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

Revisional One-Step Bariatric Surgical Techniques After Unsuccessful Laparoscopic Gastric Band: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has high reported rates of revision due to poor weight loss (WL) and high complication rates. Yet, there is yet to be a consensus on the best revisional procedure after unsuccessful LAGB, and studies comparing different revisional procedures after LAGB are still needed.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the outcomes of one-step revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (rOAGB), or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (rLSG) after LAGB. WL, complications, resolution of associated medical conditions, and food tolerance were assessed with a post hoc pairwise comparison one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) throughout a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 102 (rRYGB), 80 (rOAGB), and 70 (rLSG) patients. After 2 years, an equal percentage of excess weight loss was observed in rOAGB and rRYGB (both >90%; p=0.998), significantly higher than that in rLSG (83.6%; p<0.001). In our study, no leaks were observed. rRYGB had higher complication rates according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (10.8% vs. 3.75% and 5.7% in rOAGB and rLSG, respectively, p=0.754), and re-operations were not statistically significant. Food tolerance was comparable between rOAGB and rRYGB (p = 0.987), and both had significantly better food tolerance than rLSG (p<0.001). The study cohorts had comparable resolution rates for associated medical problems (p>0.60).

CONCLUSION

rOAGB and rRYGB had better outcomes after LAGB than rLSG regarding WL, feasibility, food tolerance, and safety. rOAGB had significantly higher rates of nutritional deficiencies.

Revisional surgery after restrictive surgery: midterm outcomes of a tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is a challenging type of procedure for the surgeons due to its specific morbidity and efficiency. The RBS has a higher prevalence nowadays and this study may help to improve scarce data upon this specific topic.

METHODS

Data from 252 patients undergoing RBS after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2005 and 2019, were analyzed at 2 years of follow up. A subgroup analysis of third procedure was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the LSG group and 40 patients (25%) in the LAGB group (p = 0.045). At 2 years of RBS, mean weight was 92.8 ± 26.7 kg, BMI was 33.1 ± 8.56 kg/m2 for patients who had RBS after LSG. When RBS was performed after LAGB, mean weight at 2 years was 90.1 ± 20.7 kg and BMI was 32.5 ± 6.45 kg/m2. TWL for RBS performed after LSG was 12.7 ± 16.4% versus 25.5 ± 10.3% after LAGB (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RBS after LSG seems to lead to higher overall morbidity whereas RBS after LAGB lead to more perioperative issues.

Long-Term Matched Comparison of Primary and Revisional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Reports of long-term (> 5-15-year) outcomes assessing the safety and efficacy of primary revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are few.

METHODS

Retrospective long-term comparisons of primary (pLSG) and revisional (rLSG) procedures were matched for gender, age ± 5 years, and body mass index (BMI) ± 5 kg/m². Weight loss, associated medical condition status, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2006, and December 31, 2016, 194 matched patients with severe obesity (mean BMI 44.1 ± 6.7 kg/m²; age 44.2 ± 10.0 years, 67.0% female) underwent pLSG (n = 97) or rLSG (n = 97) and were followed for a mean 12.1 ± 1.5 vs 7.6 ± 2.1 years. Respective mean weight regain from nadir was 15.0 ± 14.4 kg vs 11.9 ± 12.2 kg. Respective percent mean total weight loss and excess weight loss were 20.9 ± 12.7% and 51.8 ± 33.1%, and 18.3 ± 12.8% and 43.4 ± 31.6% at last follow-up, with no significant difference between groups. Resolution of type 2 diabetes (HbA1_C < 6.5%, off medications) was 23.1% vs 11.1%; hypertension 36.0% vs 16.0%; and hyperlipidemia 37.1% vs 35.3%. Patients in the pLSG group were significantly more satisfied with LSG (59.8% vs 43.3%, p < 0.05) and more likely to choose the procedure again.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in long-term weight loss or associated medical condition outcomes in matched pLSG and rLSG patients.

A Comparison of One- and Two-Stage Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Using the BAROS Score

INTRODUCTION

Revision of a failed band can be done by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). It can be performed synchronously with band removal or during two separate procedures.

AIM

Comparing single- and two-staged LSG following a failed LAGB in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes, with an emphasis on postoperative quality of life.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study comparing revisional LSG's safety and efficacy after failed LAGB removal. Data included patients' medical files, as telephone interviews. We compared demographics, weight loss, complications, long-term outcomes, and quality-of-life measures, including the Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS).

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were enrolled, of which 68 (73.1%) underwent a single-stage revisional LSG. Of these, 40 were males (35.1%) with a mean age of 44.9 years (± 12.9). The two-staged group were older. The reasons for band removal differed between the groups: whereas in the two-stage surgery, the common causes were slippage (29.2%) or band intolerance (25%); in the single-stage group, it was weight gain (51%). There were no differences in short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

In selected cases, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revision of failed gastric banding in one stage is as safe as a two-stage procedure in terms of short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life. We believe that there is little benefit in performing elective surgery in two stages unless there are clinical indications. Exceptions for two-stage revision should include cases of band erosion and acute slippage with patient preference for band removal.

Long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after failed gastric band: a multicenter cross-matched cohort study

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is the bariatric procedure most likely subject to revisional surgery. Both laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) represent viable options, but the long-term results are still lacking. In 2014, we published the 2-year follow-up of our multicenter cohort of revisional LSG after failed LAGB. Evaluate the long-term follow-up (median 9.3 years) of the same cohort of patients. University and primary-care hospitals, Italy. We retrospectively examined a prospectively maintained database of the previously published multicenter cohort of 56 patients who underwent LSG after failed LAGB between 2008-2011. The control group included cross-matched non-revisional LSGs. The primary endpoint was weight loss, secondary endpoints co-morbidities, and the need for further bariatric surgery. The study group included 44 patients and the control group 56. We found %EWL 53% Vs. 67% (p = .021), %EBMIL (54 Vs. 68%, p = .018), %TWL (26 Vs. 34%, p = .002). We also found more severe GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) symptoms in the revisional than in the primary group (9.0 vs. 1.8% mild and 23.0 vs. 3.0% severe). Ten patients from the revisional group (22.7%) vs. eight in the primary group (13%) underwent further bariatric surgery (LRYGB). Our results showed less favorable weight loss in revisional than primary LSG after LABG, higher prevalence of GERD, and a more frequent need for further revisional surgery. Despite the study's limitations, the present data suggest that the long-term outcomes may offset the possible reduced short-term complication rate after revisional sleeve gastrectomy for a failed LABG.