Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Weight Loss Failure

Conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: impact on reflux and weight loss

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most commonly performed weight loss operation, and its 2 most common complications are postoperative reflux and weight recurrence. There is limited evidence to guide decision-making in treating these conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of conversion of SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) for GERD management and weight loss.

SETTING

Forty-one hospitals in Michigan.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining patients who underwent conversion of SG to RYGB from 2014 to 2022. The primary outcomes were changes in GERD-HRQL scores, anti-reflux medication use, and weight from baseline to 1 year after conversion. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and resource utilization.

RESULTS

Among 2133 patients undergoing conversion, 279 (13%) patients had baseline and 1-year GERD-HRQL survey data and anti-reflux medication data. GERD-HRQL scores decreased significantly from 24.6 to 6.6 (P < .01). Among these, 207 patients (74%) required anti-reflux medication at baseline, with only 76 patients (27%) requiring anti-reflux medication at 1 year postoperatively (P < .01). Of the 380 patients (18%) with weight loss data, mean weight decreased by 68.4lbs, with a 24.3% decline in total body weight and 51.5% decline in excess body weight. In terms of 30-day complications, 308 (14%) patients experienced any complication and 89 (4%) experienced a serious complication, but there were no leaks, perforations, or deaths. Three-hundred and fifty-five (17%) patients presented to the emergency department and 64 (3%) patients underwent reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest reported experience with conversion from SG to RYGB. We found that conversion to RYGB is associated with significant improvement in GERD symptoms, reduction in anti-reflux medication use, and significant weight loss and is therefore an effective treatment for GERD and weight regain after SG. However, the risks and benefits of conversion surgery should be carefully considered, especially in patients with significant comorbidity burden.

Increased staple line leak rates following re-sleeve: analysis comparing re-sleeve versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion and primary sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common bariatric procedure and its long-term complications include inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and de novo GERD, often requiring revisional surgery. Revisions, notably re-sleeve and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), are frequently performed, but safety data is limited. Herein, we used the MBSAQIP database to compare 30 day outcomes of primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG) with re-sleeve (RS) and SG to RYGB conversion.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary SG, RS, and SG to RYGB conversion within the MBSAQIP data registry from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 were included in this study. Using Propensity Score Matching analysis, the cohorts were matched for 23 preoperative characteristics. We then compared 30 day postoperative outcomes and bariatric-specific complications between primary SG and RS (analysis 1) and between RS and SG to RYGB conversion (analysis 2).

RESULTS

A total of 302,961 were included. The matched cohorts in analysis 1 (n = 1630) and analysis 2 (n = 1633) had similar pre-operative characteristics. Propensity-matched outcomes in analysis 1 showed that patients in the RS group had significantly higher staple line leak (1.3% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001) when compared to primary SG. Similarly, longer operative times (90.16 ± 51.90 min vs. 68.32 ± 37.54 min, p < 0.001) and higher rates of readmissions (5.5% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001), reoperations (2.3% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001), interventions (2.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001) were found in those who underwent RS. In analysis 2, RS showed higher leak rates (1.3% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.015) when compared to conversion from SG to RYGB.

CONCLUSION

The RS group has a higher risk of staple line leaks compared to primary SG and conversion from SG to RYGB. In our study, there was a 2.6-fold increase in staple line leak after re-sleeve compared to RYGB conversion and a 13-fold increase compared to primary SG.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) worldwide, some patients require conversional procedures due to weight recurrence or late complications. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) gained popularity as a viable option to address those problems. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of conversional OAGB after primary SG in the management of patients with obesity.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to February 2023 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023403528).

RESULTS

From 1,117 studies screened, twenty studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,057 patients with obesity undergoing conversional OAGB after primary SG. The mean age ranged from 28.2 to 49.5 years, and 744 patients (75.2%) were women. At one year after revisional OAGB, the pooled mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 65.2% (95%CI: 56.9, 73.4, I2 = 97%). The pooled mean %EWL after conversional OAGB was 71.1% (95%CI: 62.2, 80.0, I2 = 90%) at two years and 71.6% (95%CI: 61.0, 82.2, I2 = 50%) at five years. Additionally, resolution rates of diabetes and hypertension were 65.4% (95%CI: 0.522, 0.785, I2 = 65%) and 58.9% (95%CI: 0.415, 0.762, I2 = 89%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated OAGB as an effective conversional procedure after primary SG in terms of weight loss and obesity-associated medical problems for selected patients. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods are necessary to determine if the OAGB is the best conversional surgery after SG.

