Sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure for failed gastric banding or gastroplasty

Five-year outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery: gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery after an index adjustable gastric band (AGB) may be indicated to remedy weight relapse or band-related complications. We examined outcomes five years following revision from AGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (AGB-LSG) or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (AGB-RYGB).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review to identify patients (men and women, age 18-80) who underwent one revisional bariatric procedure with AGB as the index procedure at two medical centers in our healthcare system between January 2012 and February 2017. We only included patients with a pre-revision BMI > 30 kg/m2 for whom 5-year follow-up data were available. We compared 5-year weight loss and remission of comorbidities in patients undergoing AGB-LSG and AGB-RYGB conversion.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients met inclusion criteria (65 AGB-LSG, 49 AGB-RYGB). At 5-year post-revision, percent total weight loss (3.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.001), percent excess weight loss (7.0% vs 50.8%; p < 0.001) and decrease in BMI (1.5 vs 8.8; p < 0.001) was greater in AGB-RYGB vs. AGB-LSG. No significant difference in remission or development of new comorbidities was observed.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of AGB to RYGB is associated with superior intermediate-term weight loss compared to conversion of AGB to LSG. Future multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further describe the intermediate-term outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery.

One anastomosis gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional bariatric surgery for weight loss failure after primary restrictive procedure

INTRODUCTION

Weight loss failure after restrictive bariatric procedures initiated the debate about the choice of an adequate revisional intervention, a question still unanswered. While many surgeons went for a conversion to gastric bypass, others opted for re-trying a revisional restrictive procedure to avoid the side effects of gastric bypass. The objective of our study was to compare weight loss outcome between revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (re-LSG) and revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass (re-OAGB) for insufficient weight loss or weight regain following primary restrictive bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 20 obese patients, with a history of weight regain or insufficient weight loss after primary restrictive surgery, who underwent re-LSG (eight patients) or re-OAGB (12 patients) between January 2018 and January 2021. Patients were followed up 2 years after their revisional intervention. Statistics were performed using IBM® SPSS® software for Windows version 21.

RESULTS

In the re-LSG group, the average body mass index (BMI) before primary restrictive procedure was 43.7 kg/m2 . The average period between the primary and revisional surgery was 12.6 years. Patients had a nadir BMI of 33.2 kg/m2 during that period and reached a mean BMI of 40.6 kg/m2 before re-LSG. Two years after re-LSG, the average BMI was 31.5 kg/m2 with a percent of excess weight loss (%EWL) of 54% and percent of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) of 66.6%. In the re-OAGB group, the average BMI before primary restrictive procedure was 39 kg/m2 . The average period between the primary and revisional surgery was 10.7 years. Patients had a nadir BMI of 30.5 kg/m2 during that period and reached a mean BMI of 36.5 kg/m2 before re-OAGB. Two years after re-OAGB, the average BMI was 27 kg/m2 with a %EWL of 86.7% and %EBMIL of 92.6%.

CONCLUSION

For patients with insufficient weight loss or weight regain following primary restrictive bariatric surgery, re-OAGB has a better effectiveness in weight reduction compared with re-LSG after a 2-year follow up.

Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy as a Revisional Procedure Following Adjustable Gastric Banding: Variations in Outcomes Based on Indication

BACKGROUND

Significant controversy exists regarding the indications and outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) conversions to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

AIM

To comprehensively determine the long-term outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure after LAGB across a range of measures and determine predictors of outcomes.

METHODS

Six hundred revision LSG (RLSG) and 1200 controls (primary LSG (PLSG)) were included. Patient demographics, complications, follow-up, and patient-completed questionnaires were collected.

RESULTS

RLSG vs controls; females 87% vs 78.8%, age 45 ± 19.4 vs 40.6 ± 10.6 years, p = 0.561; baseline weight 119.7 ± 26.2 vs 120.6 ± 26.5 kg p = 0.961). Follow-up was 87% vs 89.3%. Weight loss in RLSG at 5 years, 22.9% vs 29.6% TBWL, p = 0.001, 10 years: 19.5% vs 27% TBWL, p = 0.001. RLSG had more complications (4.8 vs 2.0% RR 2.4, p = 0.001), re-admissions (4.3 vs 2.4% RR 1.8, p = 0.012), staple line leaks (2.5 vs 0.9%, p = 0.003). Eroded bands and baseline weight were independent predictors of complications after RLSG. Long-term re-operation rate was 7.3% for RLSG compared to 3.2% in controls. Severe oesophageal dysmotility predicted poor weight loss. RLSG reported lower quality of life scores (SF-12 physical component scores 75.9 vs 88%, p = 0.001), satisfaction (69 vs 93%, p = 0.001) and more frequent regurgitation (58% vs 42%, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

