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

Preoperative risk factors for early postoperative bleeding after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Although bariatric surgery is an effective intervention for obesity, it comes with risks such as early postoperative bleeding (EPB). Identifying preoperative risk factors for this complication can help patients' risk stratification and optimization. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to find predictors for early postoperative bleeding after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until November 2023. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to explore preoperative risk factors associated with early postoperative bleeding after RYGB. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by leave-one-out analyses.

RESULTS

23 studies were included, comprising 232,488 patients. Male gender (meta-analytical RR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.21-1.66, I2 = 18%, Q Cochran test p-value = 0.29) and revisional surgery (meta-analytical RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.12-1.62, I2 = 22%, Q Cochran test p = 0.21) were associated with higher risk of EPB. On average, patients with EPB were older than the remainder (MD for the mean age = 2.82 years, 95%CI = 0.97-4.67, I2 = 0.00%, Q Cochran test p = 0.46). Except for hypertension (meta-analytical RR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.02-1.73, I2 = 66%, Q Cochran test p < 0.0001), comorbidities were not associated with a higher risk of EPB.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative risk factors, including age, gender, hypertension, and revisional bariatric surgery, are associated with early postoperative bleeding after RYGB. Further primary studies, with higher methodological quality, are required to detail more risk factors.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Secondary bariatric surgery rates have increased, accounting for approximately 19% of the total bariatric cases in the last years, most commonly conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass. Using the MBSAQIP, we evaluate the outcomes of this procedure compared to the primary RYGB surgery.

METHODS

The new variable, conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB in the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP database was analyzed. Patients who underwent primary laparoscopic RYGB and those who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB conversion were identified. Using Propensity Score Matching analysis, the cohorts were matched for 21 preoperative characteristics. We then compared 30-day outcomes and bariatric-specific complications between primary RYGB and conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB.

RESULTS

There were 43,253 primary RYGB procedures performed and 6,833 conversions from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB. The matched cohorts (n = 5912) for the two groups have similar pre-operative characteristics. Propensity-matched outcomes showed that conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB was associated with more readmissions (6.9% vs 5.0%, p < 0.001), interventions (2.6% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), conversion to open (0.7% vs 0.2%, p < 0.001), length of stay (1.79 ± 1.77 days vs 1.62 ± 1.66 days, p < 0.001), and operative time (119.16 ± 56.82 min vs 138.27 ± 66.00, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality (0.1% vs 0.1%, p = 0.405), and bariatric-specific complications such as anastomotic leak (0.5% vs 0.4%, p = 0.585), intestinal obstruction (0.1% vs 0.2%, p = 0.808), internal hernia (0.2% vs 0.1%, p = 0.285) or anastomotic ulcer (0.3% vs 0.3%, p = 0.731) rates.

CONCLUSION

Conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB is a safe and feasible operation with reasonable outcomes compared with primary RYGB.

How Good is Stratification and Prediction Model Analysis Between Primary and Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery? A Multi-center Study and Narrative Review

INTRODUCTIONS

Revision surgery because of weight recurrence is performed in 2.5-33% of primary vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and gastric band (GB) cases. These cases qualify for revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2008 to 2019. A stratification analysis and multivariate logistic regression for prediction modeling compared the possibility of sufficient % excess weight loss (%EWL) ≥ 50 or insufficient %EWL < 50 between three different RRYGB procedures, with primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB) as the control during 2 years of follow-up. A narrative review was conducted to test the presence of prediction models in the literature and their internal and external validity.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients underwent PRYGB, and 338 underwent RRYGB after VBG, LSG, and GB, and completed 2 years of follow-up. Overall, 32.2% of patients after RRYGB had a sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after 2 years, compared to 71.3% after PRYGB (p ≤ 0.001). The total %EWL after the revision surgeries for VBG, LSG, and GB was 68.5%, 74.2%, and 64.1%, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). After correcting for confounding factors, the baseline odds ratio (OR) or sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after PRYGB, LSG, VBG, and GB was 2.4, 1.45, 0.29, and 0.32, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Age was the only significant variable in the prediction model (p = 0.0016). It was impossible to develop a validated model after revision surgery because of the differences between stratification and the prediction model. The narrative review showed only 10.2% presence of validation in the prediction models, and 52.5% had external validation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 32.2% of all patients after revisional surgery had a sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after 2 years, compared to PRYGB. LSG had the best outcome in the revisional surgery group in the sufficient %EWL group and the best outcome in the insufficient %EWL group. The skewness between the prediction model and stratification resulted in a partially non-functional prediction model.