ReSleeve or revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass for failed primary sleeve gastrectomy with dilated gastric tube: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has been increasingly performed due to weight loss failure (WLF). Many revisional procedures have been proposed after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (pLSG) failure, including ReSleeve gastrectomy (ReLSG), and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB). Choosing the RBS post-pLSG failure represents a challenge. WLF without gastric tube (GT) dilation is undoubtedly converted to a malabsorptive procedure, but the presence of GT dilation makes it more difficult to select a RBS. This study aimed to compare two relatively simple revisional procedures after pLSG failure with dilated GT to help decision making on which procedure better done to which patient.

METHODS

Data of 52 patients who completed one year follow-up (FU) after their RBS (ReLSG: 27 or LOAGB: 25) for their failed pLSG were collected, assessed, correlated to weight loss (WL) and compared.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 97 ± 18.4 min. with revisional LOAGB (RLOAGB) and 62 ± 11 min. with ReLSG. Six patients (11.5%) had seven postoperative procedure-specific complications. Significant hemorrhage occurred in three patients. Two cases of leakage were encountered with each procedure. LOAGB Patients had lower mean final weight (76.2 ± 10.5 vs 85.3 ± 13), lower mean Final BMI (26.4 ± 2.5 vs 29.7 ± 2.9) and higher mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) (83.6 ± 13.5% vs 60.29 ± 14.6%). All RLOAGB patients and 77.8% of ReLSG patients had EWL% > 50%. RLOAGB patients had higher EWL% compared to ReLSG (p < 0.001). Insufficient WL (IWL) patients had higher EWL% compared to weight regain (WR) patients (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Both procedures (RLOAGB and ReLSG) were relatively safe and effective in terms of WL. RLOAGB led to higher WL compared to ReLSG in all types of patients despite higher Caloric intake. IWL patients had more WL compared to WR patients. WL was not related to GT dilation type. Large-scale longer-FU studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR202310644487566 (retrospectively registered).

Does One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Expose Patients to Gastroesophageal Reflux: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the incidence of new-onset gastroesophageal reflux, reflux change, esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, and revision due to reflux, gastritis, and marginal ulcer after one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). We performed subgroup analyses based on primary and revisional OAGB and time of follow-up. Meta-analysis of 87 studies with 27,775 patients showed a 6% rate of new-onset reflux after OAGB. Preoperative reflux status did not change significantly after OAGB. The rate of esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus was 15% and 1%, respectively. The new-onset reflux rate after OAGB was significantly higher than gastric bypass but not different with sleeve gastrectomy. The current study showed a relatively low rate of reflux and its complications after OAGB, but it was significantly higher than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Is one-anastomosis gastric bypass a good revisional bariatric surgery? A single-center retrospective cohort study

<b><br>Introduction:</b> The rate of revisional surgeries following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has increased. One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) appears to have multiple advantages as a primary bariatric procedure. OAGB as revisional surgery is still being investigated.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of OAGB performed as a post-SG revisional surgery.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted using a routinely collected database of adults undergoing revisional OAGB after SG. A survey of patients was conducted, obtaining information on changes in body weight and improvement in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and obesity-related diseases.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The study group included 74 patients: 59 women (80%) and 15 men, mean age of 41.61 9.21 years. The most common indication for OAGB was weight regain. The follow-up was up to 7 years, the mean time was 3.58 1.21 years. The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 40.38 6.15. All patients experienced significant weight loss, reaching a BMI of 33.61 (27.28- 37.13) at the last observation. After surgery, 35% of patients achieved successful weight loss and 48% of patients achieved remission or improvement of GERD.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Revisional OAGB seems to be a good alternative after a failed SG in terms of obesity-related disease recurrence, not of weight regain. Long-term follow-up revealed that only a third of patients achieved successful weight loss. When proposing revisional OAGB, the risk of complications - mainly anemia and the possibility of de novo GERD should be considered.</br>.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Secondary bariatric surgery rates have increased, accounting for approximately 19% of the total bariatric cases in the last years, most commonly conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass. Using the MBSAQIP, we evaluate the outcomes of this procedure compared to the primary RYGB surgery.

