Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch or gastric bypass for failed gastric banding: retrospective study from two institutions with preliminary results

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.

A case of laparoscopic revision surgery 30 years after vertical banded gastroplasty for morbid obesity

As the number of bariatric and metabolic surgeries being performed is increasing, the importance of revision surgeries is escalating. In this report, we describe a case of revision surgery performed 30 years after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), including a review of the surgical techniques. The patient was a male in his 50s who had previously undergone VBG for morbid obesity (body mass index of 72.6 kg/m2 ), resulting in gradual weight loss. Twenty-eight years later, reflux symptoms due to stenosis of the mesh area developed. Despite conservative treatment, the symptoms recurred, and aspiration pneumonia developed. Gastrojejunal and Y-anastomoses were performed laparoscopically. Postoperatively, the patient progressed well with no weight regain. In revision surgery, it is essential to accurately assess the patient's pathophysiology, as the surgical technique must consider improvement in symptoms, risk of weight regain, and the need for observation of the residual stomach.

Postoperative morbidity and weight loss after revisional bariatric surgery for primary failed restrictive procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

revisional bariatric surgery is gaining increasing interest as long term follow-up studies demonstrate an elevated failure rate of primary surgery due to insufficient weight loss, weight regain or complications. This particularly concerns restrictive bariatric surgery which has been widely adopted from the '80s till present through different procedures, notably vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to define which revisional bariatric procedure performs the best after failure of primary restrictive surgery.

METHODS

a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 39 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol.

RESULTS

biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch guarantees the best results in terms of weight loss (1 and 3-years %TWL MD: 12.38 and 28.42) followed by single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (9.24 and 19.13), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (7.16 and 13.1), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (4.68 and 7.3) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy. Duodenal switch and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are associated to an increased risk of late major morbidity (OR: 3.07 and 2.11 respectively) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy while no significant difference was highlighted for the other procedures. Re-sleeve gastrectomy is the revisional intervention most frequently burdened by weight recidivism; compared to it, patients undergoing single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass have the lowest risk of weight regain (OR: 0.07).

CONCLUSION

considering the analyzed outcomes altogether, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass are the most performing revisional procedures after failure of restrictive surgery due to satisfying short and mid-term weight loss and low early and late morbidity. Moreover, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass has low risk of weight recidivism.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Recent data demonstrates that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is found to be associated with high rates of weight loss failure and long-term complications. Therefore, the search for the optimal revisional bariatric procedure is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of converting a failed LAGB to laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a revisional procedure.

SETTING

Large, metropolitan, tertiary, university hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent OAGB after LAGB.Demographics, comorbidities, BMI before and after the procedure, complications, and length of stay were documented.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients underwent OAGB after LAGB. For 41 patients, the band was removed, and an OAGB was performed in a single procedure (71.9%), and 96.5% of the cases were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (15.7%), including one mortality. Average BMI decreased from 42.8 ± 7.0 to 31.3 ± 5.2 kg/m² at least 1 year after surgery, representing a mean %EWL of 64.5%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the 1-stage and 2-stage approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of a failed LAGB to OAGB is effective but carries higher complication rates. Randomized controlled studies comparing different procedures are necessary to further clarify the optimal revisional bariatric operation.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

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

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m², p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m² (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach.

Single- or double-anastomosis duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a revisional procedure for sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedure worldwide. There is currently no consensus on which revisional procedure is best after an initial SG.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety between single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure for SG.

SETTING

University Hospital, Canada.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed were searched up to August 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared SADI or BPD-DS with RYGB as a revisional bariatric procedure for SG. Primary outcome was absolute percentage of total weight loss. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, adverse events, and improvement or resolution of co-morbidities (diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia). Pooled mean differences were calculated using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six retrospective cohort studies involving 377 patients met the inclusion criteria. The SADI/BPD-DS group achieved a significantly higher percentage of total weight loss compared with RYGB by 10.22% (95% confidence interval, -17.46 to -2.97; P = .006). However, there was significant baseline equivalence bias with 4 studies reporting higher initial body mass index (BMI) in the SADI/BPD-DS group. There were no significant differences in length of stay, adverse events, or improvement of co-morbidities between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

SADI, BPD-DS, and RYGB are safe and efficacious revisional surgeries for SG. Both SADI and RYGB are efficacious in lowering initial BMI but there is more evidence for excellent weight loss outcomes with the conversion to BPD-DS when the starting BMI is high. Further randomized trials are required for definitive conclusions.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one anastomosis gastric bypass as rescue therapy after failed adjustable gastric banding: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

To date, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding remains the third most commonly performed surgical procedure for weight loss. Some patients fail to get acceptable outcomes and undergo revisional surgery at rates ranging from 7% to 60%. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are among the most common salvage options for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to RYGB, OAGB, or SG.

