.5 years old. Mean body mass index (BMI) before revisional surgery was 41.6 kg/m². The most common biliopancreatic limb length was 200 cm. Percentage of excess weight loss after rOAGB increases to a maximum of 76.0% at 48 months postsurgery. rOAGB resulted in a pooled prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea resolution of 74.9%, 48.4%, 63.2%, and 75.7% respectively. When compared to rRYGB, rOAGB demonstrated greater weight loss, comparable metabolic syndrome resolution, but with a shorter operating time. Morbidity and mortality rates were low across all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

rOAGB has potential as an alternative revisional surgery, with weight loss profiles and rates of metabolic syndrome resolution that are comparable to rRYGB.

One Anastomosis/Mini-Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) as Revisional Surgery Following Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) has gained popularity in the past decade. International databases were searched for articles published by September 10, 2020, on OAGB/MGB as a revisional procedure after restrictive procedures. Twenty-six studies examining a total of 1771 patients were included. The mean initial BMI was 45.70 kg/m², which decreased to 31.52, 31.40, and 30.54 kg/m² at 1, 3, and 5-year follow-ups, respectively. Remission of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) following OAGB/MGB at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up was 65.16 ± 24.43, 65.37 ± 36.07, and 78.10 ± 14.19%, respectively. Remission/improvement rate from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, 7.4% of the patients developed de novo GERD following OAGB/MGB. Leakage was the most common major complication. OAGB/MGB appears to be feasible and effective as a revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric 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.

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.

Exploring racial disparity in perioperative outcomes following revisional bariatric surgery: A case-control matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery is associated with 20-30% weight recidivism. As a result, revisional bariatric operation is increasingly performed. Disparity in bariatric outcomes remains controversial and very little is known about revisional bariatric surgery outcomes in ethnic cohorts.

METHODS

Revisional bariatric cases were identified from the 2015 and 2016 Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data File. 1:1 case-control matching was performed and perioperative outcomes compared between racial cohorts.

RESULTS

24,197 cases were analyzed, including 20.78% Black patients. At baseline, there were differences in demographics and pre-existing conditions between racial cohorts. Matched analysis compared 7,286 Black and White patients. Operative duration (p = 0.008) and length of stay (p = 0.0003) were longer in Black patients. Readmission (6.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.009) was higher in Black patients. Bleeding (0.82% vs. 0.38%, p = 0.02) and surgical site infection (SSI) (2.6% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.01) were higher in White patients.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is safe. Apart from a higher rate of bleeding, SSI and readmission, outcomes were not mediated by race.

Technical Feasibility of a Murine Model of Sleeve Gastrectomy with Ileal Transposition

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition has been shown to be superior to sleeve gastrectomy alone for promoting weight loss in rat and porcine models. The absence of a mouse model for this procedure has impeded efforts to understand the molecular physiology underlying its efficacy. This study demonstrates the long-term survivability of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition in mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study of technical feasibility, a sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition (SGIT), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), or sham surgery (SH) was performed on 7- to 8-week-old C57Bl/6J mice (n = 8 for each). To evaluate long-term survivability, mice were placed on an obesogenic diet and weighed weekly for 10 weeks. The intestinal identity of the transposed segment was assessed with gene expression analysis of duodenal-, jejunal-, and ileal-specific hormones using quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Overall, SGIT better prevented weight gain than the SG or sham procedures (10-week post-operative weight: SH 45.3 ± 1.0 g, SG 41.25 ± 1.6 g, SGIT 35.4 ± 0.8 g). Gene expression pattern analysis of three markers of intestinal identity (gastrin, cholecystokinin, and peptide YY) suggests that the ileal identity of the transposed segment is maintained 10 weeks after transposition.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate for the first time a reproducible mouse model of sleeve gastrectomy with ileal transposition. Future studies utilizing this model will expand our understanding of the molecular pathways through which the hindgut regulates satiety.

Thirteen-Year Experience of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Surgical Risk, Weight Loss, and Revision Procedures

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been validated as a safe and effective treatment for morbid obesity. However, data of the long-term outcome remains lacking.

METHODS

A total of 1759 LSG was performed as primary bariatric procedure from 2005 to 2017 with mean age of 35.2 ± 10.3 years old (14-71), female 69.7%, mean body mass index (BMI) 37.9 ± 7.7 kg/m², and mean waist width 113.7 ± 17.9 cm. All patients were evaluated and managed under a strict multidisciplinary team approach. A retrospective analysis of a prospective bariatric database and telephone interview of patients who defaulted clinic follow-up at 10 years was conducted.