METHODS

The new variable, conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB in the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP database was analyzed. Patients who underwent primary laparoscopic RYGB and those who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB conversion were identified. Using Propensity Score Matching analysis, the cohorts were matched for 21 preoperative characteristics. We then compared 30-day outcomes and bariatric-specific complications between primary RYGB and conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB.

RESULTS

There were 43,253 primary RYGB procedures performed and 6,833 conversions from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB. The matched cohorts (n = 5912) for the two groups have similar pre-operative characteristics. Propensity-matched outcomes showed that conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB was associated with more readmissions (6.9% vs 5.0%, p < 0.001), interventions (2.6% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), conversion to open (0.7% vs 0.2%, p < 0.001), length of stay (1.79 ± 1.77 days vs 1.62 ± 1.66 days, p < 0.001), and operative time (119.16 ± 56.82 min vs 138.27 ± 66.00, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality (0.1% vs 0.1%, p = 0.405), and bariatric-specific complications such as anastomotic leak (0.5% vs 0.4%, p = 0.585), intestinal obstruction (0.1% vs 0.2%, p = 0.808), internal hernia (0.2% vs 0.1%, p = 0.285) or anastomotic ulcer (0.3% vs 0.3%, p = 0.731) rates.

CONCLUSION

Conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB is a safe and feasible operation with reasonable outcomes compared with primary RYGB.

Revision Endoscopic Gastroplasty: An Overview and Review of Literature

The main aim of this paper was to examine the efficacy and safety of revision endoscopic gastroplasty and some of the adverse events likely to arise from the procedure, as well as the implications for future scholarly research. The study is a systematic review in which the PRISMA protocol was used to govern the article's inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selected studies include those on revising endoscopic gastroplasty's effectiveness and safety. The studies were selected based on multiple parameters. The outcome included weight recidivism, excessive BMI loss, and absolute, total, or percentage weight loss. The outcome of this review confirmed that revision endoscopic gastroplasty is effective and safe. Mainly, revision endoscopic gastroplasty (R-EG) was found to counter-weight recidivism, especially short-term and mid-term. However, there is a need for additional scholarly investigations that would last several years to decades to inform the long-term efficacy of R-EG with precision.

Comparison of early post-operative complications in primary and revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and duodenal switch MBSAQIP-reported cases from 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most performed bariatric surgery, though gastric bypass (GB) and duodenal switch (DS) remain common, especially as conversion/revision (C/R) procedures. This analysis compared early postoperative outcomes of primary and C/R laparoscopic SG to DS and GB; and primary procedures of each vs C/R counterparts.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) dataset was queried for SG, GB, and DS cases from 2015 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression calculated crude and adjusted odds ratios for surgical site infection (SSI), reoperation, and readmission at 30 days in two initial comparisons: (1) primary SG vs DS or GB and (2) C/R SG vs DS or GB. A secondary analysis compared primary GS, GB, or DS with C/R counterparts. Models were adjusted for confounding demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 755,968 primary cases, most were SG (72.8%), followed by GB (26.3%), then DS (0.9%). Compared to SG, GB and DS demonstrated higher odds of SSI (aOR 3.02 [2.84, 3.2]), readmission (aOR 1.97 [1.92, 2.03]), and reoperation (aOR 2.74 [2.62, 2.86]), respectively. Of 68,716 C/R cases, SG was most common (43.2%), followed by GB (37.5%), then DS (19.2%). C/R GB and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (aOR 2.28 [1.98, 2.62]), readmission (aOR 2.10 [1.94, 2.27]), and reoperation (aOR 2.3 [2.04, 2.59]) vs SG, respectively. C/R SG and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 2.09 [1.66, 2.63]; 1.63 [1.24, 2.14), readmission (OR 1.13 [1.02, 1.26]), and reoperation (OR 1.27 [1.06, 1.52]; 1.58 [1.24, 2.0]), vs primary procedures. C/R DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 1.23 [1.66, 2.63]).

CONCLUSIONS

Early complications are comparable between GB and DS, and greater than SG. In C/R procedures, GB and DS demonstrate greater risk than SG. Overall, C/R procedures demonstrate greater risk of most, but not all, early postoperative complications.

