Revisional Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery: What Dictates Its Indications?

Decision-making Considerations in Revisional Bariatric Surgery

OBJECTIVE

With drastic variations in bariatric practices, consensus is lacking on an optimal approach for revisional bariatric surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed and consolidated bariatric surgery literature to provide specific revision suggestions based on each index surgery, including adjustable gastric band (AGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve (SADI-S), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG).

RESULTS

AGB has the highest weight recurrence rate and can be converted to RYGB, SG, and BPD-DS. After index SG, common surgical options include a resleeve or RYGB. The RYGB roux limb can be distalized and pouch resized in context of reflux, and the entire anatomy can be revised into BPD-DS. Data analyzing revisional surgery after a single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve was limited. In patients with one anastomosis gastric bypass and vertical banded gastroplasty anatomy, most revisions were the conversion to RYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

As revisional bariatric surgery becomes more common, the best approach depends on the patient's indication for surgery and preexisting anatomy.

Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal bypass (SADI-S) as Primary or Two-Stage Surgery: Mid-Term Outcomes of a Single Canadian Bariatric Center

PURPOSE

Compare primary single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) and two-stage SADI after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in terms of weight loss, reduction/remission of comorbidities, and morbidity.

METHODS

Retrospective study including 179 patients treated laparoscopically between 2016 and 2020. A 50Fr bougie was used for the SG in the primary SADI-S (group 1) and 36/40Fr for the two-stage procedure (group 2). The duodeno-ileal anastomosis was performed at 250 cm from the ileocecal valve and at least 2 cm after the pylorus.

RESULTS

Mean age was 44.1 years old, and there were 148 women and 31 men. There were 67 (37.4%) patients in group 1 and 112 (62.6%) in group 2, with 67% completing the 4-year follow-up. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 51.1 kg/m2 and 44.6 kg/m2 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Preoperative comorbidities were obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia in 103 (57.5%), 93 (52%), 65 (36.3%), and 58 (32.4%) of cases. At 4 years postoperatively, excess weight loss (EWL) was 67.5% in group 1 and 67% in group 2 (p = 0.1005). Both groups had good comorbidity remission rates. Early postoperative morbidity rate was 10.4% in group 1 and 3.6% in group 2. In group1, there were mostly postoperative intra-abdominal hematomas managed conservatively (n = 4). Two revisional surgeries were needed for duodeno-ileal anastomosis leaks. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), daily diarrhea, vitamin, and protein levels were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both types of strategies are efficient at short and mid-term outcomes. Preoperative criteria will inform surgeon decision between a primary and a two-stage strategy.

The outcomes of Re-Redo bariatric surgery-results from multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

The increasing prevalence of bariatric surgery has resulted in a rise in the number of redo procedures as well. While redo bariatric surgery has demonstrated its effectiveness, there is still a subset of patients who may not derive any benefits from it. This poses a significant challenge for bariatric surgeons, especially when there is a lack of clear guidelines. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent Re-Redo bariatric surgery. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on a group of 799 patients who underwent redo bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2020. Among these patients, 20 individuals underwent a second elective redo bariatric surgery (Re-Redo) because of weight regain (15 patients) or insufficient weight loss, i.e. < 50% EWL (5 patients). Mean BMI before Re-Redo surgery was 38.8 ± 4.9 kg/m2. Mean age was 44.4 ± 11.5 years old. The mean %TWL before and after Re-Redo was 17.4 ± 12.4% and %EBMIL was 51.6 ± 35.9%. 13/20 patients (65%) achieved > 50% EWL. The mean final %TWL was 34.2 ± 11.1% and final %EBMIL was 72.1 ± 20.8%. The mean BMI after treatment was 31.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Complications occurred in 3 of 20 patients (15%), with no reported mortality or need for another surgical intervention. The mean follow-up after Re-Redo was 35.3 months. Although Re-Redo bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for obesity, it carries a significant risk of complications.

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.

2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

MAJOR UPDATES TO 1991 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is recommended for individuals with a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2, regardless of presence, absence, or severity of co-morbidities.MBS should be considered for individuals with metabolic disease and BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2.BMI thresholds should be adjusted in the Asian population such that a BMI >25 kg/m2 suggests clinical obesity, and individuals with BMI >27.5 kg/m2 should be offered MBS.Long-term results of MBS consistently demonstrate safety and efficacy.Appropriately selected children and adolescents should be considered for MBS.(Surg Obes Relat Dis 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2022.08.013 ) © 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO): Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

Major updates to 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines for bariatric surgery.