Determination of weight loss effectiveness evaluation indexes and establishment of a nomogram for forecasting the probability of effectiveness of weight loss in bariatric surgery: a retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this research was to determine the index that contributes the most to assessing the effectiveness of weight loss 1 year following bariatric surgery and to implement it as the clinical outcome to develop and confirm a nomogram to predict whether bariatric surgery would be effective.

METHODS

Patient information was extracted from the Chinese Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Database for this retrospective study. The most contributing weight loss effectiveness evaluation index was created using canonical correlation analysis (CCA), and the predictors were screened using logistic regression analysis. A nomogram for estimating the likelihood of effectiveness of weight loss was constructed, and its performance was further verified.

RESULTS

Information was obtained for 540 patients, including 30 variables. According to the CCA, ≥25 percentage total weight loss was found to be the most correlated with patient information and contribute the most as a weight loss effectiveness evaluation index. Logistic regression analysis and nomogram scores identified age, surgical strategy, abdominal circumference, weight loss history, and hyperlipidemia as predictors of effectiveness in weight loss. The prediction model's discrimination, accuracy, and clinical benefit were demonstrated by the consistency index, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors determined a 25 percentage total weight loss as an index for weight loss effectiveness assessment by CCA and next established and validated a nomogram, which demonstrated promising performance in predicting the probability of effectiveness of weight loss in bariatric surgery. The nomogram might be a valuable tool in clinical practice.

Long-term outcomes of revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass post laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

PURPOSE

Revisional bariatric surgeries following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) have demonstrated a dramatic increase worldwide. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become a contender as an appropriate revisional procedure; however, no long-term data currently exist on the effectiveness of it as a revisional surgery post-LSG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent LSG at a public hospital in Kuwait from 2008 to 2017. A list was obtained of those who underwent revisional OAGB surgery after initial LSG, after which a phone survey was performed and demographics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients underwent revisional OAGB post-initial LSG, of which 89.7% were female. Prior to LSG, the mean weight of the patients was 127.5 kg, and the mean BMI was 49.0 kg/m2. The mean weight loss after initial LSG was 43.8 kg, while the average duration until patients underwent revisional OAGB was 5.3 years. The cause for revision was weight regain (86.2%) or inadequate weight loss (13.8%). Prior to undergoing revisional OAGB, the weight and BMI of the patients was 110.9 kg and 42.4 kg/m2, respectively. Revisional OAGB demonstrated a %excess weight loss of 14.5%, 31.9%, 48.0%, 56.3%, 57.2%, and 54.7% at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 4 years, and 5 years, respectively. Twelve morbidities were reported during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is technically demanding and may be associated with a high complication rate. However, OAGB as a revisional procedure has proven to be safe and effective in the long-term outcomes of revisional OAGB patients post-LSG.

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.

Resizing a large pouch after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: comparing the effect of two techniques on weight loss

BACKGROUND

Insufficient weight loss or weight regain has many causes including a large gastric pouch. A large gastric pouch may be due to the surgical technique or can be patient related (dilation). Resizing the gastric pouch may lead to additional weight loss. Currently, there is no gold standard for the revisional surgical technique. Therefore this study was performed to determine which surgical technique for revisional bariatric surgery (BS) has superior outcomes in terms of weight loss: sleeve resection of the gastrojejunostomy and gastric pouch (SGP), or resection of the gastrojejunostomy with resizing of the pouch and creation of a new anastomosis (RGJ).