Shortening the Biliopancreatic Limb Length of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Maintains Glucose Homeostasis Improvement with Limited Weight Loss

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is associated with similar metabolic improvements and weight loss as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). However, this bariatric procedure is still controversial as it is suspected to result in undernutrition. Reducing the size of the biliopancreatic limb of OAGB could be essential to maintain positive outcomes while preventing side effects. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast outcomes of OAGB with two different biliopancreatic limb lengths to RYGB and Sham surgery in obese and non-obese rats. Lean and diet-induced obese Wistar rats were operated on RYGB, OAGB with a short (15 cm OAGB-15) or a long (35 cm OAGB-35) biliopancreatic limb or Sham surgery. Body weight and food intake were monitored over 30 weeks, and rats underwent oral glucose and insulin tolerance tests with a pancreatic and gut hormone secretion assay. Macronutrient absorption was determined by fecal analyses. Statistical analyses used non-parametric one-way or two-way ANOVA tests. Compared to Sham rats, RYGB, OAGB-15 and OAGB-35 rats displayed a significant reduced weight. Weight loss was greater after OAGB-35 than after OAGB-15 or Sham surgery because of transient malabsorption. All OAGB- and RYGB-operated rats displayed an improved pancreatic and gut hormone secretion in response to a meal compared to Sham rats, these effects were independent of limb length, rat weight, and maintained overtime. In conclusion, glucose homeostasis was similarly improved in obese and non-obese OAGB-15 and OAGB-35 rats suggesting that shortening the biliopancreatic limb can improve the metabolic parameters without a major influence on weight.

150-cm Versus 200-cm Biliopancreatic Limb One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that shortening the length of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) to 150 cm in one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) would reduce nutritional complication rates without impairing weight loss outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare patients who underwent OAGB with a 200-cm BPL (OAGB-200) to patients with OAGB with a 150-cm BPL (OAGB-150) in terms of weight loss and late morbidity.

METHODS

This is a monocentric retrospective matched cohort study including patients with a body mass index between 35 and 50 kg/m² who underwent an OAGB-150 or an OAGB-200. Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and body mass index, prior to bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 784 patients who underwent OAGB were included (OAGB-150 n = 392 and OAGB-200 (n = 392). There was no significant difference in terms of early morbidity. Regarding late morbidity in patients with an OAGB-150, significantly lower rates for marginal ulcer (OR = 0.4, CI 95% [0.2; 0.8], p = 0.006), incisional hernia (OR = 0.5, CI 95% [0.3; 1], p = 0.041), and bowel obstruction (OR = 0.3, CI 95% [0.1; 0.9], p = 0.039) were reported. Likewise, regarding late nutritional deficiencies, post-OAGB-150, a significantly lower number of patients with hypoalbuminemia (OR = 0.3, CI 95% [0.2; 0.7], p = 0.006), low vitamin B9 (OR = 0.5, CI 95% [0.2; 1], p = 0.044), and low ferritin (OR = 0.5, CI 95% [0.3; 0.8], p = 0.005) were observed. There was no significant difference in the percentage of excess BMI loss at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Compared to OAGB-200 in patients with BMI ≤ 50 kg/m², OAGB-150 results in fewer nutritional deficiency rates long term, without impairing weight loss.

Five-year outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass as conversional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss failure

The most accepted procedures as conversion for poor weight changes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG), are malabsorptive surgeries. This study was designed to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) following SG due to weight loss failure and weight regain. From September 2014 to January 2017, totally 23 patients with a history of SG conversion to OAGB in terms of weight loss failure or weight regain who had completed their 5-year follow-ups were studied. Some obesity related co-morbidities containing type-2 diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were also investigated at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after conversional surgery. All cases had remission/improvement in DM, DLP, HTN and OSA 1 year after conversional OAGB. Analysis showed statistically significant (P < 0.001) change in trend of BMI. Mean BMI before conversional surgery, at 1, 2, 3and 5 years were 46.3 ± 10.4, 34.5 ± 8.5, 34.1 ± 8.6, 35.7 ± 8.7 and 37.5 ± 11.6, respectively. Mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years was 51.6 ± 11.0, 52.9 ± 13.1, 45.5 ± 16.4 and 41.0 ± 18.0, respectively. Mean percent total weight loss (%TWL) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years was 26.6 ± 5.9, 27.4 ± 7.2, 23.9 ± 9.2 and 20.9 ± 9.3, respectively. OAGB is an effective conversional procedure for insufficient weight loss and weight regain following failed SG and lead to satisfactory changes in obesity associated medical problems. The optimal weight loss results are obtained at 2-year follow-ups and these effects are then reduced.

