Revisional Bariatric Surgery for Weight Regain and Refractory Complications in a Single MBSAQIP Accredited Center: What Are We Dealing with?

Outcomes following reoperative bariatric surgery following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy at a tertiary care centre

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common bariatric surgical procedure worldwide. Approximately 20%-30% of patients present with weight loss failure or reflux following SG, which might require reoperative surgery. We present the surgical outcomes and complications following reoperative bariatric surgery at a tertiary care centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data of all patients undergoing reoperative bariatric surgery from 2008 to 2021 were analysed retrospectively. Weight loss, resolution of comorbidities and complications following reoperative surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were included in the study. The mean age was 38.8 (10.8) years. The primary procedure performed was laparoscopic SG in all cases. Nine patients underwent Roux en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (one banded RYGB) and 14 underwent one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (three-banded OAGB). Three patients underwent resleeve. The most common indication was weight loss failure (65.3%). Fifteen patients were diagnosed to have hiatal hernia intraoperatively and concomitant repair was performed. The mean body mass index before revision surgery was 42.7 (9.8). It was 32.6 (5.7) kg/m2 and 33.0 (6.1) kg/m2 at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Age and pre-revision surgery excess weight correlated with weight loss (r = -0.79 and r = 0.99, respectively). Leak and bleeding occurred in one and two patients, respectively. There were two band-related complications and one 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Re-operative bariatric surgery following SG has adequate weight loss with acceptable complication rates. Band placement in re-operative surgery might lead to a higher complication rate.

Multidisciplinary combined treatment based on bariatric surgery for metabolic syndrome: a review article

As a chronic, multifactorial disease, obesity is associated with a global social and economic burden. This condition significantly affects normal daily life and healthy social interactions, and shortens the life expectancy of patients. Compared with traditional weight-loss methods, the emergence of bariatric surgery has effectively improved the management of obesity. Furthermore, bariatric surgery can also inhibit the progression of multiple metabolic diseases. Despite its potential advantages, bariatric surgery cannot completely eliminate the possibility of weight regain and inadequate weight loss following the procedure. For super-obese patients, bariatric surgery still remains a surgical risk. In addition, the psychological problems and poor eating habits of obese patients also affect the weight loss effect and daily life. Thus, various adjuvant therapies involving multiple disciplines have attracted people's attention. Recently, it has been recognized that the combination of multiple interventions based on bariatric surgery is more advantageous than a single intervention in alleviating the complex and diverse metabolic diseases associated with obesity. The combined therapy considerably enhances the long-term efficacy of bariatric surgery and plays a positive role in the mental health and social lives of patients. In this article, the authors review this multidisciplinary combination therapy to enhance the current understanding of the treatment of obesity.

Challenges of Revisional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Comprehensive Guide to Unraveling the Complexities and Solutions of Revisional Bariatric Procedures

Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery (RMBS) presents unique challenges in addressing weight loss failure or complications arising from initial bariatric procedures. This review aims to explore the complexities and solutions associated with revisional bariatric procedures comprehensively, offering insights into the evolving terrain of metabolic and bariatric surgery. A literature review is conducted to identify pertinent studies and expert opinions regarding RMBS. Methodological approaches, patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, preoperative assessments, and postoperative management strategies are synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of current practices and advancements in the field, including institutional protocols. This review synthesizes key findings regarding the challenges encountered in RMBS, including the underlying causes of primary procedure failure, anatomical complexities, technical considerations, and assessments of surgical outcomes. Additionally, patient outcomes, complication rates, and long-term success are presented, along with institutional approaches to patient assessment and procedure selection. This review provides valuable insights for clinicians grappling with the complexities of RMBS. A comprehensive understanding of patient selection, surgical techniques, preoperative management, and postoperative care is crucial for enhancing outcomes and ensuring patient satisfaction in the field of metabolic bariatric surgery.

Safety of redo sleeve gastrectomy as a primary revisional procedure

BACKGROUND

Insufficient weight loss after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) occasionally requires revisional surgery. A few single-institution studies have examined the safety of redo LSG (RSG) and have shown mixed results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of RSG compared with LSG over a period of 30 days.

SETTING

University of Southern California, United States; Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

The 2020-2021 MBSAQIP registry was used to evaluate patients who underwent RSG. Thirty-day outcomes were evaluated using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic and linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 226,029 patients were reviewed, of whom 1454 (.7%) underwent RSG and 224,575 (99.3%) underwent initial LSG. Patients who underwent RSG were older (45 versus 42 yr), predominantly female (86.2% versus 81.3%), had a lower body mass index (40.0 versus 43.4), fewer co-morbidities, and greater rates of gastroesophageal reflux (38.7% versus 25.1%). They demonstrated increased overall complications (3.6% versus 2.1%, P < .001) and a longer operative time (81 versus 62 min, P < .001), but there was no difference in mortality. On multivariable analysis, patients who underwent RSG were independently associated with an increased risk of overall postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.493, P = .018), organ space infection (OR: 6.231, P < .001), staple line leak (OR: 12.838, P < .001), pneumonia (OR: 3.85, P = .013), ventilator requirement over 48 hours (OR: 6.404, P = .035), sepsis (OR: 4.397, P = .010), septic shock (OR: 8.669, P < .001), reoperation (OR: 1.808, P = .013), readmission (OR: 2.104, P < .001), reintervention (OR: 4.435, P < .001), and longer operative times (β = 12.790, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national database study, RSG was associated with increased rates of postoperative complications and a longer operative time. Although these results are concerning, further studies are required to examine long-term outcomes.

30-day morbidity and mortality of revisional bariatric surgery - An international multi-centre collaborative (BROAD) study

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is increasing worldwide. There is currently no large multinational, prospective data on 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS at participating centres.

METHODS

An international steering group was formed to oversee the study. The steering group members invited bariatric surgeons worldwide to participate in this study. Ethical approval was obtained at the lead centre. Data were collected prospectively on all consecutive RBS patients operated between 15th May 2021 to 31st December 2021. Revisions for complications were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 65 global centres submitted data on 750 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy (n = 369, 49.2 %) was the most common primary surgery for which revision was performed. Revisional procedures performed included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 41.1 % (n = 308) patients, One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in 19.3 % (n = 145), Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) in 16.7 % (n = 125) and other procedures in 22.9 % (n = 172) patients. Indications for revision included weight regain in 615(81.8 %) patients, inadequate weight loss in 127(16.9 %), inadequate diabetes control in 47(6.3 %) and diabetes relapse in 27(3.6 %). 30-day complications were seen in 80(10.7 %) patients. Forty-nine (6.5 %) complications were Clavien Dindo grade 3 or higher. Two patients (0.3 %) died within 30 days of RBS.

CONCLUSION

RBS for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is associated with 10.7 % morbidity and 0.3 % mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common primary procedure to undergo revisional bariatric surgery, while Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most commonly performed revision.