RLSG provides long-term weight loss, although peri-operative complications are significantly elevated compared to PLSG. Longer-term re-operation rates are elevated compared to PLSG. Four variables predicted worse outcomes: eroded band, multiple prior bands, severe oesophageal dysmotility and elevated baseline weight.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Conversion Following Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Given revision or conversion surgery is required in up to 60% of patients who had adjustable gastric band (LAGB), we compared safety and efficacy of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as conversion surgical procedures in patients with suboptimal response or weight recurrence following LAGB.

METHODS

Conversion surgery was performed in 335 patients between 2016 and 2020. Weight loss, early and late-stage complications, and comorbidity outcomes were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three patients underwent cSG (BMI: 38.3 ± 8.3 kg/m²), and 172 patients underwent cOAGB (BMI: 45.2 ± 9.3 kg/m²). Percent total body weight loss (%TWL) was 28.7 ± 9.9% at 12 months, 30.3 ± 12.8% at 2 years, 31.0 ± 14.5% at 3 years, and 31.1 ± 14.7% at 4 years following OAGB, which was significantly higher than SG; 18.4 ± 8.7%, 18.8 ± 9.8%, 19.3 ± 11.1%, and 16.9 ± 10.9%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Remission of comorbidities, regardless of conversion procedure type, was 20.8% for hypertension (HT), 52% for dyslipidemia (DLD), 60% for type 2 diabetes (DM), 64% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and 76% for insulin resistance (IR).There were no leaks or deaths following SG or OAGB. A twofold greater frequency of complications was seen in the OAGB group vs SG group (15.1% and 6.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Significant weight loss, acceptable complication rates, and similar remission of comorbidities were seen regardless of the type of conversion procedure. Prospective randomized clinical trials are recommended for further elucidation of long-term outcomes.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Stapling Bariatric Procedures: Single- or Two-stage Approach

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety of single- versus two-stage conversion of adjustable gastric band (AGB) to gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

AGB patients often present for conversion to RYGB or SG. The impact of single- or two-stage approach of such conversion remains unclear.

METHODS

A statewide database was used to identify all patients who underwent AGB removal and concurrent (single-stage) or interval (two-stage) RYGB or SG. Propensity score matching schemes were constructed to account for differences in baseline comorbidities and demographics, allowing for matched pairs available for comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 4330 patients underwent AGB conversion. Complications, readmissions, and ED visits were noted in 394 (9.1%), 278 (6.42%), and 589 (13.6%) patients, respectively. Three hundred sixty-seven matched pairs underwent RYGB; single-stage patients experienced shorter length of stay (LOS) (median difference -1 d, P < 0.0001), less complications [risk difference (RD): -8.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI), -13.4% to -3.5%], readmissions (RD: -5.2%, 95% CI, -9.6% to -0.8%), and ED visits (RD: -5.7%, 95% CI, -11.3% to -0.2%). Eight hundred seventy-five matched pairs underwent SG; single-stage patients experienced improved outcomes in all measures examined. For single-stage procedures (809 pairs), RYGB was associated with longer LOS, and more complications (RD: 3.3%, 95% CI, 0.9%-5.8%), with similar readmissions, and ED visits.

CONCLUSIONS

AGB conversion procedures have low morbidity. Single-stage conversion is associated with lower morbidity compared with the two-stage approach. Conversion to SG seems to be safer than RYGB.

Impact of Resection Volume/Stapler Firings-Ratio on Perioperative Complications and Weight Loss After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background

Major postoperative morbidity after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is often related to staple line leaks (SLL). Of note, a recent study suggested a central role of the absolute numbers of stapler firings as a predictive factor for postoperative morbidity due to SLL. In addition, a larger gastric remnant volume could be responsible for lower weight loss after LSG, and nevertheless, the gastric resection volume (GRV) is strictly related to the residual volume.

Methods

Prospectively, collected data of 384 consecutive patients with complete follow-up at 12 months after LSG at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were stratified according to three different variables (i.e., number of stapler firings, GRV, and GRV/stapler firings-ratio), and respective impact on postoperative complications and weight loss was analyzed.