Outcome of Sleeve Gastrectomy Converted to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass

Purpose

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide but there is also a high conversion rate mainly due to weight regain and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) reported in studies with long-term follow-up. The aim of this study is to highlight benefits and limitations of converting SG patients to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB).

Setting

Retrospective cross-sectional-study, medical university clinic setting.

Methods

This study includes all patients converted from primary SG to RYGB or OAGB by 12/2018 at the Medical University of Vienna. Patients were examined using gastroscopy, esophageal manometry, 24-h pH-metry, and questionnaires.

Results

Fifty-eight patients were converted from SG to RYGB (n = 45) or OAGB (n = 13). Total weight loss of patients converted to RYGB and OAGB was 41.5% and 44.8%, respectively, at nadir. Six patients had Barrett’s esophagus (BE) after SG. In four out of these six patients, a complete remission of BE after conversion to RYGB was observed; nevertheless, two patients after RYGB and one after OABG newly developed BE. Clinical GERD improved at a higher rate after RYGB than after OAGB. Both revisional procedures improved associated medical problems.

Conclusion

Conversion to RYGB is probably the best option for patients with GERD after SG. OAGB has shown a low potential to cure patients from GERD symptoms after SG. In terms of additional weight loss and remission of associated medical problems, both procedures studied were equal. Surveillance gastroscopies every 5 years after SG revisions are recommended.

Graphical abstract

EARLY METABOLIC DISORDERS AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES OF INTERNAL ORGANS AFTER GASTRIC BYPASS WITH ONE ANASTOMOSIS. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To investigate morphofunctional changes in bone tissue, mucous membranes of different parts of the intestine, parathyroid glands, as well as changes in blood biochemical parameters depending on the length of the common loop in modeling gastric bypass with one anastomosis within 60 days.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: Modeling of obesity in males of white outbred rats (n = 50) which were induced high-calorie diet with high animal fat content. Weight was measured before the induced diet, 1,2,3 months after the start of the induced diet and 2 months after surgery to assess the dynamics of excess weight loss. Rats were divided into three groups: control group - 5 rats, 1st group - 10 rats, 2nd group - 10 rats, 25 rats were removed from the experiment.

RESULTS

Results: The average weight of rats before introduction into the diet was 180.5 grams, after 3 months of induced diet reached 256.7 grams, the average weight gain was 76.2 grams (42.2%). 1 group of rats had a weight loss of -16.2% (41.7 grams), Second group had a weight loss of -20.6% (53.2 grams) 60 days after gastric bypass surgery.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: The average statistical indicators of blood tests of the second group of animals in comparison with the first group show lower levels of iron phosphorus?magne¬sium, total protein and albumin. The average body weight loss of the first group was -16.2% (41.7 grams), the second -20.6% (53.2 grams) with a difference of 11.7 grams, which is not significant.

Conversion of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after weight loss failure into laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass: short-term safety and efficacy and effect of indications on outcome

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is growing and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB) has been proposed as a revisional procedure due to its combined restrictive and malabsorptive effects. The aim is to study short-term complications and weight loss (WL) results of the revisional LOAGB after LSG for the two-weight loss failure (WLF) types [insufficient weight loss (IWL) and weight regain (WR)] and to assess the possible effects of these two types of failure and gastric tube anatomy on the final outcome.

METHODS

The data of 28 patients who completed 1-year follow-up for their revisional LOAGB after their failed LSG were assessed and statistically correlated to leakage and one year WL results.

RESULTS

Operative time was 96 ± 17.4 min. Leakage occurred in 2 patients (7.1%); the small number of leak patients does not allow statistical analysis for leakage. Percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at one year was 79.0 ± 14.4%; percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was 31.7 ± 6.4%. %EWL was 84.2 ± 13.1 with IWL and 73.0 ± 13.9 with WR (P = 0.036). %TWL was 35.0 ± 5.2 with IWL and 27.8 ± 5.5 with WR (P = 0.001). %TWL at persistent fundus, diffusely dilated, and nondilated stomach were 38.98 ± 4.57, 31.3 ± 5.33, and 28.54 ± 5.91, respectively (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

LOAGB is a highly effective and safe procedure as a revision after LSG with WLF. Patients with IWL and patients with persistent fundus lost more weight than those with WR and those with diffuse stomach dilation or nondilation, respectively.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