The risk and benefit of revisional vs. primary metabolic- bariatric surgery and drug therapy - A narrative review

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) leads to long-term weight loss, reduced risk of cardiovascular events and cancer, and reduced mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are currently the most common surgical techniques. Weight loss after MBS was previously believed to work through restriction and malabsorption, however, mechanistic studies show that MBS techniques with long term efficacy instead alter physiological signaling between the gut and the brain. In revisional MBS, the initial surgical technique is corrected, modified, or converted to a new one. The indication for revisional MBS can be to achieve further weight loss or improvement in obesity comorbidity, but it may be necessary due to complications (e.g., gastroesophageal reflux or obstruction). Revisional MBS is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications and often less weight loss compared to the results following primary surgery. This narrative review summarizes data from revisional MBS where information is often presented with inconsistent definitions for indications and outcomes, making comparison between strategies difficult. In summary, we suggest careful weighing of potential benefits and risks with revisional MBS, bearing in mind the option of add-on therapy with new anti-obesity drugs.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery After Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to assess the outcomes of revisional procedures, namely Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following unsuccessful laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 817 patients (404 in OAGB group, 413 in RYGB group) from seven retrospective comparative studies. Data on sample size, demographics, perioperative complications, operative time, pre- and post-revisional body mass index, total weight loss, and global weight loss over follow-up were extracted.

Results

The mean operative time was 98.2-201 minutes for RYGB versus 78.7-168 minutes for OAGB. Despite classical RYGB gastric bypass taking longer, mini gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB, with a mean difference of -5.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.74 to -4.94; P<0.00001; I2=0%), greater total weight loss, and a higher diabetes remission rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.71). However, OAGB was associated with a significantly higher incidence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux than RYGB (52 vs. 31: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67; P=0.0005; I2=0%).

Conclusion

OAGB was performed more quickly and boasted greater total weight loss and higher diabetes remission rates compared to RYGB after failed sleeve gastrectomy. However, OAGB also demonstrated a higher incidence of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease. Thus, careful patient selection is essential when considering OAGB.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023474966.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy as revisional bariatric procedures after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The frequency of revisional bariatric surgery is increasing, but its effectiveness and safety are not yet fully established. The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of primary (pRYGB and pSG) and revisional bariatric surgeries (rRYGB and rSG).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study assessing all patients submitted to primary and revisional (after a failed AGB) RYGB and SG in 2019. Each patient was followed-up at 6 months and 12 months after surgery. We compared pRYGB vs. rRYGB, pSG vs. rSG and rRYGB vs. rSG on weight loss, surgical complications, and resolution of comorbidities.

RESULTS

We assessed 494 patients, of which 18.8% had undergone a revisional procedure. Higher weight loss at 6 and 12 months was observed in patients undergoing primary vs. revisional procedures. Patients submitted to rRYGB lost more weight than those with rSG (%EWL 12 months = 82.6% vs. 69.0%, p < 0.001). Regarding the resolution of obesity-related comorbidities, diabetes resolution was more frequent in pRYGB than rRYGB (54.2% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.038). Also, 41.7% of the patients who underwent rRYGB had dyslipidemia resolution vs. 0% from the rSG group (p = 0.035). Dyslipidemia resolution was also more common in pSG vs. rSG (68.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.001). No significant differences in surgical complications were found.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is effective and safe treating obesity and related comorbidities after AGB. Primary procedures appear to be associated with better weight loss outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the role of revisional bariatric surgery.

Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) in a Single-Surgeon Experience on 892 Patients Over 11 Years

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been the most frequently performed bariatric procedure since 2014, with continually growing popularity. This study aimed to present our 30-day morbidity and mortality following LSG over a period of 11 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study that was based on prospectively collected data from patients undergoing LSG by the same surgeon from July 2011 to the end of August 2022. The LSG-associated 30-day morbidity and mortality and the risk factors for 30-day morbidity were assessed.

RESULTS

This study included 892 patients who underwent LSG over the course of 11 years. Early postoperative adverse events were encountered in 16 patients (1.79%). Overall, twelve patients (1.35%) required blood transfusions, and two patients (0.22%) required ICU admission. The re-operation rate was 0.9% (n = 8) and the mortality rate was 0.22% (n = 2). The patient's BMI, hypertension, and revisional surgery were marginally significant/significant predictors of early postoperative morbidity. The mean EBWL% was 63.8 ± 15.55 at the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the previously reported LSG's short-term safety in terms of a low rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative BMI, hypertension, and revisional surgery are risk factors for 30-day morbidity and mortality.

How to address weight regain after bariatric surgery in an individualized way

Bariatric surgery is the most effective obesity treatment. As a chronic and progressive disease, weight loss response to surgery will vary individually. Thus, insufficient weight loss or regain can happen after surgery, but they lack a standard definition. There are different mechanisms underlying weight regain and/or insufficient weight loss, such as genetics, maladaptive eating behaviors, and the inadequate choice of index operations, among others. Patients with weight regain or insufficient weight loss should be submitted to an individualized and comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team. This may help identify the causes and direct the appropriate treatment individually. Options for patients with insufficient weight loss and/or weight regain following bariatric surgery include repair of postoperative complications, conversion into another operation, endoscopic therapies with inconsistent outcomes, and dietary/behavioral counseling. Revision and conversion surgeries have higher complication rates than primary operations. Although there is no standard pharmacological regimen for that indication, the new agents seem efficient and safe to promote the loss of the regained weight and even be adjunctive to selected patients before they reach the plateau. This review aims to summarize the knowledge of the best approach for patients with weight regain/insufficient weight loss and suggests an algorithm to customize the approach and therapeutic options after bariatric surgery.

Differences in Technical Aspects of Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy Prior to Redo Bariatric Surgery-A Multicenter Cohort Study (PROSS Study)

Background and Objectives: Although the technical simplicity of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is relatively well understood, many parts of the procedure differ according to bariatric surgeons. These technical variations may impact postoperative weight loss or the treatment of comorbidities and lead to qualification for redo procedures. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was conducted among patients undergoing revision procedures. Patients were divided into three groups based on the indications for revisional surgery (insufficient weight loss or obesity-related comorbidities treatment, weight regain and development of complications). Results: The median bougie size was 36 (32-40) with significant difference (p = 0.04). In 246 (51.57%) patients, the resection part of sleeve gastrectomy was started 4 cm from the pylorus without significant difference (p = 0.065). The number of stapler cartridges used during the SG procedure was six staplers in group C (p = 0.529). The number of procedures in which the staple line was reinforced was the highest in group A (29.63%) with a significant difference (0.002). Cruroplasty was performed in 13 patients (p = 0.549). Conclusions: There were no differences between indications to redo surgery in terms of primary surgery parameters such as the number of staplers used or the length from the pylorus to begin resection. The bougie size was smaller in the group of patients with weight regain. Patients who had revision for insufficient weight loss were significantly more likely to have had their staple line oversewn. A potential cause could be a difference in the size of the removed portion of the stomach, but it is difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions within the limitations of our study.