METHODS

All patients who underwent revisional BS for insufficient weight loss or weight regain as a result of an enlarged pouch after LRYGB from April 2014 to June 2018 in our hospitals were included in this observational cohort study. Outcomes were measured in percentage total weight loss (%TWL).

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients who underwent SGP and 21 patients who underwent RGJ as revisional BS were included in this study. The median body mass index before revisional BS was 37.6 kg/m² versus 35.7 kg/m² (SGP vs RGJ, respectively, P = 0.115). There was no significant difference in %TWL between the two cohorts 1 and 2 years after revisional BS, respectively; SGP 14.5% vs RGJ 11.0%, P = 0.885 and SGP 12.3% vs RGJ 10.8%, P = 0.604. Comparing %TWL based on weight at LRYGB, there was also no significant difference two years after revisional BS (SGP 22.0% vs RGJ 22.2%, P = 0.885). The average use of surgical disposables for the SGP technique were lower compared to the RGJ technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Resizing a large pouch leads to additional weight loss. Both techniques have comparable outcomes in terms of weight loss. However, based on average surgical costs, the SGP technique may be preferable.

What Is Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery Expressed in Percentage Total Weight Loss (%TWL)? A Systematic Review

Percentage total weight loss (%TWL) might be better than percentage excess weight loss to express weight loss in bariatric surgery. In this systematic review, performed according to the PRISMA statement, results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are assessed in %TWL. A total of 13,426 studies were screened and 49 included, reporting data of 24,760 patients. The results show that, despite limiting data, LRYGB is favorable over LSG in terms of weight loss in short-term follow-up. Although recent guidelines recommend to use %TWL when reporting outcome in bariatric surgery, this study shows that there is still insufficient quality data in %TWL, especially on LSG. The use of %TWL as the primary outcome measure in bariatric surgery should be encouraged.

Is Revisional Gastric Bypass as Effective as Primary Gastric Bypass for Weight Loss and Improvement of Comorbidities?

BACKGROUND

Revisional gastric bypass (R-RYGB) surgery is utilized for the management of inadequate weight loss or weight regain observed after some cases of bariatric surgeries. Data on the mid-term effectiveness of primary gastric bypass (P-RYGB) compared with R-RYGB (e.g., post sleeve gastrectomy/gastric banding) are controversial.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients who received P-RYGB and R-RYGB (January 2011-June 2015) at our center. One hundred twenty patients who underwent P-RYGB and 34 R-RYGB who completed 18 months follow-up were included. We compared the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB by assessing four anthropometric, two glycemic, and four lipid parameters, as well as the control of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia (remission, improvement, persistence, relapse, de novo), mortality and complications rates.

RESULTS

A comparison of the effectiveness of P-RYGB with R-RYGB at 18 months revealed no significant differences in patients' age, gender, and preoperative BMI between groups. However, patients who received P-RYGB had lower mean weight (P = 0.001) and BMI (P < 0.001), reflected by a higher mean delta BMI (P = 0.02), total weight loss percentage (TWL%) (P < 0.0001) and excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) (P < 0.0001). No differences in glycemic parameters, lipid profiles, control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were observed. No death is reported and complication rates were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although R-RYGB effectively addressed inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and recurrence of comorbidities after restrictive bariatric surgery, R-RYGB resulted in inferior weight loss compared with P-RYGB. Neither procedure differed in their clinical control of T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Both procedures exhibited comparable complication rates.

Midterm results of revisional bariatric surgery postsleeve gastrectomy: resleeve versus bypass

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has been shown to produce the most predictable weight loss results, with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most performed procedure as of 2014. However, inadequate weight loss may present the need for a revisional procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic resleeve gastrectomy (LRSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in attaining successful weight loss.