METHODS

Data collected from 7 experienced bariatric centers around the world were retrospectively collected, reviewed, and analyzed. Final body mass index (BMI), change in BMI, percentage excess BMI loss, and major complications with particular attention to leaks, hemorrhage, and mortality were reported.

RESULTS

Of 1219 patients analyzed, 74% underwent RYGB, 16% underwent OAGB, and 10% underwent SG after banding failure. The mean age was 38 years (±10 yr), and 82% of patients were women. The mean follow-up was 33 months. The follow-up rate was 100%, 87%, and 52% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. At the latest follow-up, percentage excess BMI loss >50% was achieved by 75% of RYGB, 85% of OAGB, and 67% of SG patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 13% of patients after RYGB, 5% after OAGB, and 15% after SG.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that it is possible to achieve or maintain significant weight loss with an acceptable complication rate with all 3 surgical options.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Outcomes of a case-matched comparison of primary versus revisional surgery

Introduction:

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are popular bariatric procedures. Certain complications may necessitate revision. Adverse outcomes are reported after revisional bariatric surgery. We compared patients undergoing revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

Materials and Methods

This was retrospective comparative 1:1 case-matched analysis of revisional LRYGB Group A versus primary LRYGB (pLRYGB/Group B). Matching was based on body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities. BMI decrease at 6 and 12 months post-surgery, comorbidity resolution, operative time, morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. Total decrease in BMI, i.e., change from before initial bariatric procedure to 12 months after revision for Group A was also compared.

Results:

Median BMI (inter-quartile range) for Group A decreased to 44.74 (7.09) and 41.49 (6.26) at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for Group B corresponding figures were 38.74 (6.9) and 33.79 (6.64) (P = 0.001 and P = 0.0001, respectively). Total decrease in BMI (Group A) was 9.8, whereas BMI decrease at 12 months for Group B was 15.2 (P = 0.23). Hypertension resolved in 63% (Group A), 70% (Group B) (P = 0.6). Diabetes resolution was 80% (Group A), 63% (Group B) (P = 0.8). Operative time for Groups A, B was 151 ± 17, 137 ± 11 min, respectively (P = 0.004). There was no difference in morbidity and LOS.

Conclusion:

Comorbidity resolution after revisional and pLRYGB are similar. Less weight loss is achieved after revision than after pLRYGB, but total weight loss is comparable. Revisional surgery is safe when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centres.

Revision of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Weight Regain: a Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Weight regain has led to an increase in revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries. There is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. We performed an exhaustive literature search to elucidate surgical revision options. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes and complications of various methods of revision after RYGB to identify the option with the best outcomes for failed primary RYGB.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted using the following search tools and databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Cochrane Review Database, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine to identify all relevant studies describing revision after failed RYGB. Inclusion criteria comprised of revisional surgery for weight gain after RYGB.

RESULTS

Of the 1200 articles found, only 799 were selected for our study. Of the 799, 24 studies, with a total of 866 patients, were included for a systematic review. Of the 24 studies, 5 were conversion to Distal Roux-en-y gastric bypass (DRYGB), 5 were revision of gastric pouch and anastomosis, 6 were revision with gastric band, 2 were revision to biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and 6 were revision to endoluminal procedures (i.e., stomaphyx). Mean percent excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) after revision up to 1 and 3-year follow-up for BPD/DS was 63.7 and 76 %, DRYGB was 54 and 52.2 %, gastric banding revision 47.6 and 47.3 %, gastric pouch/anastomosis revision 43.3 and 14 %, and endoluminal procedures at 32.1 %, respectively. Gastric pouch/anastomosis revision resulted in the lowest major complication rate at 3.5 % and DRYGB with the highest at 11.9 % when compared to the other revisional procedures. The mortality rate was 0.6 % which only occurred in the DRYGB group.

CONCLUSION

All 866 patients in the 24 studies reported significant early initial weight loss after revision for failed RYGB. However, of the five surgical revision options considered, BPD/DS, DRYGB, and gastric banding resulted in sustained weight loss, with acceptable complication rate.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric procedures are increasingly common. With more primary procedures being performed to manage severe obesity and its complications, 5% to 8% of these procedures will fail, requiring revisional operation. Reasons for revisional bariatric surgery are either primary inadequate weight loss, defined as less than 25% excess body weight loss, or weight recidivism, defined as a gain of more than 10 kg based on the nadir weight; however, each procedure also has inherit specific complications that can also be indications for revision. This article reviews the history of each primary bariatric procedure, indications for revision, surgical options, and subsequent outcomes.