Weight loss specific to indication, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after sleeve gastrectomy conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide. Long-term complications such as insufficient weight loss (IWL) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may necessitate SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The aim of this review was to determine the indication-specific weight loss and diabetes remission after SG conversion to RYGB (STOBY). Our objective was to extract all available published data on indication for conversion, weight loss, remission of diabetes, and short-term complications after STOBY. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes following STOBY. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search identified 44 relevant studies. Overall short-term (12-mo) excess weight loss (EWL) was 54.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%-63%) in 23 studies (n = 712) and total weight loss (TWL) was 19.9% (95% CI, 14%-25%) in 21 studies (n = 740). For IWL, short-term (12-mo) pooled weight loss outcomes were 53.9% EWL (95% CI, 48%-59%) in 14 studies (n = 295) and 22.7% TWL (95% CI, 17%-28%) in 12 studies (n = 219), and medium-term (2-5 yr) outcomes were 45.8% EWL (95% CI, 38%-53%) in 7 studies (n = 154) and 20.6% TWL (95% CI, 15%-26%) in 9 studies (n = 206). Overall diabetes remission was 53% (95% CI, 33%-72%), and the perioperative complication rate was 8.2% (95% CI, 7.6%-8.7%). Revisional SG conversion to RYGB for IWL can achieve good weight loss outcomes and diabetes remission.

Characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery due to persistent obesity: a retrospective cohort study of 10,589 patients

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery in an option for patients who experience weight regain or inadequate weight loss after primary elective bariatric procedures. However, there is conflicting data on safety outcomes of revisional procedures. We aim to characterize patient demographics, procedure type, and safety outcomes for those undergoing revisional compared to initial bariatric interventions to guide management of these patients.

METHODS

The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry was analyzed, comparing primary elective to revisional bariatric procedures for inadequate weight loss. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine between group differences. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with serious complications or mortality.

RESULTS

We evaluated 158,424 patients, including 10,589 (6.7%) revisional procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more like to be female (85.5% revisional vs. 81.0% initial; p < 0.001), had lower body mass index (43.6 ± 7.8 kg/m² revisional vs. 45.2 ± 7.8 kg/m² initial; p < 0.001), and less metabolic comorbidities than patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery. The most common revisional procedures were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (48.4%) and sleeve gastrectomy (32.5%). Revisional procedures had longer operative duration compared to primary procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more likely to experience readmission to hospital (4.8% revisional vs. 2.9% initial; p < 0.001) and require reoperation (2.4% revisional vs. 1.0% initial; p < 0.001) within 30 days of the procedure. Revisional procedures were independently associated with increased serious complications (OR 1.49, CI 1.36-1.64, p < 0.001) but were not a significant predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 0.74, CI 0.36-1.50, p = 0.409).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to primary bariatric surgery, patients undergoing revisional procedures have less metabolic comorbidities. Revisional procedures have worse perioperative outcomes and are independently associated with serious complications. These data help to contextualize outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric procedures and to inform decision making in these patients.

Analysis of the risk factors for perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic revisional bariatric procedures: results from the multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study

BACKGROUND

The growing number of primary bariatric operations has led to an increase in demand for revision surgeries. Higher numbers of revisional operations are also observed in Poland, yet their safety and efficacy remain controversial because of a lack of current recommendations and guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To review risk factors influencing perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the results of surgical treatment among 12 Polish bariatric centers. Inclusion criteria were laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries and patients ≥18 years of age. The study included 795 patients, of whom 621 were female; the mean age was 47 years (range: 40-55 years).

RESULTS

Perioperative morbidity occurred in 92 patients (11.6%) enrolled in the study, including 76 women (82.6%). The median age was 45 years (range: 39-54 years). Statistically significant risk factors in univariate logistic regression models for perioperative complications were the duration of obesity, revisional surgery after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or adjustable gastric band (AGB), difference in body mass index before revisional surgery and the lowest achieved after primary surgery, and postoperative morbidity of the primary surgery as the cause for revisional bariatric surgery. These factors were included in the multivariate regression model. Revisional surgery after AGB (odds ratio [OR] = 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-3.69; P = .004), revisional surgery performed after RYGB (OR = 6.52; 95% CI: 1.98-21.49; P = .002), and revisions due to complication of the primary surgery (OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.06-3.34; P = .030) remained independent risk factors for perioperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Revisional operations after RYGB or AGB and those performed because of postoperative morbidity after primary surgery as the main cause for revisional surgery were associated with a significantly increased risk of postoperative morbidity.

Predictors of morbidity in revisional bariatric surgery and bariatric emergencies at an MBSAQIP-accredited community hospital

Introduction

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to primary bariatric surgery. No formal outcome benchmarks exist that distinguish MBSAQIP-accredited centers in the community from unaccredited institutions.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 53 bariatric surgery revisions and 61 bariatric surgical emergencies by a single surgeon at a high-volume community hospital accredited program from 2018 to 2020. Primary outcomes were complications or deaths occurring within 30-days of the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included operative time, leaks, surgical site occurrences (SSOs), and deep surgical site infections.

Results

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of the study groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer for revisions as compared to emergency operations (149.5 vs. 89.4 min). Emergencies had higher surgical site infection (5.7% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.05) and surgical site occurrence (SSO) (1.9% vs. 29.5%, p < 0.05) rates compared to revisions. Logistic regression analysis identified several factors to be predictive of increased risk of morbidity: pre-operative albumin < 3.5 g/dL (p < 0.05), recent bariatric procedure within the last 30 days (p < 0.05), prior revisional bariatric surgery (p < 0.05), prior duodenal switch (p < 0.05), and pre-operative COPD (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies have similar morbidity and mortality, far exceeding those of the primary operation. Outcomes comparable to those reported by urban academic centers can be achieved in community hospital MBSAQIP-accredited centers.

Secondary Bariatric Surgery-Does the Type of Index Procedure Affect Outcomes After Conversion?

BACKGROUND

Although revisions account for 17% of cases performed at bariatric centers of excellence, scarce data exists on whether index operation type influences outcomes after secondary operations.

OBJECTIVE

We designed a study investigating the effect of primary procedure type on weight loss and perioperative complications after conversion bariatric surgery.

SETTING

Tertiary Referral Hospital, USA.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing conversion from sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or adjustable gastric band (AGB) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) from 2009 to 2019. Post-operatively, we measured short- and medium-term complications and changes in body weight at various time points. Univariate and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-two (SG) patients and 116 (AGB) patients underwent conversion to RYGB, most commonly for GERD (57.1%) in SG patients vs. weight regain (77.6%) in AGB patients. Mean pre-conversion BMI was 36.7 kg/m² (SG) vs 43.8 kg/m² (AGB). Mean time to conversion (months) was 52.9 (SG) vs 94.7 (AGB). Complication rate was 9.5% (SG) vs 6% (AGB) at 30 days (p = 0.48) and 31%(SG) vs 14.5% (AGB) (p = 0.02) at 2 years. Mean post conversion %TWL was 11.6% (SG) vs 24.6% (AGB) in patients with GERD/dysphagia (p = 0.014) and 20.7% (SG) vs 27.6% (AGB) in patients converted for weight-related reasons (p = 0.027) at 1 year. Overall mean %TWL was 13.2% (SG) vs 24.7% (AGB) at 2 years (p < 0.0035).

