Re-sleeve Gastrectomy 4 Years Later: Is It Still an Effective Revisional Option?

Short-term safety and effectiveness of conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to Ring augmented Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence, suboptimal clinical response and functional disorder (such as reflux) after a Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) are problems that may require conversional surgery. For reflux, conversion to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) is considered effective. Regarding treatment for suboptimal clinical response, the technique of choice remains a subject of debate. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion from SG to Ring-augmented RYGB ( RaRYGB).

METHODS

All laparoscopic SG to RaRYGB conversions performed between January 2016 and January 2022 were included. Primary outcome was percentage total weight loss (%TWL) after 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes consisted of cumulative %TWL, complications (with a focus on ring-related complications), and resolution of medical-associated problems.

RESULTS

We included 50 patients of whom 44 were female. Mean pre-conversion BMI was 37.6 kg/m2. All patients have reached the 1-year follow-up point, however 10 were lost to follow-up. After 1-year mean TWL was 17.8% while mean cumulative TWL, calculated from primary SG, was 32%. A total of 10 complications occurred in 8 patients within 30 days, 6 of which were ≤ CD3a and 4 ≥ CD3b. One MiniMizer was removed for complaints of severe dysphagia. Of the 35 medical-associated problems present at screening 5 remained unchanged(14.2%), 15 improved(42.9%) and 15 achieved remission(42.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our series of 50 patients undergoing conversion from SG to RaRYGB is adequate and successful regarding additional weight loss 1 year after conversion, cumulative weight loss, complication rate and achievement of improvement or remission of medical-associated problems.

Outcomes of primary versus conversional Roux-En-Y gastric bypass after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Conversional surgery is common after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) because of suboptimal weight loss (SWL) or poor responders and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most common conversional procedure after LSG.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed patients who underwent primary RYGB (PRYGB) or conversional RYGB (CRYGB) at three specialized bariatric centers between 2008 and 2019 and tested for weight loss, resolution of GERD, food tolerance (FT), early and late complications, and the resolution of associated medical problems. This was analyzed by propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

In total, 558 (PRYGB) and 155 (CRYGB) completed at least 2 years of follow-up. After PSM, both cohorts significantly decreased BMI from baseline (p < 0.001). The CRYGB group had an initially more significant mean BMI decrease of 6.095 kg/m2 at 6 months of follow-up (p < 0.001), while the PRYGB group had a more significant mean BMI decrease of 5.890 kg/m2 and 8.626 kg/m2 at 1 and 2 years, respectively (p < 0.001). Food tolerance (FT) improved significantly in the CRYGB group (p < 0.001), while CRYGB had better FT than PRYGB at 2 years (p < 0.001). A GERD resolution rate of 92.6% was recorded in the CRYGB (p < 0.001). Both cohorts had comparable rates of early complications (p = 0.584), late complications (p = 0.495), and reoperations (p = 0.398). Associated medical problems at 2 years significantly improved in both cohorts (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CRYGB is a safe and efficient option in non- or poor responders after LSG, with significant weight loss and improvement in GERD. Moreover, PRYGB and CRYGB had comparable complications, reoperations, and associated medical problem resolution rates.

Re-sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and sensible intervention in selected patients: retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy is a good treatment intervention to control the metabolic syndrome in patients with obesity worldwide. However, weight regain is of great concern and would usually necessitate a reintervention. In recent years, re-sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) has been proposed to treat weight regain in the context of a large residual stomach. Our objective was to analyze the long-term results and safety profile of this intervention in a large case series.

METHODS

From September 2010 to March 2021, a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary nonuniversity hospital was performed. Seventy-nine patients received a ReSG by laparoscopy. Preoperative radiologic imaging showed a dilation of the gastric pouch exceeding 250 cc in all cases.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients (87% females) with a mean age of 44.8 years old and a mean BMI of 40.0 kg/m 2 were enrolled in the study. The mean follow-up was 44.8 months. The ReSG indication was insufficient weight loss in 37 patients (46.8%) and weight regain in 39 patients (53.2%). The authors noticed a 10.1% complications rate: gastric stenosis (5.1%), bleeding (2.5%), and incisional site hernia in 2.5%, with no death. There was no gastric fistula detected. The mean BMI decreased to 33.1 kg/m 2 after ReSG (a decrease of 6.9 kg/m 2 ).

CONCLUSION

After insufficient weight loss or weight regain following sleeve gastrectomy and in the presence of localized or global gastric tube dilation, ReSG seems to be a good treatment choice and a safe procedure.

Re-sleeve gastrectomy: weight loss, comorbidities and gerd evaluation in a large series with 5 years of follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has rapidly become one of the most commonly performed procedures in bariatric surgery. Weight regain and insufficient weight loss are the most common causes for surgical failure. Re-sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) can represent an option when there is evidence of a dilated gastric tube.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study is to evaluate safety, efficacy and rate of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) after ReSG in one of the largest series present in literature with long-term follow up.

METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study design. From February 2010 to August 2018, 102 patients underwent ReSG at our Centre. We divided patients into two groups, according to the main reason for surgical failure: insufficient weight loss or progressive weight regain.

RESULTS

One hundred-two patients (78 women, 24 men) with BMI 38 ± 6 kg/m² underwent ReSG (mean age 44 years). Rate of postoperative complications was 3.9% (4/102). After a mean follow-up of 55 months, mean BMI decreased to 30,4 kg/m² and the mean percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was 51 ± 38.6. Symptoms of GERD were present in 35/102 patients (34.3%) and the need for a new operation occurred in six patients. Forty-five patients were submitted to ReSG for progressive weight regain (group A) and 57 for insufficient weight loss (group B). No differences were found in terms of postoperative BMI and %EWL.

CONCLUSION

ReSG is a feasible procedure after primary SG failure in selected patients, but its efficacy in reducing the BMI under 30 kg/m² is still unclear. In addition, over 30% of patients suffer from long-term gastro-esophageal reflux.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic Greater Curvature Plication: a Long-Term Follow-up Study on the Complications, Body Mass Index Changes, Endoscopic Findings and Causes of Revision

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been increasingly becoming popular due to the advancements in minimally invasive approaches and techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes and clinical relevance of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic greater curvature plication (LGCP) in a matched controlled single-bariatric centre study.

METHODS

We collected data from 163 patients who underwent either LSG or LGCP over a period of at least 5 years. The outcome parameters included body mass index (BMI) changes, causes of revision surgery, endoscopic findings and effects on obesity-related comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients underwent LGCP, while 84 underwent LSG for morbid obesity. At the fifth year of follow-up, a BMI of < 30 was achieved in 1% of patients who underwent LGCP (n = 1) compared with more than 80% of patients who underwent LSG (n = 70). Revision was mainly due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or bile reflux in the LSG group and due to weight gain in the LGCP group. LSG was superior in improvements in comorbidities. The most observed endoscopic finding was GERD (grade a, b) in the LSG group and unfolding of part of or the whole stomach in the LGCP group. Early minor postoperative complications occurred at a significantly lower frequency in the LSG group.

CONCLUSIONS

LGCP has a higher rate of complications, a much less durable effect on weight loss, a higher rate of revision surgery and a higher cost burden to the health care system than LSG.

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.

Revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: an international, multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) facilitates significant and durable weight loss; however, weight recidivism and need for revisional surgery occur in a subset of patients. Reduction of a dilated LSG using the revisional endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (R-ESG) approach is an appealing and minimally invasive alternative to surgical revision that is congruent with obesity as a chronic relapsing disease model. In this study, we examine the safety and efficacy of the technique in a large multicenter international cohort.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 9 centers for 82 consecutive adults who underwent R-ESG for weight regain after LSG using the OverStitch device (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex, USA) from March 2014 to November 2019 were reviewed. Total body weight loss (TBWL) and adverse events were reported up to 12 months. Univariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of response at 12 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-two adults (92.7% female) experienced 27.9 ± 20.7 kg weight regain from post-LSG nadir weight, prompting R-ESG (mean age, 42.8 ± 10.4 years) at a mean weight of 128.2 ± 57.5 kg. Mean R-ESG procedure duration was 48.3 ± 20.5 minutes, and the median number of sutures used was 4 (interquartile range, 3-4). After R-ESG, TBWL (follow-up %) was 6.6% ± 3.2% at 1 month (81.7%), 10.6% ± 4.4% at 3 months (74.4%), 13.2% ± 10.1% at 6 months (63.4%), and 15.7% ± 7.6% at 12 months (51.2%). In a per-protocol analysis, ≥10% TBWL was achieved by 37 of 51 patients (72.5%) at 6 months and 34 of 42 patients (81.0%) at 12 months; ≥15% TBWL was achieved by 20 of 46 patients (43.5%) at 6 months and 22 of 42 patients (52.4%) at 12 months. Only 1 moderate adverse event occurred in the form of a narrowed gastroesophageal junction, which resolved after a single endoscopic dilation.

CONCLUSIONS

R-ESG is a safe and effective means of facilitating weight loss for weight recidivism after LSG, with sustained results at 1 year. R-ESG should be considered before pursuing more-invasive surgical revisional options.

Geometry of Sleeve Gastrectomy Measured by 3D CT Versus Weight Loss: Preliminary Analysis

BACKGROUND

The size of the remnant stomach with respect to weight loss failure after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the actual size and volume of the remnant stomach, as measured by three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) volumetry, on weight loss after LSG.