Prospective multicentre randomised trial comparing the efficacy and safety of single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB): SADISLEEVE study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite the non-negligible weight loss failure rate at midterm, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) remains the reference procedure in the treatment of morbid obesity with metabolic comorbidities. A recently emerged procedure, the single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S), could be more effective on weight loss with similar morbidity and lower weight loss failure rate than RYGB. We propose the first randomised, open, multicentre superiority trial comparing the SADI-S to RYGB (SADISLEEVE).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The main objective is to demonstrate the superiority at 2 years after surgery of the SADI-S compared with RYGB in term of excess weight loss percentage. The secondary objectives are the evaluation of nutritional status, metabolic outcomes, overall complication rates and quality of life, within 2 years after surgery. Key inclusion criteria are obese patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m² or ≥35 kg/m² with at least one comorbid condition and candidate to a first bariatric procedure or after failure of sleeve gastrectomy. Patients randomised by minimisation in two arms, based on centre, surgery as a revisional procedure, presence of type 2 diabetes and BMI >50 kg/m² will be included over 2 years.A sample size of 166 patients in each group will have a power of 90% to detect a probability of 0.603 that excess weight loss in the RYGB arm is less than excess weight loss in the SADI-S arm with a 5% two-sided significance level. With a drop-out rate of 10%, it will be necessary to include 183 patients per group.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by Institutional Review Board of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Morvan (CPP1089-HPS1). Study was also approved by the French national agency for drug safety (2018061500148). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03610256.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Gastric Plication in Morbidly Obese Patients

Background: Failure of adequate weight loss or weight regain has been reported after laparoscopic greater curve plication (LGCP). The primary aim of this retrospective study is to analyze weight loss outcome after revision of failed LGCP into laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Patients and Methods: Patients who experienced failure (insufficient weight loss/weight regain) after LGCP performed in our center from 2009 to 2012 were included. LSG was performed for all patients. Results: Among 127 who underwent LGCP, 42 patients (33%) underwent revision. Mean body mass index (BMI) at time of LGCP was 44 ± 6 kg/m². The highest % total weight loss (%TWL) after LGCP ranged from 11% to 34% (24.1 ± 5) (corresponding to % excess weight loss [%EWL] of 12%-47% [33.5 ± 12]). The time interval between LGCP and LSG ranged from 12 to 25 months (15.4 ± 3.8). After conversion, 2 patients (5%) experienced acute leakage managed by endoscopic stenting. After LSG, mean BMI (kg/m²) was 38, 32, 30, 28, 29, 30.2, and 30.4, while mean %TWL reached 9%, 19%, 24%, 29%, 25%, 25%, and 24% and mean %EWL reached 15%, 51%, 69%, 77%, 68%, 66%, and 64% at 1 month, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. Except for results at 1 month, all results showed statistical significance (P ≤ .05). After LSG, the incidence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension dropped from 15 (35%) and 13 (30%) to 2 (5%) and 3 (7%) patients, respectively. No follow-up data (0%) were missed. Conclusion: LSG after failed LGCP has promising weight loss outcomes.

Revision operation to one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

There are few publications on revising sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB).

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to determine outcomes in terms of weight loss and resolution of co-morbidities in patients who had SG revised to OAGB.

SETTINGS

A high-volume university-affiliated bariatric surgery center in India.

METHOD

Information was collected from patients identified in a prospectively maintained database of patients who had a revision from SG to OAGB. An analysis of outcomes in terms of weight loss and maintenance with up to 3-years follow-up is reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were revised from SG to OAGB. Of the 32 revised patients, 9 (28%) had type 2 diabetes, 15 (47%) had hypertension, and 2 (6%) had sleep apnea at the time of the initial SG. At the time of revision only 2 of 32 (6.25%) had type 2 diabetes, 3 (9.4%) had hypertension, and none had sleep apnea. The average initial weight in this study before SG was 118 kg and body mass index was 44.04 kg/m². The average weight at the nadir and at revision was 92.1 and 103.5 kg, respectively. Average weight was 93.5, 94.3, and 100.6 kg (P < .002) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up, respectively. There was reoccurrence of type 2 diabetes in 1 patient at 3 years after revision due to weight regain. There were no complications in this study.

CONCLUSION

In this study, revision of SG to OAGB because of inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain was safe and effective at 2-year follow-up; however, there was a tendency toward weight regain at 3 years. Multicenter studies with larger series of patients and longer-term follow-up after SG revision to OAGB are needed.