CONCLUSION

After conversion to RYGB, patients with AGB experience better short- and medium-term weight loss than those with SG, even after accounting for conversion indications. SG to RYGB conversions have a higher resolution of reflux disease.

Comparison of 5-Year Follow-up Outcomes Between Primary and Revision Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypasses After Open Vertical Banded Gastroplasty: an Inverse Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) is associated with high weight regain; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is used as a revision procedure in patients with VBG experiencing weight regain. This study compared the 5-year follow-up outcomes of primary (PRYGB) and revision RYGB after VBG (RRYGB).

METHODS

Patients who underwent PRYGB or RRYGB after VBG from 2008 to 2016 were enrolled. Data on weight regain, weight loss (WL), food tolerance (FT), early and late complications, and resolution or improvement in associated medical conditions were analyzed.

RESULTS

PRYGB and RRYGB groups had 558 and 156 patients, respectively, after exclusion of the lost to follow-up patients. PRYGB group showed significantly lower mean body mass index (over the entire follow-up period), early complications, reintervention rates for late complications, and overall reintervention rates than that of the RRYGB group. On the other hand, FT scores, odds of late complications, and improvements (in the fifth year) in associated medical conditions were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RRYGB in patients with VBG who regained weight showed comparable safety and resolution of associated diseases to that of PRYGB over the 5-year follow-up period. The WL in the RRYGB group was acceptable despite being less than that of the PRYGB group. FT was better after RRYGB than that of PRYGB in the first year; however, both were comparable at the fifth year follow-up. Patients with VBG undergoing RYGB should receive attentive treatment and evaluation of associated factors.

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 Single Anastomosis Sleeve Ileal (SASI) Bypass for Failed Gastric Clipping and Proximal Jejunal Bypass (GC-PJB) (Video Report)

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery, the most effective strategy to manage morbid obesity, has increased rapidly in the face of expanding obese population in the twenty-first century. Hence, it is reasonable to expect a rise in the need for revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), especially due to weight recidivism.

METHOD

In this video report, the patient was a 28-year-old Asian female with an initial BMI of 42.6 kg/m2 and underwent primary bariatric surgery of laparoscopic gastric clipping with proximal jejunal bypass (GC-PJB) in January 2018. She had the nadir BMI of 35.2 kg/m2 in August 2019. However, she regained weight and her BMI rebounded to 43.7 kg/m2 at the time of consultation for RBS in 2021. After a multidisciplinary team evaluation, laparoscopic procedures of removal of gastric clip and single anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass with preservation of previous jejunojejunal anastomosis were performed.

RESULTS

The operative time was 216 min and blood loss was 25 ml. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged 4 days after surgery. At the 3-month follow-up after RBS, the patient had lost 25 kg (weight dropped from 119 to 94 kg), and the corresponding BMI was 34.5 kg/m2.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic removal of gastric clip and SASI bypass with preservation of previous jejunojejunal anastomosis is technically feasible and promising as a revisional procedure for failed GC-PJB.

Complications Requiring Intensive Nutritional Care After Bariatric Surgery Result in More Long-Term Weight Loss but Has No Impact on Nutritional Deficiencies and Depression-Anxiety Scores

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery is associated with significant weight loss and improvement in comorbid conditions but in rare cases can expose to complications requiring intensive nutritional care (INC). INC in this context is poorly described and no data are available concerning long-term impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed charts of bariatric patients who were hospitalized in our institution between 2013 and 2018. We identified patients with a postoperative complication requiring INC and we described their nutritional management (INC group). These patients were compared with controls matched to age, gender, preoperative BMI, and type of surgery selected from our database (control group). The primary endpoint was the percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) at 2.5 years. Secondary endpoints were improvement of co-morbidities, vitamin deficiencies, and depression/anxiety scores.

RESULTS

The INC group consisted of 18 patients among which 77.8% had sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Half of these patients underwent revisional surgery. The most common complication was fistula formation (66.7%). Patients in the INC group, compared to the control group, showed a significantly higher %TWL at 2.5 years (33.6% vs 26.1%, P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in either reduction of preoperative comorbidities or depression/anxiety scores between the two groups. The number of patients with more than three nutritional deficiencies was similar in both groups. Thiamine deficiency was only observed in the INC group.

CONCLUSION

Complications requiring INC after bariatric surgery occur mainly after revisional surgery and may increase long-term %TWL but have no impact on nutritional deficiencies or symptoms of anxiety/depression.

Endoscopic Evaluation and Management of Late Complications After Bariatric Surgery: a Narrative Review

Despite ongoing evolution in technique and a low mortality rate, clinicians may care for patients who suffer late complications (> 90 days of surgery) after bariatric surgery. Endoscopic techniques are used to identify and manage many of the late complications of the two most commonly performed bariatric surgeries: sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Stenosis at the incisura angularis and gastroesophageal reflux disease may occur in patients who have undergone a sleeve gastrectomy. Patients who underwent a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass can suffer marginal ulceration, gastrojejunal anastomotic stricture, and gastro-gastric fistula. Clinicians may also encounter biliary pathologies such as choledocholithiasis, chronic abdominal pain, and weight regain. This narrative review provides an update on the endoscopic evaluation and management of patients with late complications after sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Safety and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band - Outcomes from a large UK private practice

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery is unavoidable in a proportion of patients. Despite its need, the development of this speciality has been hampered by its complexity and preferred delivery in institutional set ups. Although primary bariatric surgery can be delivered in the private sector; safety and feasibility of revisional bariatric surgery remains unexplored in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery following previous Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band (LAGB) between 2008 and 2019 at a single private bariatric unit with a minimum follow up of at least 6 months were included. The primary aim was safety outcomes and 30-day morbidity.

RESULTS

178 patients with BMI of 45.6 ± 8.2 kg/m² underwent revisional bariatric surgery. One stage conversion was performed for 86.5% of the cases. At 9.5 ± 5.3 months follow up, BMI and percentage excess BMI loss were 31.8 ± 6.2 kg/m² and 62.6 ± 40% respectively. There was no mortality, and the major complication rate was 2.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications based on one-stage vs. two-stage conversion (p = 0.52). There were no differences in weight loss outcomes post-revisional surgery according to the indication for revision (p = 0.446) or weight loss following primary surgery (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery can be delivered safely in the private sector with good outcomes. One-stage conversions are feasible and do not detrimentally affect the morbidity of the procedure or the weight loss outcomes. More importantly, success following revisional surgery is independent of the indication for revision and weight loss outcomes following primary surgery.