SETTING

Public hospital following SG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent SG from 2008-2019. A list was obtained of those who underwent revisional bariatric surgery after initial SG, and their demographic characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2858 patients underwent SG, of whom 84 patients (3%) underwent either a revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB) or LRSG. A total of 82% of the patients were female. The mean weight and body mass index (BMI) before SG for the LRSG and rLRYGB patients were 136.7 kg and 49.9 kg/m² and 133.9 kg and 50.5 kg/m², respectively. The mean BMI showed a drop from 42.0 to 31.7 (P < .001) 1 year post revisional surgery for the LRSG group and 42.7 to 34.5 (P < .001) for the rLRYGB group, correlating to an excess weight loss (EWL) of 61.7% and 48.1%, respectively. At 5 years post revisional surgery, LRSG patients showed an increase in BMI to 33.8 (EWL = 45.3%), while those who underwent rLRYGB showed a decrease to 34.3 (EWL = 49.2%). Completeness of follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years for rLRYGB and LRSG were 67%, 35%, and 24% and 45%, 21%, and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery is a safe and effective method for the management of failed primary SG. LRSG patients tended to do better earlier on; however, it leveled off with those who underwent rLRYGB by 5 years.

Twelve-Year Experience with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Conversional Procedure for Vertical Banded Gastroplasty: Are We on the Right Track?

BACKGROUND

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) has high rates of long-term complications. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered optimal; however, there are limited data on the late results of these conversions. We aimed to analyze our single-center long-term outcomes of patients requiring conversional RYGB for a failed VBG.

METHODS

The records of patients who underwent RYGB as a conversional procedure after VBG from November 2004 to December 2016 were reviewed. Follow-up data were obtained by direct telephone calls with patients, electronic files, and general practitioner reports. Characteristics, indications of conversion, long-term (> 30 days) morbidities, weight records, obesity-related comorbidities, and overall patient satisfaction were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 305 VBG patients (82% female) underwent conversional RYGB during the study period. The mean pre-RYGB body mass index (BMI) was 35.6 (23-66) kg/m². Conversions were indicated in 61% of patients because of simultaneous VBG complications and weight regain. After a median follow-up of 74.3 (5-151) months, 225 (73.8%) patients agreed to participate. The mean BMI and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) were 28.6 (18-45) kg/m² and 17.4%, respectively. Nearly all conversion indications were addressed effectively. Surgical reintervention was mandatory in 28 of 225 patients (12.4%) due to complications. Approximately 85% of patients reported complete remission of obesity-related comorbidities, and four-fifths were fully satisfied.

CONCLUSION

RYGB resolves VBG complications, improves quality of life, and results in prolonged stable weight loss. It has a key role in the management of obesity-related comorbidities and in expert hands is the preferred conversional procedure for patients with failed VBG.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

Gastric Bypass as a Third Bariatric Procedure-Our Experience with 42 Cases

BACKGROUND

It is not uncommon to encounter patients seeking a third, fourth, or even fifth bariatric procedure. With higher expected complication rates and questionable patient benefit, the indication for multiple revisions is still in doubt. To evaluate the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing gastric bypass after two previous bariatric surgeries or more.

METHODS

We identified all patients that underwent gastric bypass following at least 2 previous bariatric surgeries. We looked at patient demographics, previous bariatric surgeries, pre-operative body mass index (BMI) and obesity-related co-morbidities, perioperative complications, length of stay (LOS), re-admissions and re-operations, percentage of excess weight loss, and resolution or improvement in comorbidities.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients met the inclusion criteria, the majority being females (31, 73.8%). Average age was 45.6 years (range 27-62), average weight and BMI was 116 kg (range 75-175 kg) and 41.1 kg/m² (range 25.6-58.7 kg/m²), respectively. Thirty-two patients had two previous bariatric surgeries (73.8%), and 10 patients had 3 former bariatric surgeries (23.8%), and for one patient, this was the fifth bariatric procedure (2.4%). Mean LOS was 10 days (range 2-56 days). Eight patients (19%) needed re-admission and 5 (11.9%) needed re-operation. At a median follow up of 48 months (range 7-99 months), the average BMI was 34.5 kg/m² (range 23.7-55.1 kg/m²) reflecting an excess BMI loss of 43.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastric bypass as a third or more bariatric procedure is effective yet associated with high complication rates, re-admissions, and re-operations.