Results

High absolute number of stapler firings was linked to increased intraoperative and postoperative bleeding and prolonged hospitalization, but was not associated with SLL, transfusion rate or revisional procedures. Absolute GRV showed no impact on both complications and outcome after LSG. Interestingly, higher ratio of GRV/stapler firings was not only linked to decreased intraoperative bleeding and shorter hospital stay but also to higher Excess Body Mass Index Loss (EBMIL) at 12 months after LSG.

Conclusions

Here, we introduce GRV/stapler firings-ratio as a simple predictive factor for identifying patients at risk for postoperative complications and impaired weight loss that is superior compared with absolute number of stapler firings or GRV alone.

Gastrobronchial Fistula Following a Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Patient: Female, 32

Final Diagnosis: Gastro bronichial fistula

Symptoms: Dyspnea

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Surgery

Revisional surgery after removal of eroded adjustable gastric bands

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to present surgical techniques and treatment outcomes for re-banding and sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional surgery after removing eroded adjustable gastric bands.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed to study laparoscopic re-banding or sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for band erosion. Main outcome measures were success of therapeutic strategies, morbidity, body mass index, and percentage total excess weight loss before and after revision.

RESULTS

From March 2013 to June 2017, a total of 11 patients underwent the revisional surgery. Six patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy at median 15.7 months (13.2-73.3 months) after band removal, and 5 patients gastric re-banding at median 5.4 months (3.1-43.8 months). One of the six patients that underwent sleeve gastrectomy was diagnosed to have a minor leak. No other critical postoperative complication was observed in each group. Median BMI at revision in the sleeve gastrectomy group was 32.7 kg/m² (31.2-40.8 kg/m²). Median follow-up after revision was 33.8 months (15.5-63.7 months), and at last follow-up, median BMI was 26.4 kg/m² (23.6-34.6 kg/m²), and median %TWL was 17.6% (9.5-31.5%). In the rebanding group, median BMI at revision was 30.7 kg/m² (27.0-41.4 kg/m²). Median follow-up after revision was 25.5 months (13.5-45.4 months), and at last follow-up, median BMI was 23.5 kg/m² (22.0-30.1 kg/m²) and median %TWL was 23.9% (9.1-29.0%).

CONCLUSION

Given the surgical techniques adopted, both re-banding and sleeve gastrectomy were found to be safe and effective revisional surgery after removal of eroded gastric band.

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 Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Radiological Guide to Common Postsurgical Failure

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is one of the most common bariatric procedures worldwide. It has recently gained in popularity because of a low complication rate, satisfactory resolution of comorbidities, and excellent weight loss outcome. This article reviews the surgical technique, expected postsurgical imaging appearance, and imaging findings of common complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Understanding of the surgical technique of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and of the normal postsurgical anatomy allows accurate interpretation of imaging findings in cases of insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and postsurgical complications.

Postoperative Bleeding and Leakage After Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy is being performed increasingly, mainly due to its low morbidity and mortality, but complications do occur. The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding and leakage rates of primary and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in a personal series of 664 consecutive patients.

METHODS

Medical charts of all patients undergoing a primary or revisional sleeve gastrectomy between August 2008 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Subgroup analysis compared bleeding in patients after reduced port versus multiport technique and primary versus revisional sleeve gastrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 664 sleeve gastrectomies (489 women and 175 men) were performed. Mean age and body mass index were 36.03 ± 11.4 years and 42.9 ± 8.3 kg/m², respectively. Mean operative time was 58.5 ± 20.0 min, with a 0.15 % conversion rate. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 ± 0.3 days. The overall 30-day complication rate was 7.5 %. Thirteen patients sustained postoperative bleeding (2 %), three of whom required reoperation (0.5 %). Staple line leakage and mortality were both nil in this series. No difference in postoperative complications was found between the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-surgeon, single-center experience, sleeve gastrectomy was a safe and effective bariatric procedure with a low complication rate. Staple line reinforcement by oversewing was associated with low bleeding complications and no leakage. The majority of patients with postoperative bleeding could be managed conservatively. In our experience, reduced port technique and revisional sleeve gastrectomy had similar complication rates compared to multiport and primary sleeve gastrectomy.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedures after Adjustable Gastric Band: 5-Year Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a worldwide bariatric surgery survey showed that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been abandoned in favor of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGBP).