Laparoscopic Revision for Gastric Clipping: a Single Center Experience and Taiwan Database Review

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic gastric clipping (LGC) is a relatively novel restrictive bariatric surgery wherein a horizontal metallic clip is applied to the gastric fundus. Its intraoperative complications or the difficulties associated with the applied gastric clip (GC) during revisional procedures have seldom been mentioned. Herein, the experience of revisional procedures after initial gastric clipping is reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort review of LGC based on the Taiwan Bariatric Registry of Taiwan Society Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery was performed. Six patients with severe obesity presented for revisional surgery after initial LGC by other surgeons. Patients' characteristics, indications, and details of revisional surgery were recorded.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2019, 39 patients who underwent pure LGC and six patients with previous LGC history were referred for revisional surgery. Their mean age and the mean body mass index were 34.7 ± 9.5 years and 38.4 ± 10.5 kg/m², respectively. Three, two, and one patient underwent revisional surgery for insufficient weight loss, weight recidivism, and intractable belching, respectively. The mean interval between initial LGC and revisional surgery was 40.5 ± 22.4 months. Laparoscopic removal of the GC with concomitant revisional surgeries were collected, including a revision to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 5) and revision to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 1). Moreover, the mean operative time was 286.8 ± 78.2 min. All patients had uneventful recovery postoperatively but experienced significant adhesion around the GC and the left liver.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic revisional surgery with concomitant GC removal for patients with severe obesity after gastric clipping could be feasibly conducted by experienced bariatric surgeons.

Is Revisional Gastric Bypass as Effective as Primary Gastric Bypass for Weight Loss and Improvement of Comorbidities?

BACKGROUND

Revisional gastric bypass (R-RYGB) surgery is utilized for the management of inadequate weight loss or weight regain observed after some cases of bariatric surgeries. Data on the mid-term effectiveness of primary gastric bypass (P-RYGB) compared with R-RYGB (e.g., post sleeve gastrectomy/gastric banding) are controversial.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients who received P-RYGB and R-RYGB (January 2011-June 2015) at our center. One hundred twenty patients who underwent P-RYGB and 34 R-RYGB who completed 18 months follow-up were included. We compared the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB by assessing four anthropometric, two glycemic, and four lipid parameters, as well as the control of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia (remission, improvement, persistence, relapse, de novo), mortality and complications rates.

RESULTS

A comparison of the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB at 18 months revealed no significant differences in patients' age, gender, and preoperative BMI between groups. However, patients who received P-RYGB had lower mean weight (P = 0.001) and BMI (P < 0.001), reflected by a higher mean delta BMI (P = 0.02), total weight loss percentage (TWL%) (P < 0.0001) and excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) (P < 0.0001). No differences in glycemic parameters, lipid profiles, control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were observed. No death is reported and complication rates were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although R-RYGB effectively addressed inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and recurrence of comorbidities after restrictive bariatric surgery, R-RYGB resulted in inferior weight loss compared with P-RYGB. Neither procedure differed in their clinical control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Both procedures exhibited comparable complication rates.

Probiotics Can Further Reduce Waist Circumference in Adults with Morbid Obesity after Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Whether probiotics could be used as an adjunct to bariatric surgery is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of probiotics on body weight, body mass index (BMI), percentage of the excess weight loss (%EWL), waist circumference (WC), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in adults with obesity after bariatric surgery (BS). PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched from the earliest record to March 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of probiotics in adults with obesity after bariatric surgery were analyzed according to the eligibility criteria. Four RCTs, including 172 participants, were analyzed. There was a statistically significant difference in probiotics in the reduction of waist circumference at 12 months after bariatric surgery. However, probiotics were not effective in weight, BMI, %EWL, WC, and CRP both within 3 months and at 12 months postoperation. Probiotics aid adults with morbid obesity in achieving further waist circumference improvement after BS, with no significant effect on weight, BMI, %EWL, and CRP. More quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of probiotics, and address a number of practical issues before the routine clinical use of probiotics in adults with obesity undergoing BS.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study

PURPOSE

The optimal revisional bariatric surgery procedure following a previous failed gastric band surgery is yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to compare single- and two-stage laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LSG after a failed LAGB in Israel during 2014-2017 were included. Data were obtained from the Israeli National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Data analyzed included comorbidities, postoperative complications, and anthropometric outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 595 patients included in the data analysis, 381 (64%) underwent one-stage and 214 (36%) had two-stage LSG. No differences were observed between the groups in complication rates (5.0 vs. 5.1%, p=0.93). Percent of total weight loss was lower following one-stage than two-stage procedure at both 6 months (19.3±9.3 vs. 21.5±8.1%; p=0.02) and 1 year postoperative (24.9±10.4 vs. 27.8±9.9%; p=0.02). No difference was observed in the percent excess weight loss (51 vs. 56%; p=0.34 and 66 vs. 72%; p=0.38, at 6 months and 12 months postoperative, respectively). In a regression analysis, percent excess weight loss was greater in the two-stage procedure (p=0.02), with no difference in the complication rates (p=0.98).

CONCLUSION

Single-step LSG had a similar safety profile as two-stage LSG following a failed LAGB. Better weight loss was seen following two-stage LSG. Further prospective studies should investigate long-term follow-up after one- and two-stage procedure.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass as a rescue procedure following failed restrictive bariatric surgery. A systematic review of literature with metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Although different procedures have been proposed as revisional surgery for patients who had previously undergone a failed primary restrictive procedure, the ideal revisional procedure is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in all electronic databases to find studies comparing one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as revisional bariatric surgery for weight regain or intolerance/complications of a primary restrictive procedure. The data regarding sample size, patients' gender, age, primary surgery type, number of perioperative complications, operative time, pre- and post-revisional body mass index (BMI), and excess weight loss % (EWL%) at 1-year follow-up were extracted. Five studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The primary bariatric procedures were represented by vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). About perioperative complications, both RYGB and OAGB-MGB showed a similar rate of leaks but OAGB-MGB had a lower rate of bleedings; considering the progression from pre- to post-revisional BMI, OAGB-MGB reveals a better outcome as well as a shorter operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis has shown OAGB-MGB, used as revisional intervention after failed restrictive surgery, achieves outcomes comparable to RYGB in terms of perioperative complications providing a simpler and more effective technique.

Multidisciplinary Approach for Weight Regain-how to Manage this Challenging Condition: an Expert Review

Weight regain is a multifactorial condition that affects many patients following bariatric surgery. The purpose of the paper is to review the multidisciplinary approach for the management of weight regain. We performed a search in current clinical evidence regarding the causes, consequences, and treatments of weight regain. The multidisciplinary approach with periodic monitoring is of fundamental importance to prevent or treat weight regain. Several therapeutic options are ranging from nutritional to surgical options, which should be tailored according to patients' anatomy, lifestyle behavior, and compliance. Specialized multidisciplinary care is the key to achieve optimal long-term weight loss and maintenance goals following bariatric surgery.

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs after sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is discouraged after bariatric surgery. The effect of NSAIDs on patients who have undergone sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is not well studied. Moreover, the rate of NSAID use after SG is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the rate of NSAID use after SG, and its associated complications.

