Band revision versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion as salvage operation after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

The SAGES MASTERS program bariatric surgery pathway selects 10 seminal publications on revisional bariatrics

BACKGROUND

The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Masters Program designated bariatric surgery as a clinical pathway. Among the tiers of the Masters Program, revisional bariatric surgery is the highest tier of "mastery" within the pathway. This article presents the top 10 seminal studies representing the current landscape of revisional bariatrics.

METHODS

The literature was systematically searched and seminal articles designated by consensus agreement of the SAGES Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery committee using multiple criteria, including impact on the field, citation frequency, and expert opinion. Articles were reviewed by committee members and presented in summarized fashion.

RESULTS

The top 10 papers are presented in grouped thematic categories covering the early evolution of revisional bariatrics, changing criteria for reoperative bariatric surgery, divergence of revision versus conversion bariatric surgery, and recent technologic innovations in revisional bariatric surgery. Each summary is presented with expert appraisal and commentary.

CONCLUSION

These seminal papers represent a snapshot of the dynamic field of revisional bariatric surgery and emphasize the need to not only remain current with contemporary trends but also keep a patient-oriented perspective on patient and intervention selection for optimal success.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure: Could the Number of Previous Operations Influence the Outcome?

After a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as revisional surgery. Those patients that receive a second restrictive procedure fall into a small subgroup of patients with more than one restrictive procedure (MRP). If also the second restrictive procedure fails, the correct surgical strategy is a challenge for the surgeon. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may be an option but there is no evidence in the literature on whether the procedure is effective in treating failures after MRP. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the previous number of restrictive interventions (MRP vs single LSG) in the results of RYGB as revisional surgery. We have retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent conversion from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), or from multiple restrictive procedures (MRP), to RYGB for weight regain (WR) or insufficient weight loss (IWL) between 2009 and 2019. The number of patients analyzed was 69 with conversion to RYGB after LSG and 44 after MRP. The reduction of excess weight (%TWL) at 3, 6, 12, 24 RYGB postoperative months was respectively of 11.03%, 16.39%, 21.43%, and 24.22% in the MRP group, and of 10.97%, 16.4%, 21.22%, and 22.71% in the LSG group. No significant difference was found in %TWL terms after RYGB for the MRP group and the LSG group with an overall %TWL, which was 11.00 ± 6.03, 16.40 ± 8.08, 21.30 ± 9.43, and 23.30 ± 9.91 respectively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The linear regression model highlighted a positive relationship between the %EWL post-bypass at 24 months and the time elapsed only between the LSG and RYGB in the MRP group patients (p < 0.001). RYGB has proved to be a reliable technique with good results in terms of weight loss after failed bariatric surgery both in patients who previously underwent MRP and in those who underwent exclusively LSG. RYGB showed better results in patients who experienced WR than in those who had IWL from previous techniques.

One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding

INTRODUCTION

The study focussed on whether a one-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) has a significant advantage in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

Data collection included patients who underwent OS-RYGB or TS-RYGB after AGB between 2005 and 2019 and whose outcomes were compared with those after primary RYGB (P-RYGB). Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality and operating time.

RESULTS

The study analysed data from patients who underwent OS-RYGB (N = 525), TS-RYGB (N = 382) and P-RYGB (N = 26,445). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were significantly lower for P-RYGB (p < 0.001). Total intraoperative and specific postoperative complication rates were significantly lower in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the total general postoperative complication rate was lower in OS-RYGB than in TS-RYGB (p < 0.001). The mean operating time differed significantly among the three groups (P-RYGB 96.5min, OS-RYGB 141.2min and TS-RYGB 190.9min; p < 0.001). The mortality rate was not significantly different between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the significant difference between the two groups in revision surgery and the slight difference with the results of primary RYGB, this study concludes that removal of a failed AGB is safe and feasible with either the OS- or TS-RYGB procedure. However, we cannot directly recommend either procedure in our study. Proper patient selection and surgeon experience are critical to avoid potential adverse effects.

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastric Bypass as Redo Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-Observation Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the outcome of one-stage and two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revision procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent a one-stage RYGB (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) revision procedure after failing AGB between 2005 and 2019 were analyzed. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, operating time, change in weight and BMI, and remission of comorbidities at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Data from 230 patients after OS-RYGB and 197 after TS-RYGB were analyzed. The total perioperative complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups (overall p > 5%). In the category of other complications, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with a lower rate in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.020). Wound infections occurred more frequently after TS-RYGB than after OS-RYGB (p = 0.015). Mean operating time differed significantly between the two groups (OS-RYGB (149.9 min) and TS-RYGB 191 min; p < 0.001). The change in hypertension was significantly higher in OS-RYGB (37.9 vs. 21.1%; p = 0.007). Other comorbidities showed no significant change within 1 year after surgery. Regarding the change in BMI, %TWL, and %EWL, there were no significant benefits for either group (p = 0.574, 0.762, and 0.378, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Removing a failed AGB using the OS- or TS-RYGB is safe and feasible. The decision between OS- and TS-RYGB is still individual and depends on the patient's general condition, the desired goal of the procedure, and the personal competence of the surgeon. Further studies are needed to clarify long-term outcome and effect of both procedures.