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare results of LRYGBP and LSG performed as a revisional procedure after LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients converted from LAGB to LSG or to LRYGBP from January 2007 to December 2011 were included in the study. Clinical data collected were age, gender, indications for revision, complications, body mass index (BMI), and body weight at revisional procedures. Weight loss was calculated at 1, 3, and 5 years after conversion.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included in this study, 43 females and 8 males. Twenty-four patients were converted to LRYGBP (LRYGBP group) and 27 to LSG (LSG group). Indication for conversion was weight loss failure in 34 (67%) patients and band complications in 17 (33%) patients. No significant difference in age, BMI, and body weight in the two groups was found at the time of revision. One patient converted to LRYGBP had an internal hernia; one patient initially scheduled for LSG was intraoperatively converted to LRYGBP due to staple line leak. No other major perioperative complication was observed. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 84.3% (43 patients out of 51 patients) Delta-BMI and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) were not significantly different in the two groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LRYGBP or LSG are feasible and effective surgical options after LAGB. Satisfactory weight loss was achieved after both procedures.

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.

Endoscopic management of post-laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is becoming an increasingly popular form of bariatric surgery, accounting for more than 50% of these procedures performed in the USA. Given this popularity, more is being understood about the complications associated with LSG, which, though uncommon, include the formation of strictures and stenosis. The purpose of this study is to establish a safe and effective protocol for the treatment of stenosis post-LSG using endoscopic balloon dilatation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective review of 26 patients who had undergone LSG in Kuwait, followed by sleeve gastrectomy stenosis (SGS) and were then referred to Amiri Hospital for endoscopic balloon dilatation from October 2008 up to June 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients (four males; 22 females) presented with symptoms of stenosis post-LSG during the study period. The mean age of the patients was 34.6 ± 10.8 years. The mean body mass index at the time of surgery was 43 ± 1.6 kg/m². The median interval from the initial LSG surgery was 95 days. Nine patients had an early presentation (≤3 months from surgery), while 17 presented late (>3 months). The patients were followed for a mean duration of 156 ± 20 days from the last endoscopic balloon dilatation. A total of 23 (88.5%) patients had complete resolution of their symptoms. Adverse events were observed in one patients, who was removed from the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric stenosis is a rare but potentially serious complication of LSG. Serial dilatation of SGS employing endoscopic balloons is a safe method of treatment, with high efficacy rates. This new method may offer a less invasive alternative to surgical revision. However, if endoscopic treatment fails, surgery is necessary.

Evolution of endoscopic treatment of sleeve gastrectomy leaks: from partially covered to long, fully covered stents

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become a widely accepted option in the treatment of morbid obesity. Gastric leaks after SG occur in .9%-2.2% of the patients, mostly at the gastroesophageal junction. The current treatment algorithm includes drainage, antibiotics, nutritional support, and endoluminal control.

OBJECTIVES

Our hypothesis is that long, fully covered stents represent a safe, effective solution for SG leaks.

SETTING

University hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of our prospectively collected bariatric database was performed between June 2014 and May 2016. We included all patients treated for leaks after SG. Endoscopic treatment included partially covered metallic stent (Wallstent, Boston Scientific, Galway, Ireland), fully covered stent (Mega stent, Taewoong Medical Industries, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea), over-the-scope clip (Ovesco Endoscopy, Tubingen, Germany), and internal pigtail drainage.

RESULTS

A total of 872 SGs were performed. Overall, 10 of 872 patients (1.1%) developed a gastric leak. One patient was an outside referral. The 11 patients underwent endoscopic treatment accompanied by either percutaneous or laparoscopic abscess drainage. Endoscopic fistula closure at the gastroesophageal junction was achieved in 10 of 11 cases and the average time for closure was 9.9 (range: 4-24) weeks. One patient developed a second leak in the antrum, treated by subtotal gastrectomy. Overall, treatment with Wallstent failed in 3 of 5 patients, and these patients were eventually successfully treated with a Mega stent. The initial use of long, fully covered stents was successful in 5 of 6 cases.

CONCLUSION

Long, fully covered stents appear to be a good alternative to traditional stents either as primary treatment or after failure of other endoscopic treatments.