SETTING

A single institution, multi-surgeon, academic, tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent SG between January 1, 2014, and November 1, 2017. A phone interview was conducted with identified patients. The inclusion criteria were any patient who had undergone SG during the study period, and there were no exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 421 SG patients for inclusion. There were 231 phone surveys completed, with 64.5% of respondents reporting some NSAID use after SG. Of the respondents who used NSAIDs, 40.3% reported that they used the drugs often (>once/wk), 28.2% reported occasional use (>once/mo but <once/wk), and 31.5% reported rare use (<once/mo). Nearly 26% of phone interview respondents regularly used NSAIDs after SG. A retrospective review of the 421-patient cohort revealed 0 cases of sleeve complications secondary to NSAID use when searching for incidences of bleeding, ulceration, gastritis, gastropathy, perforation, leak, or stenosis.

CONCLUSION

NSAID use in our bariatric surgery population is high despite an institutional policy to prohibit their use across all bariatric patients. Despite the high incidence of NSAID use in our patient population, we could not identify a single case of an NSAID-induced gastrointestinal complication in our retrospective review. NSAID use after SG may be a safe and viable pain management strategy that needs further evaluation.

Third bariatric procedure for insufficient weight loss or weight regain: how far should we go?

BACKGROUND

Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are increasing with several debated failure risk factors, such as super obesity and old age. No study has yet evaluated the outcomes and risks of a third bariatric procedure indicated for weight loss failure or weight regain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess failure risks of a third bariatric procedure according to Reinhold's criteria (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL] ≤50% and/or body mass index [BMI] ≥35 kg/m²).

SETTING

A university-affiliated tertiary care center, France.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2019, clinical data and weight loss results of patients who benefited from 3 bariatric procedures for weight loss failure or weight regain were collected prospectively and analyzed using a binary logistic regression. Weight loss failure was defined according to Reinhold's criteria.

RESULTS

Among 1401 bariatric procedures performed, 336 patients benefited from 2 or more procedures, and 45 had a third surgery. Eleven patients that were reoperated on because of malnutrition or gastroesophageal reflux disease were excluded from the final analysis. Among 34 patients with 3 procedures because of weight loss failure or regain, mean BMI was 48.3 ± 8.3 kg/m², and mean age was 30 ± 10.7 years. Three out of 34 patients (9%) presented a severe complication (Dindo-Clavien IIIb) and 2 (6%) had a minor one. Achieving Reinhold's weight loss criteria after the second bariatric procedure was a significant predictor of success of the third procedure (β = 2.9 ± 1.3 S.E.).

CONCLUSION

Not reaching Reinhold's criteria after a second bariatric procedure was identified as a significant risk factor of failure of a third procedure. A third surgery should be carefully discussed especially in case of primary failure of previous procedures.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Results in a Shorter Hospital Stay Following Revisional Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is rapidly growing within the field of bariatric surgery. The use of robotic assisted surgery, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). There are few studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RBS. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and outcome of laparoscopic and robotic RBS in a single accredited center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively on patients undergoing either laparoscopic (L-RBS) or robotic (R-RBS) RBS between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 was performed. The primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day major and minor complication rates, readmission rates, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were included in our analysis. Fifty-two patients underwent R-RBS (31%), and 115 underwent L-RBS (69%). Thirty-day major and minor complication rates for R-RBS and L-RBS were 1.9% and 5.8% vs 5.2% and 5.2%, respectively (p > .05). There was no difference in readmission rates (3.8% vs 8.7%, p > 0.05) or intraoperative blood loss (35.5 mL vs 37.4 mL, p > .05) between R-RBS and L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a shorter length of stay when compared with L-RBS (40.2 h vs 62.6 h, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

R-RBS has a decreased, albeit non-significant, rate of 30-day major complications with no difference in minor complications, readmission rates, or intraoperative blood loss when compared with L-RBS. R-RBS resulted in a decreased length of stay when compared with L-RBS. Randomized clinical trials are needed to better elucidate our findings.

Treatment of achalasia in the bariatric surgery population: a systematic review and single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Although the link between achalasia and morbid obesity is unclear, the reported prevalence is 0.5-1% in this population. For bariatric surgery patients, optimal type and timing of achalasia intervention is uncertain.

METHODS

Patient charts from a single academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. Between 2012 and 2019, 245 patients were diagnosed with achalasia, 13 of whom underwent bariatric surgery and were included. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the timing of their achalasia diagnosis and bariatric surgery. Groups were compared in terms of type and timing of intervention as well as treatment response.

RESULTS

Group 1 included 4 patients diagnosed with achalasia before bariatric surgery. Three had laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and 1 had a per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). These patients had laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) within 5 years of achalasia diagnosis. Postoperatively, 1 had severe reflux with regurgitation necessitating radiofrequency energy application to the lower esophageal sphincter. All had relief from dysphagia. Group 2 included 9 patients diagnosed with achalasia after bariatric surgery. Achalasia subtypes were evenly distributed. Initial operations were: 5 LGB, 2 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), 1 duodenal switch (DS), 1 lap band. One LSG patient was converted to LGB concurrently with LHM. On average, achalasia was diagnosed 8.3 years after bariatric surgery. Achalasia interventions included: 1 pneumatic dilation, 1 Botox injection, 1 POEM, 6 LHM. While LHM was the most common procedure, 4 of 6 patients experienced recurrent dysphagia, one of whom required esophagectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Achalasia is a challenging problem in the bariatric surgery population. Recurrent symptoms are common. Patients treated for achalasia after bariatric surgery tended to have worse symptom resolution than those diagnosed prior to bariatric surgery. Additional prospective studies are needed to elucidate whether interventions for achalasia should be performed concurrently or in a particular sequence for optimal results.

Outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities after revisional robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery: an analysis of the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is being performed with increased frequency in the United States, including for revisional MBS. However, little is known about perioperative outcomes between racial and ethnic cohorts after revisional robotic-assisted MBS.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of our study was to determine if there are racial differences in outcomes after robotic-assisted revisional MBS.

SETTING

University Hospital, United States.

METHODS

Using the 2015-2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database, we identified patients undergoing revisional MBS by a robotic-assisted approach. Univariate analyses were performed of unmatched and matched racial and ethnic cohorts, comparing black versus white patients and Hispanic versus white patients.

RESULTS

Of 2027 robotic-assisted revisional MBS cases in the database, 1922 were included in our analysis, including 67%, 22.6%, and 10.4% white, black, and Hispanic patients, respectively. At baseline, there were some differences in patient characteristics between racial and ethnic cohorts. After propensity matching, outcomes between black and white patients were similar, except for higher rates of superficial surgical site infection among white patients (P = .05) and higher rates of organ space surgical site infection in black patients (P = .05). Outcomes were also similar between matched white and Hispanic patients, except for a higher bleeding in white patients (2% versus 0%, P = .04). There were no mortality or morbidity differences between racial and ethnic cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality after robotic-assisted revisional MBS do not seem to be mediated by race or ethnicity.