Revisional bariatric surgery following failed primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review

Revisional bariatric surgery following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) failure presents a clinical challenge for the bariatric surgeon. Limited evidence exists in selecting the appropriate revisional operation: laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB), laparoscopic re-sleeve gastrectomy (LRSG), or other surgical intervention (OSI), to address weight regain. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the efficacy of existing revisional surgery. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) was completed. All randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparison study, and case series were included. Eleven primary studies (218 patients) were identified and included in the systematic review. Studies were grouped into three main categories: LGB, LRSG, and OSI. Preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 41.9 kg/m(2) (LGB), 38.5 kg/m(2) (LRSG), and 44.4 kg/m(2) (OSI). After conversion to LGB, BMI decreased to 33.7 and 35.7 kg/m(2) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) was 60 and 48 % over the same periods. After LRSG, BMI decreased to 30.4 and 35.3 kg/m(2) with corresponding EWL of 68 and 44 %, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. After OSI, BMI decreased to 27.3 kg/m(2) with an EWL of 75 % at 24-month follow-up but could not be analyzed due to incomplete data collection in primary studies. Both LGB and LRSG achieve effective weight loss following failed LSG. The less technically challenging nature of LRSG may be more widely applicable. Further research is required to elicit sustainability in long-term weight loss benefits.

Sustained weight loss after gastric banding revision for pouch-related problems

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) on weight loss at 12 and 24 months.

BACKGROUND

There is no uniform consensus as to the optimal procedure for patients requiring revision after LAGB. Few studies address the issue of weight loss after band salvage procedures, despite this being a critical factor in deciding which reoperative procedure to choose.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of adult patients who underwent LAGB from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2009 at a single institution. Patients who required revision for pouch-related problems including band slippage, pouch dilation, and hiatal hernia were studied. Demographic data, body mass index (BMI), percentage excess weight loss (% EWL), and operative details were recorded. Weights were recorded at 12 and 24 months after revision. These were compared with initial weight, weight before revision, and weight in patients who did not have a reoperation.

RESULTS

Of 3876 patients, 390 patients were included in analysis of weight outcomes after revision. The procedure-related mortality was 0%. Early (30-day) complications occurred in 0.5%, late complications (erosion) in 0.5%, and 29 patients (7.4%) required a second revision. For patients undergoing revision, the initial weight was 124.06 ± 21.28 kg and BMI was 44.80 ± 6.12 kg/m. At reoperation, weight was 89.18 ± 20.51 kg, BMI was 32.25 ± 6.50 kg/m and, %EWL was 54.13 ± 21.80%. Twelve months postrevision, weight was 92.24 ± 20.22 kg, BMI was 33.32 ± 6.41 kg/m, and %EWL was 48.81 ± 22.71%. Weight was 92.42 ± 19.91 kg, BMI was 33.53 ± 6.25 kg/m, and %EWL was 47.50 ± 22.91% twenty-four months postrevision.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation for pouch-related problems after LAGB is safe and effective. Weight loss is maintained after reoperation.

Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force

BACKGROUND

Reoperative bariatric surgery has become a common practice in many bariatric surgery programs. There is currently little evidence-based guidance regarding specific indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery. A task force was convened to review the current evidence regarding reoperative bariatric surgery. The aim of the review was to identify procedure-specific indications and outcomes for reoperative procedures.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting indications for and outcomes after reoperative bariatric surgery. Specifically, operations to treat complications, failed weight loss, and weight regain were evaluated. Abstract and manuscript reviews were completed by the task force members to identify, grade, and categorize relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 819 articles were identified in the initial search. After review for inclusion criteria and data quality, 175 articles were included in the systematic review and analysis. The majority of published studies are single center retrospective reviews. The evidence supporting reoperative surgery for acute and chronic complications is described. The evidence regarding reoperative surgery for failed weight loss and weight regain generally demonstrates improved weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after reintervention. Procedure-specific outcomes are described. Complication rates are generally reported to be higher after reoperative surgery compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSION

The indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery are procedure-specific but the current evidence does support additional treatment for persistent obesity, co-morbid disease, and complications.

Biliopancreatic diversion requires multiple vitamin and micronutrient adjustments within 2 years of surgery

BACKGROUND

Malabsorptive bariatric procedures require multiple vitamin supplements, especially regarding fat-soluble vitamins. The exact amount required to maintain normal serum concentrations is still largely unknown. Based on the initial postoperative prescription, we assessed the number of adjustments and the amount of vitamins/micronutrients to normalize the biological markers 2 years after the biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS).

METHODS

A total of 112 consecutive patients had a laparoscopic BPD/DS between February 2007 and November 2010 for a body mass index of 53.1±5.9 kg/m² at a private hospital. Complete blood checks with vitamin status were obtained at each of the 3-month interval visits during the 1(st) postoperative year as well as twice during the 2(nd) year.