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.

Decreasing complication rates for one-stage conversion band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study

Background:

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) revision surgery is often necessary because of its high failure rate. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that better patient selection, when converting a failed LAGB to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a one-stage revision procedure, is safe, feasible and improves the complication rate.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of failed gastric banding to a LSG. Collected data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), intraoperative complications, length of stay and post-operative complications. The results were compared to a previous study of 90 cases of LSG as a revision procedure for failed LAGB.

Results:

There were 75 patients in the current study, 61 women and 14 men, aged 25–67 (average: 46), with a mean BMI of 45 kg/m² (32–66). Seventy patients (93.3%) were operated for insufficient weight loss and 5 patients (6.7%) for intolerance to the band. In our previous study, 35 patients (39%) were operated for slippage, erosion or obstruction and 14 (15.6%) had post-operative complications as opposed to only 4 patients (5.3%) in this series (P = 0.0359). Gastric leak also improved to 1.3% compared to 5.5% previously. Average hospitalisation time was 2.5 days (1–40).

Conclusions:

Rigorous patient selection, without band complications such as slippage, erosion or obstruction, allows for a significantly lower rate of operative complications for a one-stage conversion of failed gastric banding to a LSG.

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.

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.

A one-step conversion from gastric banding to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is as safe as a two-step conversion: A comparative analysis of 885 patients

AIMS

To achieve additional weight loss or to resolve band-related problems, a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be converted to a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). There is limited data on the feasibility and safety of routinely performing a single-step conversion. We assessed the efficacy of this revisional approach in a large cohort of patients operated in a high-volume bariatric institution.

METHODS

Between October 2004 and December 2015, a total of 885 patients who underwent LAGB removal with RYGB were identified from a prospectively collected database. In all cases, a single-stage conversion procedure was planned. The feasibility of this approach and peri-operative outcomes of these patients were evaluated and analyzed.

RESULTS

A single-step approach was successfully achieved in 738 (83.4%) of the 885 patients. During the study period, there was a significant increase in performing the conversion from LAGB to RYGB single-staged. No mortality or anastomotic leakage was observed in both groups. Only 45 patients (5.1%) had a 30-d complication: most commonly hemorrhage (N = 20/45), with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Converting a LAGB to RYGB can be performed with a very low morbidity and zero-mortality in a high-volume revisional bariatric center. With increasing experience and full standardization of the conversion, the vast majority of operations can be performed as a single-stage procedure. Only a migrated band remains a formal contraindication for a one-step approach.

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.

Worthy or not? Six-year experience of revisional bariatric surgery from an Asian center of excellence

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasing. The various primary operations with their distinctive complications make this group of patients quite heterogeneous, and treatment has to be individualized. There are concerns regarding the safety profile and efficacy of these procedures. The objective of the present study was to analyze the indications, safety, and efficacy of RBS at a high-volume Asian center and provide insight into the different treatment options.

METHODS

Of a total of 1578 bariatric surgeries from July 2006 to June 2012, 52 patients underwent revisional bariatric procedures. The primary operations included 6 different procedures. The indications for surgery were grouped into weight loss failure (n = 21) or complications related to the primary operation (n = 31). The revisional operations performed were conversion to another procedure (n = 22), revision of existing anatomy (n = 29), or reversal to normal anatomy (n = 1).

RESULTS

96% of revisional surgeries were performed laparoscopically. The median operating time was 72 minutes (25-240 min), and the median duration of hospital stay was 4 days (3-25 d). The mean body mass index for weight loss failure decreased significantly from 36.3 to 29.6 kg/m(2) after 1 year of revisional surgery (P<.01). However, revision of RYGB was only associated with a body mass index loss of 3.2 kg/m(2) and percentage of excess weight loss of 31.8%. More than 90% of the patients with complications had complete resolution of their preoperative symptoms. There were 3 major complications with an overall morbidity rate of 5.8%. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is well-tolerated, with satisfactory early outcomes, in high-volume centers. However, larger studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term efficacy of these procedures.

Two stages conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass. A study of one hundred patients

INTRODUCTION

Conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) appears to be the treatment of choice after failed LAGB. To reduce the risk of postoperative complications, some surgeons routinely adopt a two-stage strategy. The purpose of this study was to analyze our institution's experience with the two-stage procedure for LAGB conversion to LRYGB MATERIALS AND METHODS: The bariatric database of our institution was reviewed to identify patients who had undergone conversion of LAGB to LRYGB from November 2007 to June 2012.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included. Of these, 62 (62%) required conversion to LRYGB for inadequate weight loss or weight regain and 38 for band-related complications. All the procedures were performed in two stages and laparoscopically. The average time between band removal and LRYGB was 17.3 months. The mean follow-up after LRYGB was 31 ± 18.7 months. The mean BMI prior to LRYGB conversion was 45.3 ± 5.2. Early complications occurred in 15 patients (15%), while late complications occurred in only 3 patients (3%). The average %EWL at 24 months and 48 months after conversion was 70.1 and 69.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although a two-stage conversion strategy increases the number of operations and hospital stay without decreasing the rate of early complications compared to one-stage conversion; it has shown to be associated with low rates of GJA stenosis and excellent %EWL.

