Systematic literature review of reoperations after gastric banding: is a stepwise approach justified?

Propensity score matching analysis comparing outcomes between primary and revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective record-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB.

METHOD

A retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex.

RESULTS

Patients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (- 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. - 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (- 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (- 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. - 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.

Does bariatric surgery reduce future hospital costs? A propensity score-matched analysis using UK Biobank Study data

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the hospital costs among persons with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery compared with those without bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We analysed the UK Biobank Cohort study linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, for all adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery at National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland, or Wales from 2006 to 2017. Surgery patients were matched with controls who did not have bariatric surgery using propensity scores approach with a ratio of up to 1-to-5 by year. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to correct for potential informative censoring. Annual and cumulative hospital costs were assessed for the surgery and control groups.

RESULTS

We identified 348 surgical patients (198 gastric bypass, 73 sleeve gastrectomy, 77 gastric banding) during the study period. In total, 324 surgical patients and 1506 matched control participants were included after propensity score matching. Mean 5-year cumulative hospital costs were €11,659 for 348 surgical patients. Compared with controls, surgical patients (n = 324) had significantly higher inpatient expenditures in the surgery year (€7289 vs. €2635, P < 0.001), but lower costs in the subsequent 4 years. The 5-year cumulative costs were €11,176 for surgical patients and €8759 for controls (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery significantly increased the inpatient costs in the surgery year, but was associated with decreased costs in the subsequent 4 years. However, any cost savings made up to 4 years were not enough to compensate for the initial surgical expenditure.

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.

Comparison of Preoperative Diets Before Bariatric Surgery: a Randomized, Single-Blinded, Non-inferiority Trial

OBJECTIVE

In order to increase weight loss and minimize complications, a preoperative diet before bariatric has been advocated. However, some diets are poorly tolerated by patients and this can lead to low compliance and too little weight loss. In this study, we aim to compare two preoperative diets in order to find the most suitable for this patient population.

METHODS

Comparison of preoperative diets before bariatric surgery with a randomized non-inferiority trial in order to compare the standard very low calorie diet (VLCD) by protein shakes (Prodimed) with a standard diet using ordinary products. The primary outcome parameter was preoperative weight loss. Secondary outcome parameters were operation time, difficulty of surgery, short-term complications, short-term weight loss and compliance, tolerance, and acceptance of the diets.

RESULTS

Two hundred twelve patients suitable for gastric bypass surgery were included and randomized. The Prodimed group contained 105 patients, the standard diet group 107 patients. Preoperative weight loss and 4 weeks after the procedure were not significantly different between the two diet groups. Operation time, difficulty of surgery, short-term complications, and short-term weight loss were also comparable without significant differences between the diet groups. However, most of the parameters measuring patients' compliance, tolerance, and acceptance of the diets were significantly better in the standard diet group as compared to the patients in the Prodimed group.

CONCLUSION

Protein shakes and standard diets are capable of achieving good and comparable results on preoperative weight loss before bariatric surgery. However, patients' compliance, tolerance, and acceptance were all significantly better after a standard diet. We recommend giving patients a choice in preoperative diets in order to achieve the best possible weight loss and results.

Systematic review of patient education practices in weight loss surgery

BACKGROUND

Education plays a key role in adherence to lifestyle modifications after weight loss surgery (WLS). Education given before and after surgery may decrease weight recidivism rates and improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze educational practices in bariatric centers.

METHODS

The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health and PubMed databases were searched in May 2016 for English-language, peer-reviewed studies about WLS patient education practices from 1999 to 2016. Publications were: (1) rated with the Advancing Research and Clinical Practice through Close Collaboration levels of evidence hierarchy (see Melnyk's pryamid [http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282802&p=1888246]) and (2) analyzed according to surgical phase, curriculum, program delivery, and educator.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications met the study criteria. Evidence ratings for preoperative (n = 16) and postoperative studies (n = 8) were levels I to III (n = 5) and IV to VII (n = 17). Two publications were not ratable. Preoperative and postoperative education programs varied in curriculum, teaching methods, and educator. Topics varied in depth. Commonalities were surgical procedure, nutrition, activity, and psychosocial behaviors. Preoperative education was mostly provided in small groups, whereas individual sessions were used postoperatively. Lecture and discussion provided by myriad of healthcare experts from multiple disciplines were typical in both phases. Written or web-based aides supported learning needs in both phases.