RESULTS

The mean operating time, intraoperative blood, and hospital stay of LSG were 121.5 ± 36.5 min, 40.8 ± 69.7 ml, and 2.8 ± 2.7 days, respectively. The 30-day postoperative major complication occurred in 25 (1.4%) patients. The major complication rate was 15% at first year and 0% at the last year. The follow-up rate at 1, 5 and 10 years were 89.3%, 52.1 and 64.4%. At postoperative 1, 5, and 10 years, the mean percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) and excess weight loss (EWL%) of LSG patients were 33.4, 28.3, and 26.6% and 92.2, 80.1, and 70.5%, respectively. The mean BMI became 27, 26.2, and 27.1 kg/m² at postoperative 1, 5, and 10 years. At follow-up, a total 69 patients needed surgical revision due to reflux disease (n = 45), weight regain (n = 19), persistent diabetes (n = 2), and chronic fistula (n = 3). The type of revision procedures were hiatal repair and gastropexy (n = 29), Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n = 23), and single anastomosis bypass (n = 17) with median time to revision 33 months (range 3-62). At 10 years, the overall revision rate was 21.5% (14/65) and 11(16.9%) of 65 patients were converted to RYGB. The other 54 patients remained at LSG anatomy, but 45% of them required proton pump inhibitor for reflux symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that primary LSG is a durable primary bariatric procedure with sustained weight loss and a high resolution of comorbidities at 10 years, but about half the patients had de novo GERD. The need for conversion to RYGB was 16.9% at 10 years.

Mini Gastric Bypass-One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (MGB-OAGB)-IFSO Position Statement

PREAMBLE

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) has played an integral role in educating both the metabolic surgical and the medical community at large about the role of innovative and new surgical and/or endoscopic interventions in treating adiposity-based chronic diseases.The mini gastric bypass is also known as the one anastomosis gastric bypass. The IFSO has agreed that the standard nomenclature should be the mini gastric bypass-one anastomosis gastric bypass (MGB-OAGB). The IFSO commissioned a task force (Appendix 1) to determine if MGB-OAGB is an effective and safe procedure and if it should be considered a surgical option for the treatment of obesity and metabolic diseases.The following position statement is issued by the IFSO MGB-OAGB task force and approved by the IFSO Scientific Committee and Executive Board. This statement is based on current clinical knowledge, expert opinion, and published peer-reviewed scientific evidence. It will be reviewed in 2 years.

Long-term outcomes and frequency of reoperative bariatric surgery beyond 15 years after gastric banding: a high band failure rate with safe revisions

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has had encouraging early results. However, intermediate and late results were discouraging, and LAGB is presently being replaced by stapled procedures. There is still ongoing debate whether LAGB should be abandoned altogether.

OBJECTIVE

To present our outcomes beyond 15-year follow-up after LAGB.

SETTING

Private hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients receiving LAGB between 1997 and 2002 with minimum 15-year follow-up. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, reoperative bariatric surgery (RBS), and weight trends were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 387 LAGB patients were identified. Of them, 342 (88.4%) had a minimum of 15 years of follow-up (range, 15-21 yr). There were 270 (78.9%) women with a mean age of 40.3 years (range, 15-62 yr) and body mass index (BMI) of 43.1 kg/m² (range, 30.0-60.1 kg/m²) and 72 (21.1%) men with a mean age of 41.2 years (range, 16-61 yr) and BMI of 43.6 kg/m² (range, 33.0-72.5 kg/m²). During follow-up, 283 (82.7%) patients underwent a mean of 3.3 reoperative bariatric operations (range, 1-5), with 224 (65.5%) converted to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). At the end of the study period, 96 (28%) patients still had a band in place. No deaths were recorded. At most recent follow-up after LAGB, mean excess BMI loss was 65.4% (range, -9.4% to 134.5%) with significant decrease in co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 28% of patients had sufficient weight loss outcomes after LAGB alone and predictive selection criteria are lacking. The majority of LAGB operations fail even with close structured follow-up. RBS can be performed safely.

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.

Resectional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass/Mini Gastric Bypass as a Novel Option for Revision of Restrictive Procedures: Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is becoming a common and challenging practice in bariatric centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate resectional one anastomosis gastric bypass/mini gastric bypass (R-OAGB/MGB) as a revisional procedure.

METHODS

From January 2016 to February 2017, data on 21 consecutive patients undergoing R-OAGB/MGB for weight loss failure after primary restrictive procedures were prospectively collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 39 ± 12 years (18-65), and 11 (52.3%) were women. The mean operative time was 96.4 ± 20.9 min (range, 122-80), and the mean postoperative stay was 47.8 ± 7.4 hours (range, 36-73). There were no deaths and no procedure-related complications. The mean body mass index (BMI) decreased from 42.9 ± 6.5 at the time of R-OAGB/MGB to 28.5 ± 4 at the 12-month follow-up. At that time point, the mean percentage of BMI loss (%EBL) and the mean percentage of total body weight loss (%TWL) reached 81.6 ± 0.17% and 35 ± 0.01%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

R-OAGB/MGB was technically straightforward, effective, and safe in this at-surgical risk population. R-OAGB/MGB should be added to the armamentarium of revisional bariatric procedures considering its technical aspects and the potential advantage on weight loss.