[SOFFCO-MM guidelines for the resumption of bariatric and metabolic surgery during and after the Covid-19 pandemic]

Face à l’émergence de la pandémie à COVID 19, l’activité de chirurgie bariatrique/métabolique a été arrêtée. Le confinement et l’arrêt de cette chirurgie ont eu un impact sous-estimé sur la population obèse avec prise de poids, et aggravation des comorbidités. Un certain nombre de candidats à cette chirurgie sont exposés à un risque important de mortalité liée à la pandémie. En effet, l’obésité et le diabète sont deux facteurs de risque majeurs de forme grave d’infection à COVID-19. Le seul traitement efficace actuel de l’obésité est la chirurgie métabolique avec un bénéfice rapide et durable. Il paraît donc nécessaire de reprendre une activité de chirurgie métabolique. Le but de ce travail est de hiérarchiser la reprise chirurgicale afin qu’elle soit progressive et cohérente. Les organigrammes proposés aideront les centres à déterminer les patients prioritaires selon la balance bénéfice-risque. Le diabète a une place centrale dans l’arbre décisionnel. Les modalités de reprise seront variables d’un centre à l’autre selon les ressources humaines, matérielles et médicamenteuses, et seront à adapter à l’évolution épidémique. Un consentement éclairé spécifique sera nécessaire. Un dépistage chez les patients obèses est à envisager dont les modalités de dépistage sont élaborées sur la base des connaissances disponibles. En cas de suspicion de COVID, la chirurgie doit être différée. Il faut insister sur les mesures et gestes barrières afin de protéger le patient et le personnel soignant. Un confinement est fortement suggéré pour le patient durant le premier mois postopératoire. Le suivi des patients sera effectué de préférence par téléconsultation.

The safety of additional procedures at the time of revisional bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The third most common bariatric operation is revisions of previous bariatric surgeries. Patients may require revisional bariatric surgery for inadequate weight loss or complications. Patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery may also have other conditions that require surgery. This study evaluates the 30-day postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery and additional procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the 2005-2017 ACS NSQIP database identified 7249 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery with 3115 (48%) occurring with additional procedures. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was completed for 13 patient demographics and comorbidities. Postoperative variables were then analyzed as available in the NSQIP database. Subgroup analyses were completed for those undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair and abdominal wall hernia repair at the time of revisional bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

The most common bariatric surgery that was converted or revised was the AGB (57%) and the most common additional procedure was paraesophageal hernia repair (n = 181, 15%). When additional procedures were completed at the time of revisional bariatric surgery, overall complications (p < 0.001), major systemic complications (p = 0.009) and mortality/major complications (p = 0.018) were all significantly increased. After matching for operative time, only postoperative sepsis remained significant with additional procedures (p = 0.042). In the subgroup analyses on paraesophageal and abdominal wall hernias there were no differences in postoperative complications after matching for operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional procedures, including paraesophageal and abdominal wall hernia repairs at the time of revisional bariatric surgery increase postoperative complications. Operative time was longer when additional procedures were performed. Postoperative sepsis was the only complication which remained significant after propensity matching when additional procedures are completed at the time of revisional bariatric surgery.

Outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery: a high-volume single institution experience

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate outcomes of adjustable gastric band (AGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), SG conversion to RYGB and RYGB revision procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing secondary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Primary outcomes were weight loss and improvement in comorbidities. For weight loss, percent of total body weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were included. Comorbidities included were hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), cardiovascular risk (CV) and hypertension.

RESULTS

266 Secondary bariatric procedures were analyzed. There were four Grade IIIb complications within 30 days. There was greater %EBMIL at 12 and 24 months in the AGB to RYGB group, and in %TWL at 24 months compared to AGB to SG group (p < 0.05). Only AGB to RYGB had significantly continued improvement in these two parameters at 24 months compared to at 6 months post-operatively-%EBMIL and %TWL tapered off in the other procedures. There was significantly lower CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months in the AGB to RYGB compared to the AGB to SG group. In the SG to RYGB patients, there was significant improvement in CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months compared to baseline. There was significant improvement in HbA1C in diabetics in AGB to RYGB patients at 6 and 12 months, in AGB to SG patients at 12 months, and in SG to RYGB patients at 12 and 24 months compared to baseline. In RYGB revision and SG to RYGB patients, there was a relative increase in the number of patients being normotensive at 24 months compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Secondary bariatric surgery is a complex and challenging procedure that may improve weight loss and cardiovascular risk for certain procedures but further studies will be necessary.

SOFFCO-MM guidelines for the resumption of bariatric and metabolic surgery during and after the Covid-19 pandemic

Bariatric/metabolic surgery was paused during the Covid-19 pandemic. The impact of social confinement and the interruption of this surgery on the population with obesity has been underestimated, with weight gain and worsened comorbidities. Some candidates for this surgery are exposed to a high risk of mortality linked to the pandemic. Obesity and diabetes are two major risk factors for severe forms of Covid-19. The only currently effective treatment for obesity is metabolic surgery, which confers prompt, lasting benefits. It is thus necessary to resume such surgery. To ensure that this resumption is both gradual and well-founded, we have devised a priority ranking plan. The flow charts we propose will help centres to identify priority patients according to a benefit/risk assessment. Diabetes holds a central place in the decision tree. Resumption patterns will vary from one centre to another according to human, physical and medical resources, and will need adjustment as the epidemic unfolds. Specific informed consent will be required. Screening of patients with obesity should be considered, based on available knowledge. If Covid-19 is suspected, surgery must be postponed. Emphasis must be placed on infection control measures to protect patients and healthcare professionals. Confinement is strongly advocated for patients for the first month post-operatively. Patient follow-up should preferably be by teleconsultation.

Total weight loss after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is influenced by preoperative weight loss: can we predict the outcome?

BACKGROUND

Preoperative weight loss (WL) is associated with higher postoperative WL at 1- to 2-year follow-up in patients who undergo laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the possible association between preoperative and postoperative WL at 3-year follow-up and identify risk factors for insufficient WL.

SETTING

A single-center prospective cohort study in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary LRYGB and laparoscopic conversion from band to bypass (redo LRYGB) were instructed to lose weight preoperatively. Follow-up data were collected 1, 2, and 3 years postoperatively. WL was described as percentage total weight loss (%TWL) and percentage excess body mass index (BMI) loss. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A lost any amount of weight; group B did not lose any weight or gained weight preoperatively.

RESULTS

Group A consisted of 230 patients (median preoperative %TWL, 4.8%), and group B consisted of 46 patients (median preoperative %TWL, -1.3%). Median BMI at intake was 44.1 kg/m². Baseline characteristics were similar. The %TWL and BMI for group A and B in the patients who underwent primary LRYGB at 1, 2, and 3 years was 32.2% (BMI, 28.6 kg/m²) versus 23.9% (BMI, 32.2 kg/m²), 31.8% (BMI, 28.9 kg/m²) versus 25.2% (BMI, 31.9 kg/m²), and 33.3% (BMI, 29.7 kg/m²) versus 21.9% (BMI, 34 kg/m²), respectively, all P < .05. In patients who underwent redo LRYGB no clinically significant differences in postoperative BMI were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative WL in primary patients who undergo LRYGB can be useful to identify those at risk of inadequate postoperative WL. In patients who undergo redo LRYGB different risk factors should be considered for prediction of inadequate postoperative WL.