Analysis of the Factors Contributing to Bariatric Success After Laparoscopic Redo Bariatric Procedures: Results from Multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

INTRODUCTION

With continuously growing number of redo bariatric surgeries (RBS), it is necessary to look for factors determining success of redo-surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent RBS in 12 referral bariatric centers in Poland from 2010 to 2020. The study included 529 patients. The efficacy endpoints were percentage of excessive weight loss (%EWL) and remission of hypertension (HT) and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESULTS

Group 1: weight regain Two hundred thirty-eight of 352 patients (67.6%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in body mass index (BMI) pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure < 10.6 kg/m2 (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.43-3.80, p = 0.001) was independent factor contributing to bariatric success after RBS, i.e., > 50% EWL. Group 2: insufficient weight loss One hundred thirty of 177 patients (73.4%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in BMI pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.001) was independent factors lowering odds for bariatric success. Group 3: insufficient control of obesity-related diseases Forty-three of 87 patients (49.4%) achieved remission of hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) as RBS was independent factor contributing to bariatric success (OR 7.23, 95% CI: 1.67-31.33, p = 0.008), i.e., complete remission of HT and/or T2D.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is an effective method of treatment for obesity-related morbidity. Greater weight regain before RBS was minimizing odds for bariatric success in patients operated due to weight regain or insufficient weight loss. OAGB was associated with greater chance of complete remission of hypertension and/or diabetes.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease as an Indication of Revisional Bariatric Surgery-Indication and Results-a Systematic Review and Metanalysis

This systematic review evaluates the indications and results of revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was performed for articles published by April 1, 2021. After examining 722 papers involving 17,437 patients, 48 studies were included (n = 915 patients). RBS for GERD was mostly reported after sleeve gastrectomy (n = 796, 87%) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (n = 62, 6.8%) and was performed due to intractable GERD (71.6%), GERD and weight issues (16%), and biliary reflux (6.2%). Mean follow-up of the studies was 31.5 (3-84) months. Pooled estimation of a meta-analysis of studies reported 7% of GERD following primary surgery needing RBS, in which 99% of the patients experienced remission.

Development of consensus-derived quality indicators for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy operative reports

BACKGROUND

Synoptic operative reporting has been used as a solution to the poor quality of narrative reports. The aim of this study was to develop operative report quality indicators for the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and to generate parameters by which these reports can be evaluated and improved.

METHODS

A Delphi protocol was used to determine quality indicators for LSG. Bariatric surgeons across Canada were recruited along with key physician stakeholders to participate via a secure web-based platform. Transferrable consensus items for LSG from previously developed Roux-en-Y gastric bypass operative indictors were put forward for consideration. Participants also initially submitted potential QIs. These were grouped by theme. Items were rated on 5-point Likert scales in subsequent rounds. Scores of 70% or higher were used for inclusion and 30% or less denoted exclusion. Elements scoring 30% to 70% agreement were recirculated by runoff in subsequent rounds to generate the final list of quality indicators.

RESULTS

Seven bariatric surgeons, representing all regions preforming LSG in Canada, were invited to participate in the Delphi group. Multidisciplinary invitees included one academic minimally invasive/acute care surgeon, one tertiary abdominal radiologist, and one academic gastroenterologist with bariatric expertise. Two rounds were required to achieve consensus. Both rounds achieved a 100% response (10/10). In round 1, forty items reached consensus. In Round 2, an additional 28 items reached consensus, with three items excluded, bringing the total number of quality indicators to 65.

CONCLUSION

This study establishes consensus-derived multidisciplinary quality indicators for LSG operative reports. Application of these findings aims to advance the quality and completeness of operative reporting in LSG in order to improve communication of important surgical details and quality measures to the multidisciplinary team involved in bariatric surgery care.

Racial disparities in bariatric perioperative outcomes among the elderly

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery outcomes in elderly patients have been shown to be safe, but with a higher rate of adverse outcomes compared with nonelderly patients. The impact of race on bariatric surgery outcomes continues to be explored, with recent studies showing higher rates of adverse outcomes in black patients. Perioperative outcomes in racial cohorts of elderly bariatric patients are largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare outcomes between elderly non-Hispanic black (NHB) and non-Hispanic white (NHW) bariatric surgery patients to determine whether outcomes are mediated by race.