Analysis of Morbidity Data of 308 Cases of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy--the Soroka Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) became a prevalent bariatric procedure in Israel, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was losing ground, due to high failure rates (40 % at 10 years). Many patients after LAGB failure choose LSG as a further bariatric surgery (secondary LSG). However, LAGB often impairs upper stomach anatomy and physiology, which may contribute to complications increased risk after secondary LSG, in comparison to surgery-naive obese patients choosing LSG (primary LSG).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a prospective database, looking at morbidly obese patients for LSG surgery. All procedures were done by a single surgeon at the Soroka Medical Center between January 2008 and March 2013. Data were collected from hospitalization charts on demographics, biometric and bariatric status, medical and bariatric surgical history, post-LSG morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight patients underwent LSG during the study period, 181 (58.8 %) had a primary LSG while 127 (41.2 %) had a secondary LSG. No mortality occurred in both groups. Odds ratio for major complication (leak, stenosis) was 3.12 [CI 0.90-10.75] among the secondary LSG group, compared to the primary LSG (p = 0.071). The risk for major complication was doubled (OR = 2, 95 % CI [1.36-3.06]) for each one of previous bariatric procedure underwent (p = 0.001). Significant differences were found between the two groups regarding number and length of readmissions and number of imaging tests (p value = 0.027, 0.022, and 0.049, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary LSG is a safe and efficient bariatric procedure. After failed LAGB, secondary LSG should be carefully considered, because of a potentially higher risk of complications.

[Revisional surgery and reoperations in obesity and metabolic surgery : Data analysis of the German bariatric surgery registry 2005-2012]

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of interventions for obesity and metabolic surgery have led to an increase of primary bariatric operations as well as redo operations and revisional surgery after various primary bariatric procedures. Evidence-based guidelines for indications and choice of procedure for revisional surgery do not currently exist.

AIM

The spectrum of various revisional and redo operations following standard operative procedures for obesity and metabolic surgery is presented based on current data from the German bariatric surgery registry (GBSR, German nationwide survey on quality assurance in bariatric surgery) and a literature search.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since 1 January 2005, the current situation of bariatric surgery has been examined using the GBSR. All data are registered prospectively in cooperation with the Institute of Quality Assurance in Surgery at the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg. Since 2005 a total of 24,070 primary bariatric procedures, 2070 revisional procedures and 1124 redo operations were analyzed. The study evaluated 1021 revisional and 491 redo operations after gastric banding (GB), 443 redo operations after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and 306 revisional procedures and 10 redo operations after a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP).

RESULTS

Reoperations of GB to SG were performed in 240 cases. The complication rate for GB removal and SG showed a significantly higher leakage rate for one step operations than for two step procedures of 3.3% vs. 0.0%. Conversion of GB to RYGBP was performed in 402 operations without any significant differences between one and two step approaches (1.9% vs. 2.2%). The specific complication rate in the 443 interventions in patients for conversion from SG to RYGBP was 10.8% which is higher than for primary SG (4.9%) and RYGBP (5.3%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the primary surgical procedures redo operations and revisional procedures have significantly higher complication rates. The data evaluated show that strong and differentiated indications are necessary for revisional and redo operations particularly in cases of therapy or metabolic failure.

Esophageal perforation during laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: conversion to open sleeve gastrectomy and endoscopic stent placement

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is one of the most popular bariatric surgical procedures both in Europe and United States, because it is considered to be a safe and effective way of treating morbid obesity. This minimally invasive frequently employed bariatric procedure has many reported complications, but only a few cases of esophageal perforation have been reported. We present a case of iatrogenic esophageal perforation in an 18-year-old patient occurring during attempt to place an adjustable gastric band laparoscopically, which was diagnosed intraoperatively. Conversion to open sleeve gastrectomy with primary suturing of the perforation and drainage were performed. On the early postoperative period leak from the intra-abdominal part of the esophagus was diagnosed and treated with endoscopic placement of a self-expandable metal stent. After 2-years of follow-up the patient continues to have no sequelae from the perforation or symptoms of dysphagia, while Excess Weight Loss is 74.

Revisions after failed gastric band: sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic gastric band is an appealing bariatric operation due to its simplicity and good short-term outcomes; however, it is associated with complications (slippage, erosion, prolapse) and failure in reaching target weight loss. This study describes our experience with failed gastric bands that required a revisional procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis includes all consecutive patients who underwent a gastric band removal and revisional surgery in our hospital from January 2008 to June 2014. A total of 81 patients were identified and divided in three groups: Group one included patients who just had the gastric band removed (43), group two consisted of patients who underwent a conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (26), and group three included patients who required a conversion to Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (12). Patient demographics, date of gastric band placement, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and % excess weight loss (%EWL) were recorded. Perioperative and clinical outcomes were compared between conversions to SG and RYGB.