Revisional Gastric Bypass Is Inferior to Primary Gastric Bypass in Terms of Short- and Long-term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Although Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the main primary bariatric procedure, it has also been utilized as revisional bariatric surgery. Our aim is to compare revisionary gastric bypass with primary gastric bypass through systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods

Available literature was searched for eligible studies up to December 2017. Inclusion criteria were reports on morbidity, %EWL, or diabetes remission. Secondary outcomes involved mortality, anastomotic leakage, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Random effect meta-analyses were undertaken.

Results

Initial search yielded 1164 references. Final meta-analysis involved 21 studies and revealed significant differences in terms of morbidity (RR1.54, p < 0.001) and EWL (WMD-19.9, p < 0.001). There were no differences in diabetes remission.

Conclusion

Revisionary RYGB has worse weight loss effect with greater morbidity rate than primary RYGB.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11695-018-3300-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Primary Versus Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Long-Term Results

AIMS

To compare the perioperative parameters and excess weight loss between patients operated by laporoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), as a primary operation or a revisional, for insufficient weight loss after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a LRYGB was performed for the period 2004-2011. Demographics, preoperative body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, operation time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, hospitalization period, and % of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-two laparoscopic gastric bypass operations were performed, 245 were primary, and 97 revisional. Median follow-up was 30 months (range 0-108 months). Mean BMI (kg/m²) before bypass was 45.2 for primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (pLRYGB) and 41.1 for revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB). Median operative time and length of stay were longer for rLRYGB 157.5 versus 235 min (p < 0.001) and 6 versus 6.5 days (p = 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy was performed in eight patients, 0.4% of primary and 7.2% of revisional. Morbidity rate was 6.5% in pLRYGB versus 10% in rLRYGB (NS). There was one death in the primary group. Percentage of EBMIL was significantly lower in the revisional group at 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional and primary gastric bypass have no statistical differences in terms of morbidity. The % of excess BMI loss is lower after revisional gastric bypass during the first 2 years of follow-up. The trend of weight loss or weight regain was similar in both groups.

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

Introduction:

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Preoperative Predictive Factors of Successful Weight Loss and Glycaemic Control 1 Year After Gastric Bypass for Morbid Obesity

BACKGROUND

Gastric bypass (GBP) is one of the most effective surgical procedures to treat morbid obesity and the related comorbidities. This study aimed at identifying preoperative predictors of successful weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission 1 year after GBP.

METHODS

Prospective longitudinal study of 771 patients who underwent GBP was performed at four Italian centres between November 2011 and May 2013 with 1-year follow-up. Preoperative anthropometric, metabolic and social parameters, the surgical technique and the previous failed bariatric procedures were analyzed. Weight, the body mass index (BMI), the percentage of excess weight lost (% EWL), the percentage of excess BMI lost (% BMIL) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were recorded at follow-up.

RESULTS

Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that BMI <50 kg/m(2) (p = 0.006) and dyslipidaemia (p = 0.05) were predictive factors of successful weight loss. Multivariate analysis of surgical technique showed significant weight loss in patients with a small gastric pouch (p < 0.001); the lengths of alimentary and biliary loops showed no statistical significance. All diabetic patients had a significant reduction of HbA1c (p < 0.001) after surgery. BMI ≥ 50 kg/m(2) (p = 0.02) and low level of preoperative HbA1c (p < 0.01) were independent risk factors of T2DM remission after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a useful tool for making more accurate predictions of best results in terms of weight loss and metabolic improvement.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review of Comparative Outcomes with Respective Primary Procedures