CONCLUSION

WLS patient education varied by curriculum and dose and commonly used passive learning methods (e.g., traditional lecture style instruction with minimal engagement from learners). Results shared can inform future bariatric education programs and accreditation standard development (e.g., Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program patient education standards). Additional study is needed, but existing evidence can guide improvements in high-quality, cost-effective, and patient-centered educational programs.

Conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe as a single-step procedure

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been proposed as a revisional procedure for treatment of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been advocated as the procedure of choice for revision. In this study, we compare the single- and two-step approaches for the revision of failed LAGB to LRYGB.

METHOD

All patients who underwent bariatric surgery were included in a prospective database. For the purpose of this study, patients who underwent revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB were selected. Records for individual patients were completed by data review. Complication rates and weight development were recorded until 2 years postoperatively. Data were compared between both procedures and with complications rates reported in literature.

RESULTS

Revisional gastric bypass surgery was performed in 257 patients. This was done as a planned single-step procedure in 220 (86 %) patients without indications for acute band removal and in 32 patients as a planned 2 step procedure. Five patients were planned as a single-step procedure but were intraoperatively converted to a 2-step procedure based on poor pouch tissue quality. No postoperative mortality occurred in both groups. No differences in early major morbidity and stricture formation were seen between the two groups. Gastric ulceration was more frequently observed after 2-steps procedure (8.5 vs. 1.7 %, p < 0.05). In comparison with data reported in literature, the single-step procedure had similar to lower complication rates. Percentage excess weight loss two years after revisional gastric bypass procedure was, respectively, 53 versus 67 % (p = 0.147) for single- and two-step procedure.

CONCLUSION

In patients without indications for acute band removal, the planned conversion of gastric banding to Roux-Y gastric bypass can be safely done in a single-step procedure without increase in morbidity and no difference in postoperative weight loss.

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.

Simultaneous Gastric and Duodenal Erosions due to Adjustable Gastric Banding for Morbid Obesity

Erosion is an uncommon but feared late complication of adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity. A high index of clinical suspicion is required, since symptoms are usually vague and nonspecific. Diagnosis is confirmed on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and band removal is the mainstay of treatment, with band revision or conversion to other bariatric modalities at a later stage. Duodenal erosion is a much rarer complication, caused by the connection tubing of the band. We present our experience with a case of simultaneous gastric and duodenal erosions, managed by laparoscopic explantation of the band, primary suture repair of the duodenum, and omentopexy.

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.

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.

Is there a relation between number of adjustments and results after gastric banding?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a standard restrictive bariatric procedure. Previous studies have shown that patients lost to follow-up do worse than patients who remain in follow-up. However, it is unknown if this is purely because of a lack of band adjustments. The aim of this study was to study the relation between number of adjustments and results.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary LAGB from October 2006 until March 2009 were included. The following parameters were collected: demographic characteristics, preoperative and postoperative weight, preoperative and postoperative status of co-morbidities, type of band, short- and long-term complications, reoperations, date, number and volume of adjustments, total amount of inserted volume, and last measured volume.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-four patients underwent primary LAGB. Twelve patients did not attend follow-up visits after 24 months (8.1%). Mean follow-up was 46 months, and excess weight loss, 47%. Eleven patients (8.1%) developed long-term complications, and 12 patients (8.8%) underwent revisional surgery. Patients underwent a mean number of 5 adjustments with a range of 0 to 18. The mean volume of totally inserted milliliters was 8 mL, with a range of 0 to 14 mL. There was a strong positive relation between number of adjustments and weight loss as well as reduction in obesity-related co-morbidities (r = .22; P<.01). There was no significant relation between number of adjustments and complications or revisional surgery.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong relation between the number of band adjustments and weight loss, whereas complications and reoperations seem to be independent of the number of adjustments. A continual and lifelong follow-up of LAGB patients, including regular band volume adjustments, is necessary.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is one of several weight loss procedures in the bariatric surgeon's armamentarium to treat morbid obesity. Laparoscopic gastric banding has the lowest perioperative risk compared to laparoscopic gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and duodenal switch (Buchwald et al., JAMA 292:1724-1737, 2004). The adjustable gastric band results in approximately 50% excess weight loss at 5 years (O'Brien and Dixon,J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:265-270, 2003). In the long-term, reoperation rates can be high with the percentage of reoperations varying enormously in reported studies from 2% to 80% (Schouten et al., Surg Obes Relat Dis 7:99-109, 2011), although with changes in technique, reoperation rates after gastric banding have decreased (O'Brien et al., Obes Surg 15:820-826, 2005). Aftercare is critical to the success of the banded patient, in terms of adjusting the band as well as monitoring the patient's symptoms (Weichman et al., Surg Endosc 25:397-403, 2011). Several studies have shown that patients who are seen more than six to seven times in the first postoperative year have better weight loss.