RESULTS

In group two (n = 26), 21 conversions to SG were performed in concurrence with the band removal as a one-stage operation, while five procedures were performed in two-stages. There were no complications and no case was converted to open. Patients who underwent a one-stage procedure had a longer operative time, although it did not reach statistical significance. In group three, 12 patients underwent a conversion to RYGB as a revisional operation; 11 were performed as a one-stage procedure and only one patient underwent a two-stage procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

SG and RYGB are safe options to revise a failed gastric band. Both groups who received either a SG or RYGB had a low complication rate and acceptable %EWL with no statistical difference between the two.

Gastric leaks post sleeve gastrectomy: Review of its prevention and management

Gastric sleeve gastrectomy has become a frequent bariatric procedure. Its apparent simplicity hides a number of serious, sometimes fatal, complications. This is more important in the absence of an internationally adopted algorithm for the management of the leaks complicating this operation. The debates exist even regarding the definition of a leak, with several classification systems that can be used to predict the cause of the leak, and also to determine the treatment plan. Causes of leak are classified as mechanical, technical and ischemic causes. After defining the possible causes, authors went into suggesting a number of preventive measures to decrease the leak rate, including gentle handling of tissues, staple line reinforcement, larger bougie size and routine use of methylene blue test per operatively. In our review, we noticed that the most important clinical sign or symptom in patients with gastric leaks are fever and tachycardia, which mandate the use of an abdominal computed tomography, associated with an upper gastrointrstinal series and/or gastroscopy if no leak was detected. After diagnosis, the management of leak depends mainly on the clinical condition of the patient and the onset time of leak. It varies between prompt surgical intervention in unstable patients and conservative management in stable ones in whom leaks present lately. The management options include also endoscopic interventions with closure techniques or more commonly exclusion techniques with an endoprosthesis. The aim of this review was to highlight the causes and thus the prevention modalities and find a standardized algorithm to deal with gastric leaks post sleeve gastrectomy.

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.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery for adjustable gastric band erosion

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been increasingly adopted as a revisional surgery for failed gastric banding. However, little information is available regarding the outcome of revisional LSG for band erosion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database analysis was performed to study LSG as revisional surgery for band erosion. For staged revision, we waited a minimum of 3 months after band removal, and for single-stage revision, the band was removed by gastrotomy, and sleeve gastrectomy was performed at the same time. Main outcome measures were success rates of therapeutic strategies, morbidity, and mortality rates, length of stay, and body mass index (BMI) (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL]) before and after revision.

RESULTS

From March 2011 to February 2013, 9 female patients underwent revisional LSG. Average age was 34.7 years. Six patients underwent a staged procedure, and the other 3 underwent a single-stage revision. Among the 6 staged patients, eroded bands had been removed by laparoscopy in 4 and by endoscopy in 2 without complications. Their LSGs were performed at a median of 4.4 months after band removal. Another 2 patients underwent single-stage revision. In the last patient, band erosion was incidentally found during a revisional LSG for insufficient weight loss. No mortality occurred. There were one stenosis and two proximal leaks. Two patients with leak underwent total gastrectomy and fistulojejunostomy. After a mean follow-up of 19.1 months, all 9 patients exhibited weight loss. The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) pre- and post-LSG BMIs were 34.0±4.4 and 25.6±2.1 kg/m(2), respectively, and their mean (±SD) %EWL from prebanding was 86.8±10.1%. Revisional LSG resulted in a further median %EWL of 28.0% (range, 7.9%-68.9%) versus weight at time of band removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LSG after band erosion was found to be feasible and effective. However, it is prone to severe complication. In selected cases of band erosion, LSG can be performed at the time of band removal in a single stage.

Significant weight loss and rapid resolution of diabetes and dyslipidemia during short-term follow-up after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been established as the best option of treatment for morbid obesity. Recently, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become very popular because of good postoperative weight loss and low morbidity. The aim of this study was to report our single-center experience with SG regarding feasibility, morbidity, and outcome.

METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2011, 93 patients (68 female) with a median age of 46 years underwent laparoscopic SG at our department. Thirteen patients had a history of gastric banding with insufficient weight loss or band-related complications. Clinical outcome and laboratory findings were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative and postoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.1 ± 6.9 and 33.4 ± 6.8 kg/m(2), respectively (p < 0.001). The mean excessive body weight loss after a median follow-up of 11.9 months was 55.7 % ± 24.9 %. Three bleedings, two staple line leakages, and a deep wound infection required conversion to laparotomy (n = 1), reoperation (n = 4), or endoscopic stent implantation (n = 2). Resolution of diabetes and dyslipidemia was seen in 85 and 50 % of patients, respectively. Blood test results of HbA1c, cholesterols, triglycerides, and leptin showed significant postoperative improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic SG represents a feasible bariatric procedure with good short-term weight loss, low morbidity rate, and efficient resolution of diabetes and dyslipidemia, especially in patients with lower BMI. The significant decrease of leptin necessitates further studies to understand the ambiguous role of leptin in bariatric surgery.