Though primary bariatric surgery is now firmly established as the first-line treatment for morbid obesity, this is not the case with revisional bariatric surgery. Despite proven benefits and patient demand, revisional bariatric surgery continues to attract controversy. Even though it is widely believed to be riskier and less effective than primary bariatric surgery, there is currently no systematic review in literature addressing this point. This review aims to establish outcomes after revisional bariatric surgery in comparison with those after primary bariatric surgery. Since Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy is currently the commonest anatomy achieved after revisional bariatric surgery, this review focuses on the outcome of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and revisional sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with respective primary procedures.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity: comparison of primary versus revisional bypass by using the BAROS score

BACKGROUND

Vertically banded gastroplasty or adjustable gastric banding often result in weight regain, complications, or side effects. Failed restrictive bariatric procedures can be converted in revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). This study aimed to compare weight loss, evolution of comorbidities, and quality of life (QOL) between primary versus revisional LRYGB.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2012, 374 patients underwent LRYGB as primary or revisional surgery performed by a single surgeon. Patient data were retrospectively reviewed; questionnaires of QOL were sent to all patients. Outcomes were evaluated according to Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS) taking into account excess body mass index loss (EBMIL), correction of comorbidities, improvement in QOL, and complications.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two patients (62%) responded to the questionnaire, 163 patients in the primary group and 69 in the revisional group. Median follow-up was 36 months (12-108). Median percentages of EBMIL were, respectively, 74% (26.8-126.8) and 50% (-31.6-124.2) in the primary and the revisional groups (p < 0.01). Median BAROS score reached 6.5 (-2-9) in the primary group, against 4.3 (-1.8-9) in the revisional group (p < 0.01). There were significantly less "fair" and more "excellent" scores in the primary group, considering initial BMI before gastroplasty. Arterial hypertension and sleep apnea syndrome resolved, respectively, in 51 and 56% in the primary group and only in 29 and 33% in the revisional group (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

According to BAROS score, revisional LRYGB for failed restrictive procedures provided poorer results than primary LRYGB in terms of weight loss, resolution of comorbidities and QOL.

Should we wait for metabolic complications before operating on obese patients? Gastric bypass outcomes in metabolically healthy obese individuals

BACKGROUND

A subgroup of obese patients without metabolic disorders has been identified and defined as metabolically healthy but morbidly obese (MHMO).

OBJECTIVES

To compare Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) outcomes between MHMO and metabolically unhealthy morbidly obese (MUMO) patients to assess whether the obesity phenotype could affect the results.

SETTING

A university-affiliated tertiary care center.

METHODS

One hundred nineteen consecutive patients underwent RYGB; 102 completed the 2-year follow-up and were divided into 2 groups (MHMO and MUMO) according to Wildman criteria, including blood pressure, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), fasting blood sugar, C-reactive protein (CRP), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Weight loss and metabolic parameter changes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of 102 (20.6%) patients were identified as MHMO; they were mostly women (90.5%) and were significantly younger than MUMO patients (39.4 ± 9.1 yr versus 47.2 ± 10, P = .001); 12.6% were lost to follow-up. MHMO phenotype was significantly associated with a greater percentage of excess body mass index loss (P = .03), independent of gender, age, and redo procedures. All metabolic parameters were significantly improved 2 years after surgery in the MUMO group. HOMA-IR, CRP, and triglycerides were significantly lower 2 years after surgery in the MHMO group, whereas fasting blood sugar and HDL-C were unchanged. At 2 years of follow-up, 92.3% of the population was metabolically healthy.

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is an effective procedure to achieve weight loss and had a strong positive metabolic effect in both MHMO and MUMO phenotypes. RYGB led to an increase of the metabolically healthy status and may prevent or delay the onset of metabolic disorders.