RESULTS

Initially, all of the patients were prescribed daily 25,000 International units (IU) of vitamin A, 1000 mg of calcium, multivitamins, and 1900 IU of vitamin D3. Significant adjustments were necessary 3.6±1.1 times during this period. A total of 80% of the patients required added vitamin A, vitamin D, as well as calcium, zinc, and iron. After 2 years,≥20% of patients exhibited vitamin A and iron deficiency with low prealbumin or micropenic anemia. Seventy percent had vitamin D deficiency and 50% secondary hyperparathyroidism.

CONCLUSION

The initial prescription was insufficient to cover the requirements after BPD/DS. At least 3000 mg of calcium with 7000 IU of vitamin D, 50,000 IU of vitamin A, 40 mg of zinc, and 200 mg of iron must be prescribed to start with. The trend toward a decrease in 25 OH vitamin D and hyperparathyroidism remains difficult to control although it can result from increased bone turnover during the early postoperative period.

Outcomes after laparoscopic conversion of failed adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a high incidence of long-term complications and failures. The best procedure to handle these failures and the optimal number of stages in such cases is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the results of conversions of LAGB to either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Ygastric bypass (LRYGB) in failed LAGB using a single-stage approach.

Methods

All patients who underwent conversion from LAGB to either LRYGB or LSG between January 2005 and March 2012 were included in the study. Early and late complications were reviewed. The percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) between the two groups was compared at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months of follow-up.

Results

Fifty-nine patients, 11 men and 48 women, were included in the study. The most frequent indication was insufficient weight loss or weight regain (non-responders group), in 44 patients (75 per cent); 15 patients had a revision for complicated LAGB. The early complication rate in the non-responders group was 7 per cent (3 of 44 patients), compared with 13 per cent (2 of 15) in the complicated LAGB group. Mean(s.d.) %EWL in the non-responders group was 55(22) per cent in patients converted to LRYGB and 28(25) in those converted to LSG (P = 0·001).

Conclusion

LRYGB and LSG are both safe and feasible options for failed or complicated LAGB. In the non-responders group, %EWL was superior for conversion to LRYGB. The surgical morbidity rate was highest in patients having revision for band complications.

Laparoscopic removal of poor outcome gastric banding with concomitant sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a significant incidence of long-term failure, which may require an alternative revisional bariatric procedure to remediate. Unfortunately, there is few data pinpointing which specific revisional procedure most effectively addresses failed gastric banding. Recently, it has been observed that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a promising primary bariatric procedure; however, its use as a revisional procedure has been limited. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSG performed concomitantly with removal of a poor-outcome LAGB.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent LAGB removal with concomitant LSG at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia between September 2007 and April 2012. Patient body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), duration of operation, length of hospital stay, complications after LSG, and indications for revisional surgery were all reviewed and compared to those of patients who underwent LSG as a primary procedure.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients (70 % female) underwent conversion of LAGB to LSG concomitantly, and 128 (66 % female) patients underwent primary LSG surgery. The revisional and primary LSG patients had similar preoperative ages (mean age 33.5 ± 10.7 vs. 33.6 ± 9.0 years, respectively; p = 0.43). However, revisional patients had a significantly lower BMI at the time of surgery (44.4 ± 7.0 kg/m(2) vs. 47.9 ± 8.2; p < 0.01). Absolute BMI postoperative reduction at 24 months was 14.33 points in the revision group and 18.98 points in the primary LSG group; similar %EWL was achieved by both groups at 24 months postoperatively (80.1 vs. 84.6 %). Complications appeared in two (5.5 %) revisional patients and in nine (7.0 %) primary LSG patients. No mortalities occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of LAGB by means of concomitant LSG is a safe and efficient procedure and achieves similar outcomes as primary LSG surgery alone.

Revisional versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been a widely performed bariatric procedure. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30% of cases. Data comparing revisional and primary gastric bypass procedures are scarce. This study compared revisional malabsorptive laparoscopic very very long limb (VVLL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with primary VVLL RYGB and tested the hypothesis that one-stage revisional laparoscopic VVLL RYGB is an effective procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In this study, 48 revisional VVLL RYGBs were matched one-to-one with 48 primary VVLL RYGBs. The outcome measures were operating time, conversion to open surgery, excess weight loss (EWL), and early and late morbidity.