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.

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.

Is biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch a solution for patients after laparoscopic gastric banding failure?

BACKGROUND

Weight loss failure after laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB) can occur in ≤ 25% of patients. Conversion to a malabsorptive procedure might provide more durable weight loss. The present study evaluated biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) after LAGB failure with a 3-year follow-up period.

METHODS

A total of 35 patients underwent BPD/DS after LAGB failure and were prospectively analyzed using a multidisciplinary approach. Weight indexes, co-morbidities, complications, morbidity/mortality, and nutritional status were analyzed.

RESULTS

Excess weight decreased from 91% (134 kg, body mass index 48 kg/m(2)) to 75% (124 kg, body mass index 44 kg/m(2)) after LAGB failure and decreased further to 40% (100 kg, body mass index 35 kg/m(2)) after BPD/DS. The mean percentage of excess weight loss was 55% after LAGB and BPD/DS together and 48% after BPD/DS alone. The incidence of co-morbidities, such as diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, joint problems, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was reduced after BPD/DS. Nutritional deficiencies were already present after LAGB failure (e.g., iron, ferritin, vitamins B(12), B(6), A, D, and E, albumin, and calcium) and either increased (folic acid, potassium, and vitamin B(12)), remained stable (iron, ferritin, vitamin A), or decreased after BPD/DS (albumin and vitamins B(6) and E).

CONCLUSION

BPD/DS provided substantial weight loss after LAGB failure and reduced the incidence of obesity-related co-morbidities during a 3-year period. Long-term nutritional follow-up is advocated for all patients after malabsorptive BPD/DS.

Conversion of failed gastric banding into four different bariatric procedures

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric operation in Europe, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), is reported to have a high incidence of long-term complications. Also, insufficient weight loss is reported. The optimal conversion technique is unknown. Our objective was to report our experience in the conversions of failed laparoscopic gastric banding procedures to 4 different bariatric procedures at a university hospital.

METHODS

From March 2006 to December 2010, 630 bariatric operations were performed. Of these patients, 45 underwent conversion of failed LAGB (n = 38) and nonadjustable gastric banding (n = 7). Using a prospectively collected database, we analyzed these procedures.

RESULTS

The 45 patients underwent laparoscopic conversion of failed LAGB (n = 38) and nonadjustable gastric banding (n = 7) to 4 different procedures. Of the 45 patients, 18 underwent conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 18 to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 7 to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, and 2 to laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion. All conversions but 1 were completed laparoscopically. The mean operating time and hospital stay for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, and biliopancreatic diversion was 111 ± 28 minutes and 4.3 ± 1.4 days, 195 ± 59 minutes and 3.9 ± 1.5 days, 248 ± 113 minutes, and 5.9 ± 2.6 days, and 203 minutes and 6.5 days, respectively. No patient died. Perioperative complications occurred in 4 patients (9.8%). The mean body mass index decreased from 41.5 ± 8 kg/m(2) to 31.3 ± 6.8 kg/m(2) during a mean follow-up period of 13.7 ± 9.6 months. Although laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with and without duodenal switch had the greatest preoperative body mass index, they achieved the greatest excess weight loss.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of LAGB or nonadjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with or without duodenal switch is feasible and effective to treat the complications of LAGB and to further reduce the weight of morbidly obese patients.