Is a one-step sleeve gastrectomy indicated as a revision procedure after gastric banding? Data analysis from a quality assurance study of the surgical treatment of obesity in Germany

BACKGROUND

Since 1 January 2005, the outcomes of bariatric surgeries have been examined in Germany. All data are registered prospectively in cooperation with the Institute of Quality Assurance in Surgery at Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg.

METHODS

Data are collected in an online data bank. Data collection began in 2005 for the results of gastric banding (GB) and in 2006 for sleeve gastrectomies (SGs). In addition to primary bariatric operations, data regarding the complications of revision procedures and redo operations have been analyzed. Participation in the quality assurance study is required for all certified centers in Germany.

RESULTS

SGs are a popular redo operation after failed gastric banding. Using the German Bariatric Surgery Registry, we analyzed data from 137 SGs that were used in a one-step approach after GB and 37 SGs that were used in a two-step approach. Leakage rates for primary SGs dropped to 1.9 %. The incidence of leakage after a one-step SG after GB is significantly higher (4.4 %) than for a two-step approach (0 %).

CONCLUSION

SGs are popular procedures after failed GB in Germany, but the complication rates for one-step band removal are higher than for a two-step approach. After examining the data, we suggest performing band removal and SG as a two-step procedure. Further analysis is necessary to evaluate the optimal time period between band removal and SG. Follow-up investigations must be performed to determine if SG is an effective and safe option after GB.

Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications

BACKGROUND

There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3%) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1 ± 11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0 ± 13.7 kg/m2. Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6%). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n = 106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n = 48). In group A, 74.5% of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5% to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7 ± 29.3% after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6 ± 35.1% after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). In group B, the complications prompting revision were effectively treated by revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery effectively treated the undesirable results from primary bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic revisional surgery can be performed after both failed open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures without a prohibitive complication rate. Carefully selected patients undergoing revision for weight regain have satisfactory additional weight loss.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band--a systematic review

The adjustable gastric band (L)AGB gained popularity as a weight loss procedure. However, long-term results are disappointing; many patients need revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The purpose of this study was to assess morbidity, mortality, and results of these two revisional procedures. Fifteen LRYGB studies with a total of 588 patients and eight LSG studies with 286 patients were included. The reason for revision was insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 62.2 and 63.9% in LRYGB and LSG patients. Short-term complications occurred in 8.5 and 15.7% and long-term complications in 8.9 and 2.5%. Reoperation was performed in 6.5 and 3.5%. Revision to LRYGB or LSG after (L)AGB is feasible and relatively safe. Complication rate is higher than in primary procedures.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed gastric banding: lessons from 300 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a common bariatric procedure associated with a high rate of weight loss failure and/or complications in the long term. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the conversion of failed LAGB into laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and leads to weight loss results that are comparable to those obtained with a primary LSG.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the results of a prospective series of 1360 LSG regarding patient demographics, the indication for revision morbidity, the percentage of excess weight loss, and the rate of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The primary LSG group contained 1060 patients and the LAGB to LSG group contained 300 patients. The rate of postoperative complications was 4.5% in the primary LSG group and 2% in the LAGB to LSG group. Two patients died in the LSG group (1 pulmonary embolus, 1 myocardial infarction). There was no significant difference with respect to the rate of leak, which was 1% in the LAGB to LSG group and 1.6% in the primary LSG group. There was a greater weight loss after primary LSG, mean % excess weight loss of 75.9%±21.4 at a mean interval of 29±19.8 months, versus 62.6%±22.2 at a mean interval of 35±24 months after LAGB to LSG (P = .008). There were 72.1% and 59.2% of patients available for follow-up after primary LSG at 24 and 60 months respectively, versus 69.3% and 55.4% after LAGB to LSG.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the risk of leak after LSG was not increased after conversion failed LAGB into LSG when performed as a 2-step procedure.

Revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic and surgery is the only proven long-term treatment. The two most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). There are advocates of both procedures but LAGB is associated with potentially high failure rates and may require conversion to an alternative procedure.