SETTING

Academic hospital.

METHODS

Patients who had a primary Roux-en-Y (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in the period 2015-2018 and were at least 65 years of age were identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data File (MBSAQIP PUF). Selected cases were stratified by race. Outcomes were compared between matched racial cohorts. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine whether race independently predicted morbidity.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2018, 29,394 elderly NHW (90.8%) and NHB (9.2%) patients underwent an RYGB or SG. At baseline, NHB elderly patients had a higher burden of co-morbid conditions, resulting in higher rates of overall (7.7% versus 6.4%, P = .009) and bariatric-related (5.4% versus 4.1%, P = .001) morbidity. All outcome measures were similar between propensity-score-matched racial elderly bariatric patient cohorts. On regression analysis, NHB race remained independently correlated with morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% CI 1.08-1.47, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

RYGB and SG are safe in elderly patient cohorts, with no differences in adverse outcomes between NHB and NHW patients, accounting for confounding factors. While race does not appear to impact outcomes in the elderly cohorts, NHB race may play a role in access.

The Panoramic View of Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Introduction: Obesity remains a major public chronic disease, and the multifactorial components of its relapse in many patients remain inevitable. Methods: This article provides a panoramic view of the most commonly performed revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). RBS is a complex procedure; thus, primary procedures should be well chosen and performed to avoid the increasing number of RBS cases. Results: Bariatric surgery is the only successful long-term treatment for obesity. However, a proportion of primary bariatric surgeries has failed during the follow-up period. In recent decades, the solution for these complications is by performing RBS. It is mandatory to understand obesity as a chronic disease to appropriately treat patients. Treatment strategies are needed to determine the indications for revision. RBS requires a meticulous evaluation to facilitate good long-term results. Conclusions: Treatment strategies will be a fundamental pillar to wisely determine the indications for revision and identify the factors influencing failure by prudently and rationally evaluating the revisional procedure that the patient will benefit from and acquiring a high level of surgical skills.

A Spanish Society joint SECO and SEEDO approach to the Post-operative management of the patients undergoing surgery for obesity

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery is the method of choice for the management or treatment of obesity. Bariatric surgery brings about several physiological changes in the body and is associated with set of complications. The aim of this study is to provide guidelines on post bariatric surgery management based on consensus by the Spanish society for Obesity Surgery (Sociedad Española de Cirugía de la Obesidad) (SECO) and the Spanish Society for the Study of Obesity (Sociedad Española para el Estudio de la Obesidad) (SEEDO).

METHOD

The boards proposed seven experts from each society. The experts provided the evidence and a grade of recommendation on the selected topics based on systematic reviews/meta-analysis. A list of clinical practical recommendations levels of evidence and grades of these recommendations was derived from the consensus statements from the members of these societies.

RESULTS

Seventeen topics related to post-operative management were reviewed after bariatric surgery. The experts came with 47 recommendations and statements. The mean number of persons voting at each statement was 54 (range 36-76).

CONCLUSION

In this consensus, we have designed a set of guidelines to be followed while managing patients after bariatric surgery. Expertise and knowledge of the clinicians are required to convey suitable considerations to the post-bariatric patients. There should also be extensive follow-up plans for the bariatric surgery patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

30-Day Outcomes of Revisional Bariatric Stapling Procedures: First Report Based on MBSAQIP Data Registry

INTRODUCTION

The number of bariatric revisional cases has nearly doubled since 2011, and now comprises 13.6% of the total number of cases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and safety of the two most common stapling revisional procedures, namely, sleeve and gastric bypass in comparison to primary stapling procedures using the MBSAQIP data registry.

METHODS

We reviewed all the sleeve and gastric bypass cases entered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, in the MBSAQIP data registry. We, then, identified sleeve and bypass patients who have had a previous bariatric procedure. Demographics and 30 day outcomes of all sleeve and gastric bypass patients were analyzed. We conducted within group comparisons comparing primary sleeve gastrectomy (PS) and primary gastric bypass (PB) patients to revisional sleeve (RS) and revisional gastric bypass (RB) patients, respectively. We, then, conducted group comparisons comparing RS to RB patients.