RESULTS

Surgical and medical morbidities did not differ significantly. No conversions occurred. The revisional group showed an EWL of 41.8% after 12 months of follow-up evaluation and 45.1% after 24 months based on the pre-revisional weight. The total EWL based on the weight before the LAGB was calculated to be 54.3% after 12 months and 57.2% after 24 months. The EWL in the primary RYGB group was significantly higher for both types of calculation: 41.8%/54.3% versus 64.1 % (p < 0.001 and <0.01) after 12 months and 45.1%/57.2% versus 70.4% (p < 0.001 and <0.002) after 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional laproscopic VVLL RYGB can be performed as a one-stage procedure by experienced bariatric surgeons but shows less effective EWL than primary RYGB procedures.

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass as revisional bariatric procedures: retrospective evaluation of outcomes

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.

Perioperative morbi-mortality associated with bariatric surgery: from systematic biliopancreatic diversion to a tailored laparoscopic gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy approach

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of the different bariatric surgical procedures currently available depend, partly, on the characteristics of the populations under study, the technical approach, the expertise of surgical teams, and on institutional factors. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these procedures, we compared the surgical results for biliopancreatic diversion surgery versus laparoscopic gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomies performed in our institution.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of 296 patients undergoing bariatric surgery from January 2005 through October 2010. We analyzed mortality rate, cardiocirculatory and pulmonary perioperative complications, duration of surgery, intensive care unit admissions, and length of stay. We describe the changes in the choice of the surgical procedures throughout the study period.

RESULTS

We observed a rate of pulmonary complications of 2.3 % and a mortality rate 3 months after discharge of 2.36 % with sepsis secondary to anastomotic leak as the main cause of death. Biliopancreatic diversion surgery was associated with higher mortality rates (p value = 0.014) and longer hospital stay (median of 9 versus 6 days for laparoscopic gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy, p value <0.001). Body mass index ≥ 50 was also related to higher mortality (p value = 0.023). We confirmed a progressive increase in laparoscopic restrictive and mixed techniques in our institution (from 0 % in 2005 to 87 % of all procedures in 2010).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery in our institution has dramatically shifted from systematic biliopancreatic diversion to a tailored laparoscopic gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy approach, which has made it possible to reduce hospital stay and mortality rates.

Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has emerged as one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30 % of cases. Several revisional strategies have been proposed, but there is no consensus regarding the best surgical option. This systematic review was designed to determine which revisional surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch) is best suited to enhance weight loss following failed LAGB due to complications or inadequate weight loss.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched using the most comprehensive timeline for each database. A total of 24 relevant articles were identified. Two investigators independently extracted data, and differences were resolved by consensus. The weighted means were calculated for weight loss measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 106, 514, and 71 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPDDS), respectively. Before revisional surgery, the weighted mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.8 (6.9), 43.3 (8.1), and 41.3 (7.2) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The majority of data was reported at 12-24 months follow-up. The mean BMI within this interval was 28 (10.5), 32.2 (6.4), and 33 (5.7) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. In addition, the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 22 % (2.8), 57.8 % (11.7), 47.1 % (14) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The EWL reached 78.4 % (35) in the BPPDS group after 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Failed LAGB is best managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure. Stable weight loss occurs with salvage LRYGB. Although results for revisional BPPDS appear promising, additional research, with higher methodological quality, is needed.

Usefulness of acarbose and dietary modifications to limit glycemic variability following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring

BACKGROUND

About 70% of the patients operated on for a gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB]) suffer from dumping syndrome. In these patients, previous studies have demonstrated a high glycemic variability with hypoglycemia and with altered continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) profiles. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with dietary counseling plus acarbose administration on the symptoms and on the characteristics of the CGM profile.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eight consecutive patients with dumping syndrome were given dietary counseling for 6 weeks and also treated with acarbose (50-100 mg three times a day). Their symptoms and the features of the CGM were compared before and after treatment.

RESULTS

The symptoms disappeared in seven patients. There was a significant increase in the time to the interstitial glucose (IG) peak and a reduction in the rate of the IG increase after a meal and in the rate of the IG decrease following the peak. The time below 60 mg/dL was significantly decreased, and the minimal IG value was significantly increased. The maximum and mean IG levels and the time above 140 mg/dL were decreased, but not significantly. Six patients spent more than 1% of the time with IG values below 60 mg/dL before treatment, but after treatment this was reduced to one patient. Before treatment only one patient had an IG level neither below 60 or above 140 mg/dL, and after treatment four patients were in this category.

CONCLUSIONS

Dietary counseling and acarbose treatment eliminated the symptoms and improved the CGM profile of patients suffering from dumping syndrome after RYGB.

Case-matched analysis comparing outcomes of revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most common approaches used to revise post-bariatric patients with inadequate weight loss or significant weight regain. Previous studies have analyzed the outcomes of open revisional RYGB versus primary RYGB, but no case-control matched analysis comparing revisional LRYGB versus primary LRYGB has been performed.