METHODS

This study reports our unit results for failed LAGB converted to LRYGB and compares them to primary LRYGB patients. All patients undergoing revisional LRYGB from July 2006 to December 2011 were included in the study. Comparisons were made to patients undergoing primary LRYGB over the same time period for post-operative weight loss, complications and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 722 were analysed of which 55 underwent revisional surgery. There was no statistical difference in percentage of excess weight loss at 6 months, 1 year or 2 years following surgery between the primary and revisional surgery cohorts (54.5, 63.7, 65.2 vs 51.6, 59.5, 59.4, p = NS). There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or length of stay between the two groups. Revisional LRYGB was carried out as a single surgery in 43 (78 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LRYGB surgery can be carried out safely and efficiently in experienced bariatric units. Good short- and medium-term weight loss can be achieved with no increase in morbidity, mortality or length of hospital stay. This study adds weight to the argument that LRYGB is the revisional procedure of choice following failed LAGB.

Comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy leak rates in four staple-line reinforcement options: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The study compared laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) staple-line leak rates of 4 prevalent surgical options: no reinforcement, oversewing, nonabsorbable bovine pericardial strips (BPS), and absorbable polymer membrane (APM).

BACKGROUND

LSG is a multipurpose bariatric/metabolic procedure with effectiveness proven through the intermediate term. Staple-line leak is a severe complication of LSG for which no definitive method of prevention has been identified.

METHODS

The systematic review study design was employed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement screening guidelines. Inclusion criteria centered on variables potentially relevant to LSG leak: leak rate, age, gender, calibrating bougie size, distance between pylorus and gastric transection line, overall complication rate, and mortality. Analysis of variance models were used to explore differences in select demographic and surgical technique variables characterizing each reinforcement group. An omnibus χ(2) test followed by independent Fisher's exact tests were used to compare leak rates.

RESULTS

There were 659 articles identified; 41 duplicates removed. Of 618 remaining articles, 324 did not meet inclusion criteria. Of the 294 remaining articles, 206 were eliminated (kin studies, those not reporting staple-line or leak incidence, those reporting discontinued products). There were 88 papers included in the analysis. Statistically significant differences were found between groups across demographic and surgical variables studied (p<0.001). There were 191 leaks in 8,920 patients; overall leak rate 2.1%. Leak rates ranged from 1.09% (APM) to 3.3% (BPS); APM leak rate was significantly lower than other groups (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Systematic review of 88 included studies representing 8,920 patients found that the leak rate in LSG was significantly lower using APM staple-line reinforcement than oversewing, BPS reinforcement, or no reinforcement.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed laparoscopic gastric banding with a "2-step approach": a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as an alternative revisional procedure for failed/complicated gastric banding. This is a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of revisional LSG after band removal for insufficient weight loss and/or band-related complications, using a 2-step approach. The outcomes were compared with a control group of primary LSG. The study was conducted at a university hospital (Sapienza University of Rome-Polo Pontino, Icot, Latina, Italy) and 2 community general hospitals (Hospital Andosilla Civita Castellana, Viterbo, Italy and Hospital Villa D'Agri, Potenza, Italy).

METHODS

A total of 76 revisional LSG procedures was recorded; a control group of 279 LSG patients was selected. The primary endpoint was to compare the perioperative complication rate between the revisional versus the control group. Secondary endpoints were operative time, conversion rate, postoperative length of stay and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

The indications for band removal were inadequate weight loss (47 patients), slippage (10 patients), erosion (7 patients), and pouch dilation (12 patients). All procedures were completed laparoscopically. The median operative time was 78 minutes for the revision LSG and 65 minutes for the control LSG (P<.05). In the revision group, the overall complication rate was 17.1%, and the median postoperative length of stay was 4 days; in the control group, the overall complication rate was 10.7%, and the median postoperative length of stay was 3. No complications requiring reoperation or readmission occurred in the revision group. In the control group, there were 5 cases of major complications. All the patients completed the follow-up. A total of 56 patients in the revision group and 184 patients in the control group were followed-up for at least 24 months. The %EWL at 6, 12, and 24 months was 46.5%, 66.4%, and 78.5%, respectively, in the revision group, and 49.8%, 78.2%, and 78%, respectively, in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Results confirmed that LSG, performed in 2 steps, is an effective revision procedure for failed or complicated laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with good perioperative outcomes and 2-year weight loss.