Perioperative risk and complications of revisional bariatric surgery compared to primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

INTRODUCTION

Growing number of patients requires revisional bariatric surgery. This study compares perioperative course and outcomes of revisional versus primary bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery from Jan 1997 to Sept 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Every revisional patient with BMI >35 and age <70 was matched with a primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass control patient based on preoperative BMI, age, sex, and year of surgery. Patients' preoperative indications, intraoperative/postoperative course, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty five patients underwent revisional bariatric surgery with resulting Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy while 1,674 patients underwent primary gastric bypass in the same time interval. Of 255 patients, 172 patients were paired with 172 primary gastric bypass patients. Revisional bariatric group had preoperative BMI 48 ± 9, age 52 ± 9 years, 93 % female, 44 % laparoscopic, 30 % diabetic, 60 % hypertensive. Primary bypass patients had preoperative BMI 49 ± 8, age 52 ± 9 years, 93 % female, 97 % laparoscopic, 49 % diabetic, 67 % hypertensive. Compared to primary bypass patients, revisional patients had significantly higher estimated blood loss (463.7 vs. 113.3 mL), longer operative time (272.5 vs. 175.5 min), greater risk for ICU stay (N = 24, 14 % vs. N = 2, 1 %), and longer hospital stay (5.6 vs. 2.5 days). There were significantly more intraoperative liver (N = 13, 8 % vs. N = 1, 1 %) and spleen (N = 18, 10 % vs. N = 0) injuries, and more enterotomies (N = 9, 5 % vs. N = 0) in the revisional group. There were also significantly more postoperative complications (N = 94, 55 % vs. N = 48, 28 %), readmissions (N = 27, 16 % vs. N = 12, 7 %), and reoperations (N = 16, 9 % vs. N = 3, 2 %) within 30 days of surgery. Mean percentage weight loss at 1 year was significantly less for revisional patients (27 vs. 37 %). There was no significant difference in 30 day mortality between the two groups (N = 6 vs. 0).

CONCLUSION

Even in experienced hands, complex revisional bariatric surgery should be approached with significant caution, especially given that weight loss is less substantial.

Relevance of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass volumetry using 3-dimensional gastric computed tomography with gas to predict weight loss at 1 year

BACKGROUND

Causes of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) failures are still controversial. Literature data suggest that gastric pouch or gastrojejunal anastomosis distentions over time could be a key factor. Making the hypothesis that progressive distention of RYGB volumes is 1 of the main factors of weight loss failure, the aim of our study was to evaluate bypass volumes changes using repeated 3-dimensional gastric computed tomography with gas and the possible negative correlation with weight loss results at 1 year.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients eligible for RYGB were prospectively included. Gastric bypass volumes were assessed at 3 and 12 months postsurgery performing 3-dimensional gastric computed tomography with gas and weight loss outcomes were recorded during the first postoperative year.

RESULTS

There was no loss to follow up. Mean % excess body mass index lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year was 66.7%. Seven patients (17.9%) did not reach Reinhold criteria and were considered as RYGB failures. We found no linear correlation between the 1 year %EBMIL and mean values of the gastric pouch (r=.01; P=.94), and the neo stomach (r=.09 ; P=.57) at 3 months. Revisional surgery was correlated negatively with %EBMIL at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Weight loss at 1 year does not seem to be correlated to RYGB volume changes. Behavioral factors probably play a major role in weight loss failure.

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.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

The development of these updated guidelines was commissioned by the AACE, TOS, and ASMBS Board of Directors and adheres to the AACE 2010 protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Each recommendation was re-evaluated and updated based on the evidence and subjective factors per protocol. Examples of expanded topics in this update include: the roles of sleeve gastrectomy, bariatric surgery in patients with type-2 diabetes, bariatric surgery for patients with mild obesity, copper deficiency, informed consent, and behavioral issues. There are 74 recommendations (of which 56 are revised and 2 are new) in this 2013 update, compared with 164 original recommendations in 2008. There are 403 citations, of which 33 (8.2%) are EL 1, 131 (32.5%) are EL 2, 170 (42.2%) are EL 3, and 69 (17.1%) are EL 4. There is a relatively high proportion (40.4%) of strong (EL 1 and 2) studies, compared with only 16.5% in the 2008 AACE-TOS-ASMBS CPG. These updated guidelines reflect recent additions to the evidence base. Bariatric surgery remains a safe and effective intervention for select patients with obesity. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.