Reversal of Long-Term Weight Regain After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Using Liraglutide or Surgical Revision. A Prospective Study

Purpose

This study investigates whether pharmacotherapy with liraglutide is similarly effective in reversing weight regain more than 6 years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as revisional surgery aimed at restoring restriction.

Methods

Ninety-five consecutive patients (11 male, 84 female; mean BMI 45 ± 6 kg/m²) undergoing RYGB 9 ± 4 years ago were treated for 24 months as follows: Patients, who gained less than 10% from weight NADIR, served as controls and were provided lifestyle counseling (DC, n = 30). The others were allowed to choose between three different treatment groups: daily s.c. administration of liraglutide (LG, n = 34); endosurgery using Apollo’s Overstitch System™ (ES, n = 15), or implantation of a Fobi-ring with pouch resizing (FP, n = 16).

Results

Controls kept their weight stable during 24 months of study (− 0.1 ± 1.7 kg/m²). Weight loss was 4.8 ± 2.9 kg/m² for LG and 5.5 ± 2.9 kg/m² for FP, both losing more than 85% of regained weight from weight NADIR (p < 0.001). In contrast, weight loss in ES was 1.0 ± 0.9 kg/m² (i.e., 20% of regained weight). Thirty-seven percent of FP experienced serious complications (p < 0.05) in contrast to the other groups. An improved prevalence of hypertension and dyslipidemia was observed in LG and FP (p < 0.02) 24 months after intervention.

Conclusions

Weight regain during more than 6 years after RYGB can be safely and effectively reversed with liraglutide. Compared with revisional surgery, pharmacotherapy with liraglutide was low risk and resulted in an important improvement in hypertension and dyslipidemia. Therefore, daily subcutaneous injections of liraglutide are a valid option to treat weight regain after RYGB.

Patient Risk Factors Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality Following Revisional Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery for Inadequate Weight Loss or Weight Recidivism: an Analysis of the ACS-MBSAQIP Database

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric operations are associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared with primary bariatric operations. The purpose of this study was to determine if preoperative patient variables are associated with an increased risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality following revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery for inadequate weight loss or weight recidivism and to generate expected model probabilities in order to risk stratify individual patients undergoing these operations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) from 2015 to 2016 were identified with the American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-MBSAQIP) database. The association of preoperative patient variables with 30-day morbidity and mortality was investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Predictive outcome models were developed for each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 13,551 patients met inclusion criteria; 5310 (39.2%) underwent revisional RYGB. Each of the available preoperative variables was associated with one or more of the 30-day morbidity and mortality outcomes of interest. The strength of the predictive models, as reflected by the area under the curve, ranged from 0.63 for 30-day unplanned hospital readmission to 0.92 for cardiac events.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative patient and surgical variables are associated with an increased risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality following laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery. With these results, we have built a risk calculator that can be used as a resource for prehabilitation and patient counseling prior to revisional bariatric surgery.

Outcomes of robotic surgery in revisional bariatric cases: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP registry

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) cases performed to address complications and weight recidivism. The use of the da Vinci robotic platform, considered controversial by many, may offer advantages in RBS. The objective of our study is to compare the outcomes of Robotic RBS (R-RBS) to Laparoscopic RBS (L-RBS). Using the 2015-2017 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we selected all RBS and we matched R-RBS to L-RBS using a propensity score matching system to create balanced groups. Our primary outcomes were 30-day Serious Adverse Events (SAE), 30-day Organ Specific Infection (OSI), 30-day reoperation and 30-day interventions. Our secondary outcomes included length of operation and 30-day readmission. We conducted separate Mann-Whitney rank sums tests or chi-square tests and Fisher exact test. R-RBS and L-RBS included 220 patients each. The overall incidence of 30-day SAEs, 30-day OSIs, 30-day reoperations, 30-day interventions were lower for R-RBS (6.4%, 0.9%, 2.7% and 2.3%, respectively) compared L-RBS (7.7%, 1.4%, 3.6% and 3.6%, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that R-RBS had a lower rate of complications for the Gastric Bypass procedure but not for Sleeve gastrectomy cases. However, 30-day readmission was higher for R-RBS compared to L-RBS (9.1% vs 6.4% respectively). None of the analyses reached statistical significance. R-RBS took significantly longer compared to L-RBS (169 min vs 138 min, p < 0.05). Our study shows that R-RBS has lower complication rate albeit non-significant as compared to L-RBS.

Outcome of revisional bariatric surgery for insufficient weight loss after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Insufficient weight loss or secondary weight regain with or without recurrence of comorbidity can occur years after laparoscopic Roux en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). In selected patients, increasing restriction or adding malabsorption may be a surgical option after conservative measures failed.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of short and long term results of revisional surgery for insufficient weight loss or weight regain after LRYGB.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of 1150 LRYGB patients. Included were patients, who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after LRYGB for insufficient weight loss with a follow-up of minimal 1 year.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. After an interdisciplinary evaluation, patients with insufficient weight loss, signs of dumping syndrome, and lacking restriction were offered a nonadjustable band around the pouch (banded group, n = 34) and patients with sufficient restriction, excellent compliance, and adherence were offered a revision to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion (BPD group, n = 20). The revisional procedure was performed 3.3 ± 2.3 years after LRYGB in the banded-group and after 6.4 ± 4.3 years in the BPD group (P = .001). Mean body mass index at the time of the primary bariatric procedure was 41.7 ± 6.2 kg/m² in the banded group and 45.2 ± 8.2 kg/m² in the BPD group (P = .08); minimal body mass index between both operations was 29.1 ± 4.7 kg/m² in the banded group and 36.5 ± 9.4 kg/m² in the BPD group, and, at the time of revisional surgery, 31.4 ± 5.5 kg/m² in the banded group and 40.8 ± 6.7 kg/m² in the BPD group (P = .0001). The mean body mass index difference 1 year after revisional surgery was 1.3 ± 3.0 kg/m² in the banded group and 6.7 ± 4.5 kg/m² in the BPD group (P = .01). In the banded group, 11 patients (32.4%) needed removal of the band, 4 patients (11.8%) needed an adjustment, and 4 patients (11.8%) were later converted to BPD. In the BPD group, 2 (10.0%) patients needed revision for severe protein malabsorption.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient weight loss or secondary weight regain after LRYGB is a rare indication for revisional surgery. Banded bypass has modest results for additional weight loss but can help patients suffering from dumping. In very carefully selected cases, BPD can achieve additional weight loss with acceptable complication rate but higher risk for reoperation. Future "adjuvant medical treatments," such as glucagon-like peptide 1 analogues and other pharmacologic treatment options could be an alternative for achieving additional weight loss and better metabolic response.