METHODS

Our cohort includes 37 consecutive patients who underwent revisional LRYGB because of unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain matched in a 1:2 ratio with 74 control patients who underwent primary LRYGB. Matching included the following parameters: age, gender, preoperative body mass index and comorbidities (diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and hypertension).

RESULTS

The revisional group had longer length of stay compared with the primary group (3.8 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.02) and a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (10.8 vs. 0 %, P = 0.01). The revisional group had a higher 30-day morbidity compared with the primary group (27 vs. 8.1 %, P = 0.02). There were no deaths in both groups. The two groups had similar 30-day readmission and 30 day reoperation rates. At 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the revisional LRYGB group had significantly lower percent of excess weight loss (EWL) than the primary LRYGB group (3 months, 30 vs. 38.4, P = 0.001; 6 months, 36.3 vs. 52.9, P = 0.001; 12 months, 46.5 vs. 68.2, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LRYGB is characterized by lower EWL and higher morbidity than primary LRYGB. However, our data suggest that revisional LRYGB is still capable of providing significant weight loss in these high-risk patients.

Effect of primary versus revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: inferior weight loss of revisional surgery after gastric banding

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a popular and effective restrictive bariatric procedure. However, with longer follow-up, it has become clear that a considerable number of patients require revisional surgery, of which Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed procedure. Studies that compared the outcomes of primary RYGB and revisional RYGB have not been conclusive. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in the 1-year outcomes between primary RYGB (prim-RYGB) and revisional RYGB after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (rev-RYGB) at a major training hospital in The Netherlands.

METHODS

All prim-RYGB and rev-RYGB procedures performed from 2007 to 2009 were analyzed. Data were collected regarding weight loss, hospitalization, operative time, postoperative complications, and co-morbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 292 RYGB procedures were performed: 66 rev-RYGB and 226 prim-RYGB procedures. The operative time was significantly shorter in the prim-RYGB group (136.6±37.5 versus 167.5±40.6 min; P<.0001). No significant differences were found in hospitalization time (4.4±1.7 versus 4.9±2.4 d; P= .063) or complication rate (14.7% versus 15.2%; P=.962). No deaths occurred in either group. The number of patients with resolved diabetes and hypertension did not differ between the 2 groups (50.1% versus 23.1%; P=.116; and 40.7% versus 25.0%; P=.384, respectively). Weight loss was significantly greater in the prim-RYGB group in terms of excess weight loss (71.6%±20.8% versus 48.4%±26.8%; P<.0001), body mass index reduction (13.0±3.8 versus 10.2±5.6 kg/m(2); P<.0001), absolute weight loss (37.4±11.5 versus 29.3±17.2 kg; P=.001), and percentage of weight loss (29.7%±8% versus 21.7%±11.5%; P<.0001).

CONCLUSION

rev-RYGB is a safe procedure with outcomes similar to those of prim-RYGB in terms of complication rate, hospitalization time, and effect on co-morbidity. Weight loss, however, was significantly less after rev-RYGB than after prim-RYGB.

Indications, safety, and feasibility of conversion of failed bariatric surgery to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective comparative study with primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered the "gold standard" revision procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of primary laparoscopic RYGB (pLRYGB) to revisional open or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (rRYGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent pLRYGB or rRYGB from January 2003 to December 2009 has been performed. Demographics, indications for revision, and complications have been reviewed. The rRYGB and pLRYGB patients have been compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients underwent rRYGB, and 652 patients underwent pLRYGB. Mean follow-up was 35 and 45 months, respectively. Fifty-six rRYGB procedures were performed laparoscopically. The primary operations had consisted of laparoscopic gastric banding (n = 28), laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 19), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (n = 6), laparoscopic RYGB (n = 3), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (n = 16). Indications included weight regain (n = 29), malabsorption (n = 16), gastrogastric fistula (n = 5), band-associated problems (n = 3), and refractory stomal ulceration (n = 1). There was no significant difference in early or late postoperative complications when comparing rRYGB to pLRYGBP patients (11.1% vs. 5.52%, P = 0.069 and 19.4% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.465 respectively). Five rRYGB patients (7.04%) required reintervention (3 internal hernias, 1 ventral hernia, 1 laparoscopic exploration) compared with 101 pLRYGB patients (15.71%; P = 0.051). None of the patients died. Mean hospital stay was not significantly longer in the rRYGB group (5.38 vs. 4.95 days, P = 0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality of rRYGB were not significantly higher compared with pLRYGB. Furthermore, we believe that this type of revisional bariatric surgery should be performed in high-volume bariatric centers.