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.

Revisional surgery after failed gastric banding: results of one-stage conversion to RYGB in 195 patients

BACKGROUND

The most performed restrictive bariatric procedure is the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). With many patients still receiving a LAGB in Europe and the United States, inevitably, the number of complications also increases. For many complications revisional bariatric surgery is necessary. In this study, the outcomes of one-stage LAGB conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at our institution are presented. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of RYGB performed as a one-stage procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The gastric band had to be in situ for at least 1 year and minimum postoperative follow-up was 12 months. The revisional RYGB had to be performed as a 1-step procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients were included while 3 were lost to follow up. Overall, 178 (91%) procedures were performed without perioperative complications, and only 8 (4%) patients required reoperation within 30 days. The mean follow-up was 40 months (±24) after RYGB. Mean excess weight loss (EWL) increased from 25% (±26/-50- 120%) to 60% (±21.2/0- 130), 65% (±23.5/0- 131), 63% (±24.2/2- 132), 60% (±24.1/0- 111) and 53% (±28.7/-39- 109) in the first 5 postoperative years.

CONCLUSION

Converting a gastric band to a RYGB in a one-stage procedure is safe and feasible, with acceptable complication rates when performed in a specialized institution. The RYGB conversion results in a good EWL of 65% after 2 years. However, proper patient selection is of the utmost importance.

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.

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.

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.

The economic impact of weight regain

Background. Obesity is well known for being associated with significant economic repercussions. Bariatric surgery is the only evidence-based solution to this problem as well as a cost-effective method of addressing the concern. Numerous authors have calculated the cost effectiveness and cost savings of bariatric surgery; however, to date the economic impact of weight regain as a component of overall cost has not been addressed. Methods. The literature search was conducted to elucidate the direct costs of obesity and primary bariatric surgery, the rate of weight recidivism and surgical revision, and any costs therein. Results. The quoted cost of obesity in Canada was $2.0 billion-$6.7 billion in 2013 CAD. The median percentage of bariatric procedures that fail due to weight gain or insufficient weight loss is 20% (average: 21.1% ± 10.1%, range: 5.2-39, n = 10). Revision of primary surgeries on average ranges from 2.5% to 18.4%, and depending on the procedure accounts for an additional cost between $14,000 and $50,000 USD per patient. Discussion. There was a significant deficit of the literature pertaining to the cost of revision surgery as compared with primary bariatric surgery. As such, the cycle of weight recidivism and bariatric revisions has not as of yet been introduced into any previous cost analysis of bariatric surgery.

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

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.

Revision of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: success or failure?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a safe and frequently performed bariatric procedure. Unfortunately, re-operations are often necessary. Reports on the success of revisional procedures are scarce and show variable results, either supporting or declining the idea of revising LAGB. This study describes a large cohort of re-operations after failed LAGB to determine the success of revision.

METHODS

By use of a prospective cohort, all LAGB revisions performed between 1996 and 2008 were identified. From 301 primary LAGB procedures in our centre, 43 patients (14.3%) required a band revision. In addition, 51 patients were referred from other centres. Our analysis included in total 94 patients with a mean follow-up period of 38 months after revision.

RESULTS

Revision was mainly necessary due to anterior slippage (46%) and symmetrical pouch dilatation (36%), which could be resolved by replacing (70%) or refixating the band (27%). Weight loss significantly increased after revision (excess BMI loss (EBMIL), 37.2 ± 36.3% versus 47.5 ± 30.4%, P < 0.05). After revision, 23 patients (24%) needed a second re-operation. Patients converted to other procedures (16%) during the second re-operation showed larger weight loss than the revised group (EBMIL, 64.3 ± 28.1% versus 44.3 ± 28.7%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We report on a large cohort of LAGB revisions with 38 months of follow-up. Revision of failed LAGB by either refixation or replacement of the band is successful and further increases weight loss.

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.

Management of the obese patient with gastroesophageal reflux disease

Obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are common chronic illnesses. They often coexist and need to be treated concomitantly. Fundoplication may be effective for the short-term control of GERD in the obese patient; however, this procedure does not induce weight loss or treat the comorbid conditions related to obesity. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is a highly effective treatment of GERD, obesity, and the associated comorbidities. Surgeons who are not comfortable with a bariatric surgical procedure in these patients should either complete appropriate advanced training in bariatric surgery or refer those patients to a qualified surgeon who can offer these options.