RESULTS

The total number of patients analyzed was 141,577 (98,292 or 69% sleeve patients and 43,285 or 31% gastric bypass patients). Among the sleeve patients, 92,666 (94%) had a PS and 5626 (6%) had RS. Among the bypass patients, 39,567 (91%) had a PB and 3718 patients (9%) had RB. 30-day readmission rate of RS was significantly higher as compared to PS (4.1 vs 0.4%, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention within 30 days following RS was twice as high as compared to PS (1.9 and 2% for RS vs 0.9 and 1.1% for PS respectively, p < 0.05). Length of stay and 30 day mortality rates for PS and RS were the same. 30-day readmission rate of RB as compared to PB was 8.3 vs 6.3% (p < 0.05). Also, the incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention following RB was 3.9 and 4%, respectively vs 2.4 and 2.7% for PB (p < 0.05). In addition, readmission rates and unplanned admission rates to the ICU were significantly higher for RB compared to RS (8.3 and 2% for RB vs 4.1 and 0.9% for RS respectively, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one reoperation or one intervention following RB were also significantly higher compared to RS (3.9 vs 1.9% and 4 vs 2% respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Revisional stapling procedures are safe but the rates of complications following RS and RB are twice as high compared to PS and PB. Also, RB are more likely to develop complications compared to RS.

Technical Options for Malabsorption Issues After Single Anastomosis Duodenoileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic single anastomosis duodenoileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) is a recently developed one- or two-stage operation based on biliopancreatic diversion that is used to treat morbid obesity. Some midterm outcomes suggest that malabsorption is a possible complication following the procedure. Therefore, conversion to a less malabsorptive procedure may be required. We aim to describe and analyze the outcomes after laparoscopic conversion of SADI-S to non-malabsorptive or less malabsorptive procedures.

METHODS

From January 2015 to April 2017, five patients underwent laparoscopic conversion to single anastomosis duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADJ-S) (video) following SADI-S, and one female patient underwent laparoscopic conversion to gastric bypass (GBP) following SADI-S, after presenting with severe protein-calorie malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies, poor quality of life, or increased number of bowel movements.

RESULTS

Mean preoperative BMI was 24.0 kg/m² (20.4-27.5 kg/m²). Four patients underwent SADI-S to SADJ-S conversions and one underwent a SADI-S to Roux-en-Y duodenojejunal bypass. All cases were performed laparoscopically. No relevant postoperative complications or mortality was reported and the mean hospital stay was 4.6 days. Malabsorptive symptoms resolved in all patients. All patients experienced weight regain. Mean BMI increase was 7.1 kg/m² (5-10.8 kg/m²).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of laparoscopic conversion to SADJ-S or GBP after SADI-S were acceptable, showing clinical improvement of malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies, and quality of life in all cases. Weight regain must be advised. These techniques appear feasible and free of severe long-term complications. Further investigation is warranted to understand the best common channel length for patients undergoing SADI-S.

Weight regain following RYGB can be effectively treated using a combination of endoscopic suturing and sclerotherapy

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a leading cause of morbidity and healthcare utilization. At the moment, the best treatment for obesity has shown to be laparoscopic gastric bypass. However, about a quarter of the patients experience substantial weight regain, which is difficult to treat, as revision surgery has higher risks than primary procedures. Endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic suturing, are effective, safe and less invasive in addressing weight regain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis on 22 consecutive patients operated between 2011 and 2013 who had a significant weight regain after RYGB (mean follow-up 22 months), in order to evaluate the long-term outcomes of endoscopic gastro-jejunal revision after weight regain post-bypass surgery. Mucosal ablation around the anastomosis was performed in all patients, and the endoscopic suturing device was used to perform suture stoma reduction. We also evaluated, in a group of 11 patients, the effect of combining sclerotherapy and endoscopic suturing.

RESULTS

We showed good efficacy of the endoluminal procedure, with 100 % of patients achieving weight loss. Maximum weight loss was noted at a mean of 18-month follow-up (average of 60.3 % excess weight loss; n = 19), while the mean weight loss regained percentage was 5 % ± 39. 4/22 patients (all four in non-sclerotherapy group, all of them had an anastomosis >10 mm) regained some of this lost weight by the time of the longest follow-up. There was an actual correlation between final stoma diameter (<10 mm) and weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

A larger randomized sample of patients with a longer follow-up would be needed to support the effectiveness of the combination of the two therapies. Although almost 20 % of the patients regained weight during the follow-up period, the endoluminal approach offers the advantage of being repeatable after weight regain without adding morbidity risks.