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch

The biliopancreatic diversion with a duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is a less commonly performed but very effective bariatric procedure that has been in existence for more than 20 years. It is particularly effective for the resolution of diabetes and is associated with the highest weight loss among other bariatric operations. Typically, the BPD-DS is not associated with postgastrectomy symptoms, such as dumping and marginal ulceration. Because of its complexity, it has usually been performed by laparotomy in the past; but, more recently, minimally invasive techniques are being used with acceptable risk.

Revisional bariatric surgery

With the increase in bariatric surgical procedures, an increase in revision operations is expected. A thorough preoperative work-up is essential to formulate an appropriate revision strategy. Outcomes vary according to the primary operation and chosen approach to revision. Recent studies have shown acceptably low complication rates and good weight loss with the associated health benefits. Although there is no direct evidence in the form of randomized studies indicating which patients with inadequate weight loss or weight regain will benefit most from revision, or to support one particular revision approach rather than another, it is possible to develop general, effective strategies.

Conversion from band to bypass in two steps reduces the risk for anastomotic strictures

BACKGROUND

Morbidity after converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is three- to fivefold higher than after primary LRYGB. Allowing a time interval between band removal and actual gastric bypass might reduce local inflammation and reduce morbidity.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective single-center study of patients who needed conversion to LRYGB because of failed LAGB. Outcomes after conversion of LAGB to LRYGB in one or two steps were compared.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and June 2010, 23 patients had a conversion in one step (group A) while, in 14 patients, the conversion was carried out at least 2 months after band removal (group B). The mean duration of surgery in group A was 150 ± 39 min while it took 181 ± 39 min to complete both steps in group B (p=0.02). Length of stay in group A was 3 (3-8) days, but was 5 (4-8) days for the two steps in group B (p=0.004). During a follow-up of 6-23 months, one pulmonary embolism, one epigastric artery bleeding, and three anastomotic strictures occurred in group A, while no complications were observed in group B. The BMI dropped from 41.4 ± 6.7 to 28.7 ± 10.8 kg/m(2) in group A and from 43.8 ± 5.8 to 35.3 ± 7.55 kg/m(2) in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Operating time and hospital stay are increased when conversion is performed in two steps, but, in this small series, this strategy decreased morbidity and more specifically the rate of anastomotic strictures.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional option after gastric band failure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is an effective bariatric procedure with low morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, it is fraught with high failure rates in long-term follow-up. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is an emerging procedure, quickly gaining momentum in the arsenal of bariatric practice as a first step toward gastric bypass/biliopancreatic diversion or as a stand-alone operation. Recently, it has been described as a revisional option for previous bariatric surgery failures. We report our early experience with LSG as a revisional procedure for failed LAGB.

METHODS

From January 2007 to April 2010, 46 patients, who had undergone LAGB, underwent LSG. Patient demographics, reason for band removal, interval between removal and LSG, operative times, estimated blood loss, complications, length of hospital stay, and percent of excess weight loss were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 46 patients, 20 (43%) had their bands removed before LSG (median time interval, 2 years; range, 2 months to 9 years); the rest had concomitant band removal and LSG. Twelve patients were men (26%). Mean age and BMI were 40 (range, 20-60) years and 43.1 kg/m(2) (range, 33-57), respectively. In two cases, surgery was converted to an open procedure due to extensive adhesions related to previous surgeries. Median operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 118 (range, 70-250) minutes, 41 (range, 5-600) ml, and 3 (range, 1-100) days, respectively. Major morbidity was encountered in three patients (6%; leak in 2 and bleeding in 1). There were no mortalities. Mean follow-up time for our cohort is 17 (range, 1-39) months. Percent of excess weight loss at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months was 24, 37, 53, 51, and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that LSG is safe, feasible, and effective as a revisional procedure for failed LAGB and can be considered as an appealing option in these cases. Larger series and longer follow-up are needed to confirm this.

Revision laparoscopic gastric bypass: an effective approach following failure of primary bariatric procedures

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach plays an important role in the primary surgical management of morbid obesity. This study evaluated the potential role of the laparoscopic approach to revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in the management of selected patients who fail to lose adequate weight or regain weight after primary bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Revision LRYGB was carried out to remedy early or delayed failure of primary bariatric procedures. Patients who underwent laparoscopic revision surgery to re-establish a functioning gastric band were not included in this report. The results are presented as mean (SD).

RESULTS

Between April 2002 and March 2009, 21 patients underwent 21 laparoscopic revision procedures. The initial bariatric operations were laparoscopic gastric band (n = 10), open vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 6), open Magenstrasse and Mill (n = 2), open gastric bypass with pouch dilatation (n = 2), and open gastric band (n = 1). All revision procedures were completed laparoscopically and included conversion to LRYGB (n = 19), and others (n = 2). The postoperative hospital stay was 2.0 (1.3) days. The anastomotic leak, morbidity, and mortality rates were 0%, 4.8%, and 0% respectively. At a follow-up of 12.9 (7.9) months, the prerevision body mass index has decreased significantly from 43.9 (7.4) to 32.7 (6.6) kg/m(2) (p < 0.001) with a percentage excess weight loss of 61.1 (21.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach to revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe and effective even in patients with previous open bariatric surgery and is associated with rapid recovery and short hospital stay.