METHODS

The clinical outcomes of 52 patients who underwent LSG between October 2008 and February 2019 were assessed. Weight metrics were recorded at 1, 3, and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. 3D-CT volumetry was performed 1 year postoperatively, and the total remnant stomach volume (TSV), proximal stomach volume (PSV), antral stomach volume (ASV), and the distance between the pylorus and the distal edge of staple line (DPS) were measured. The relationship between the weight metrics and aforementioned factors was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 52 patients who underwent LSG, 40 patients participated in this study. The average body mass index preoperatively was 38.3 ± 5.1 kg/m², and the average percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) 1 year after LSG was 26.6 ± 9.3%. The average TSV, PSV, ASV, and DPS were 123.2 ± 60.3 ml, 73.4 ± 37.2 ml, 49.8 ± 30.3 ml, and 59.9 ± 18.5 mm, respectively. The DPS (r = - 0.394, p = 0.012) and ASV (r = - 0.356, p = 0.024) were correlated with %TWL 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The actual DPS and ASV measured by 3D-CT affected weight loss after LSG. 3D-CT may be useful for the immediate identification of factors affecting insufficient weight loss in patients; this may, in turn, aid in the implementation of early intervention treatments.

Bariatric revisional surgery: What are the challenges for the patient and the practitioner?

Bariatric revisional surgery represents an important new issue for obese patients because of the considerable rate of failure and complications following bariatric surgery. As the frequency of bariatric procedures increases, so too does the incidence of revisional surgery, which has become becoming increasingly important. The surgeon must know the indications and the results of the various revisional procedures in order to best guide the therapeutic decision. The current challenge is to correctly select the patients for revisional surgery and to choose the appropriate procedure in each case. Multidisciplinary management is essential to patient re-assessment and to prepare the patient for a re- intervention. The objective of this update, based on data from all the most recent studies concerning revisional surgery, is to guide the surgeon in the choice of the revisional procedure, depending on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, the previously performed procedure, the type of failure or complication observed, but also on the surgeon's own habits and the center's expertise. The collected results show that revisional surgery is difficult, with higher complication rates and weight-loss results that are often lower than those of first-intent surgery. For these reasons, patient selection must be rigorous and multidisciplinary and the management in expert centers of these difficult situations must be encouraged.

Gastroesophageal Reflux and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Results of the First International Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is probably the main drawback of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Herein, we critically discuss the issue and report the results of the first international consensus conference held in Montpellier, France, during June 2019.

METHODS

Fifty international bariatric experts from 25 countries convened for 2 days for interactive discussions, and to formulate the most relevant questions by electronically submitting 55 preliminary questions to panelists. Following the meeting, a final drafted questionnaire comprised of 41 questions was sent to all experts via e-mail.

RESULTS

Forty-six experts responded (92%). Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy was considered mandatory before (92%) and after (78%) surgery. No consensus was achieved as to time intervals after surgery and the role of specialized tests for GERD. Higher degrees of erosive esophagitis (94%) and Barrett's esophagus (96%) were viewed as contra-indications for LSG. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was recommended in postoperative patients with uncontrolled GERD and insufficient (84%) or sufficient (76%) weight loss and Barrett's esophagus (78%). Hiatal hernia (HH) repair was deemed necessary even in asymptomatic patients without GERD (80% for large and 67% for small HH). LSG with fundoplication in patients with GERD was considered by 77.3% of panelists.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of pre- and postoperative endoscopy has been emphasized. The role of specialized tests for GERD and the exact surveillance programs need to be further defined. LSG is viewed as contra-indicated in higher degrees of endoscopic and clinical GERD. LSG with anti-reflux fundoplication emerges as a new valid option in patients with GERD.

Resleeve for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite excellent long-term results, insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and pathologic gastroesophageal reflux disease may require revisional procedures after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Resleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) for failed LSG, has been proposed as an alternative to more complex malabsorptive procedures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the current evidence on the therapeutic role and outcomes of ReSG for failed LSG. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science data sets were consulted. A systematic review and Frequentist meta-analysis were performed. Ten studies published between 2010 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria for a total of 300 patients. The age of the patient population ranged from 20 to 66 years old and 80.5% were females. The elapsed time between the LSG and ReSG ranged from 9 to 132 months. The estimated pooled prevalence of postoperative leak and overall complications were 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .5%-4.7%) and 7.6% (95%CI = 3.1%-13.4%). The estimated pooled mean operative time and hospital length of stay were 51 minutes (95%CI = 49.4-52.6) and 3.3 days (95%CI = 3.13-3.51). The postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 36 months and the estimated pooled mean percentage excess weight loss was 61.46% (95%CI = 55.9-66.9). The overall mortality ranged from 0% to 2.2%. ReSG after failed LSG seems feasible and safe with acceptable postoperative leak rate, overall complications, and mortality. The effectiveness of ReSG in term of weight loss seems promising in the short-term but further studies are warranted to explore its effect on patients' quality of life, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease, and long-term weight loss.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SETTING

High-volume centers for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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