Conversion of failed vertical banded gastroplasty to biliopancreatic diversion, a wise option

BACKGROUND

Reoperations due to failures constitute an essential but challenging part of bariatric surgery practice today. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative safety, efficacy, and postoperative quality of life in patients with biliopancreatic diversion (BPD), after failed vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG).

METHODS

Twelve patients after failed or complicated VBG, eight females and four males, median age 45 years (range 39-52), median body mass index (BMI) 46.39 kg/m2 (range 25.89-69.37), who underwent conversion to BPD, were studied.

RESULTS

Ten patients due to weight regain and two patients because of severe stenosis of the gastric pouch outlet were submitted in conversion to BPD. In eight (66.6%) patients the primary VBG had been followed by at least one revisional operation due to inadequate weight loss. The 10 patients after failed VBG, reached the lowest BMI recorded after VBG in just a year after BPD (p=0.721 for the comparison between the two time points). The two patients with stomal stenosis regained weight in the first six postoperative months and remain stable since then. Regarding safety, one major perioperative complication (gastrojejunostomy stenosis) occurred. At a median follow-up of 21 months (range 12-30) six complications have been documented, including a case of incisional hernia, four cases of pouch gastritis and a case of intractable iron-deficiency anemia.

CONCLUSION

Our early results indicate that conversion of failed VBG to BPD is highly effective with acceptable morbidity. Our data show that the effect on weight is strongly dependent on the indication for the conversion. Conversion to BPD, in such a group of patients, is a wise alternative, since it may reduce operative risks.

Safety and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional approach for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in the treatment of morbid obesity

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been used as a first step of a two-stage approach in bariatric surgery for high-risk patients. Recently, LSG is being utilized as a primary and final procedure for morbid obesity with acceptable short-term results. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of LSG as a revisional procedure for patients with unsatisfactory outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Data were reviewed for all patients undergoing revision from LAGB to LSG during the period May 2005 and May 2009. Data collected included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, length of stay, postoperative complications, and degree of weight reduction. Fifteen patients (three males and 12 females) had revisional surgery converting a LAGB to a LSG. The indication in four patients (26.66%) was weight regains and in five patients (33.33%) was poor weight loss; four patients (26.66%) had a band slippage and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, and one patient (6.66%) had poor weight loss, band slippage, and reflux. In one patient (6.66%), the indication was slippage and duodenal fistula. One-step revision procedure was done in 13 patients (86.66%), while two-step procedure was done in two patients (13.33%). Mean preoperative weight and BMI were 233.02 (181.4-300) lb and 38.66 (29.7-49.3) kg/m2, respectively. Mean weight loss at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively was 20.7, 48.3, 57.2, 60.1, and 13.5 lb, respectively. Mean % excess BMI loss was 28.9%, 64.2%, 65.3%, 65.7%, and 22.25% at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. There was one major complication (staple line leak) and one postoperative acute gastric outlet obstruction. We had no mortality. Thirteen patients were followed up postoperatively. The number decreased as follow-up time progressed. LSG could provide short-term weight loss after previously failed LABG, but prone to more complications compared to an initial LSG without a prior bariatric procedure.

Weight loss prior to bariatric surgery is not a pre-requisite of excess weight loss outcomes in obese patients

BACKGROUND

Although weight loss before bariatric surgery may carry advantages during the surgical procedure (decreased liver volume, operation duration, and blood loss), it is still debated whether it induces a greater long-term weight loss.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis over 539 patients operated by the same surgeon until September 2008. Five hundred seven primary bariatric surgical procedures were performed: gastric bypass in 381, gastric banding in 97, and sleeve gastrectomy in 29. Preoperative multidisciplinary care was similar for all the patients over a period of 12 months. Relationship between weight changes during this period and the percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) over the 48 month after surgery was analyzed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

No relationship could be evidenced between pre- and postoperative weight loss, regardless of the surgical technique performed. Whether patients were male or female, and whether they had an initial BMI greater or lower than 50 kg/m(2), did not make a difference in the relationship between EWL at any point and weight loss prior to surgery. Despite a large range of weight changes before surgery, there was no trend for a relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that weight loss before surgery should not be considered a pre-requisite. Although it can reduce the difficulties of the surgical procedure, advantages for long-term weight loss are not validated.