Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10:952-972. [PMID: 24776071 DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.014]

Stronger control of eating 3 months after sleeve gastrectomy predicts successful weight loss outcomes at one year

Background

Weight loss response to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is variable and predicting the effectiveness of surgery is challenging and elusive. The aim of our study was to assess and quantify the association between eating control and weight loss outcomes and identify the control of eating (CoE) attributes during the early postoperative period that might predict good vs. poor response to SG at one year.

Methods

A prospective longitudinal cohort study using the Control of Eating Questionnaire (CoEQ) was designed as a series before and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-SG. Primary outcomes were changes in CoE attributes and percent of total weight loss (%TWL) 12-months post-surgery. Subjects were categorized based on %TWL as good (GR, ≥25 %) or poor responders (PR, <25 %). A receiver operating characteristic and logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

We included 41 participants (80.5% females, 51.2% Hispanic, mean age 41.7±10.6, median baseline body mass index (BMI) 43.6 kg/m2 [range 35.2-66.3]) who completed the CoEQ at all four timepoints. The "Difficulty to control eating" score at 3 months revealed the highest area under the curve (AUC) (AUC 0.711; 95%CI 0.524-0.898; p=0.032). In a trade-off between a high Youden index and high sensitivity, the "Difficulty to control eating" score of 7 at 3 months was identified as the optimal cut-off for distinguishing between GRs and PRs. Score ≤7 at 3 months was strongly independently associated with a successful weight loss target of 25%TWL at one-year post-SG (Relative Risk 4.43; 95%CI 1.06-18.54; p=0.042).

Conclusion

"Difficulty to control eating" score at 3 months post-SG is an independent early predictor of optimal response (achieving a successful TWL target of ≥25 % at one-year post-SG). Our results support the utility of this easy-to-administer validated tool for predicting the effectiveness of SG and may assist in identifying individuals with suboptimal response early and helping them with interventions to attain optimal weight loss targets.

30-day morbidity and mortality of revisional bariatric surgery - An international multi-centre collaborative (BROAD) study

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is increasing worldwide. There is currently no large multinational, prospective data on 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the 30-day morbidity and mortality of RBS at participating centres.

METHODS

An international steering group was formed to oversee the study. The steering group members invited bariatric surgeons worldwide to participate in this study. Ethical approval was obtained at the lead centre. Data were collected prospectively on all consecutive RBS patients operated between 15th May 2021 to 31st December 2021. Revisions for complications were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 65 global centres submitted data on 750 patients. Sleeve gastrectomy (n = 369, 49.2 %) was the most common primary surgery for which revision was performed. Revisional procedures performed included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in 41.1 % (n = 308) patients, One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in 19.3 % (n = 145), Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) in 16.7 % (n = 125) and other procedures in 22.9 % (n = 172) patients. Indications for revision included weight regain in 615(81.8 %) patients, inadequate weight loss in 127(16.9 %), inadequate diabetes control in 47(6.3 %) and diabetes relapse in 27(3.6 %). 30-day complications were seen in 80(10.7 %) patients. Forty-nine (6.5 %) complications were Clavien Dindo grade 3 or higher. Two patients (0.3 %) died within 30 days of RBS.

CONCLUSION

RBS for insufficient weight loss/weight regain or metabolic relapse is associated with 10.7 % morbidity and 0.3 % mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most common primary procedure to undergo revisional bariatric surgery, while Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is the most commonly performed revision.

Laparoscopic Conversion of Gastric Plication to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass

Laparoscopic gastric plication (LPG) is a restrictive procedure to reduce the size of the stomach by folding and suturing the stomach to decrease its capacity. LGP has a high revision rate, mostly to sleeve gastrectomy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such report on the bariatric population that has been never described before.The purpose of this video was to show the feasibility and safety, as well as the main technical aspects, of a laparoscopic conversion of gastric plication to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass.

Reoperation After Loop Duodenojejunal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy: A 9-Year Experience

PURPOSE

Loop duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (LDJBSG) is effective for weight loss and resolution of obesity-related associated medical problems. However, a description of the reoperative surgery following LDJBSG is lacking.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we analyzed the surgical complications and reoperation (conversion or revision) following LDJBSG from 2011 to 2019 in a single institution.

RESULTS

A total of 337 patients underwent LDJBSG during this period. Reoperative surgery (RS) was required in 10LDJBSG patients (3%). The mean age and BMI before RS were 47 ± 9 years and 28.9 ± 3.6 kg/m2, respectively. The mean interval between primary surgery and RS for early (n = 5) and late (n = 5)complications was 8 ± 11 days and 32 ± 15.8 months, respectively. The conversion procedures were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass(n = 5), followed by Roux-en-Y duodenojejunal bypass (n = 2) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (n = 1); other revision procedures were seromyotomy (n = 1) and re-laparoscopy (n = 1). Perioperative complications were observed in four patients after conversion surgery such as multiorgan failure (n = 1), re-laparoscopy (n = 1), marginal ulcer (n = 1), GERD (n = 1), and dumping syndrome (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

LDJBSG has low reoperative rates and conversion RYGB could effectively treat the early and late complications of LDJBSG. Because of its technical demands and risk of perioperative complications, conversion surgery should be reserved for a selected group of patients and performed by an experienced metabolic bariatric surgical team.

Safety of redo sleeve gastrectomy as a primary revisional procedure

BACKGROUND

Insufficient weight loss after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) occasionally requires revisional surgery. A few single-institution studies have examined the safety of redo LSG (RSG) and have shown mixed results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of RSG compared with LSG over a period of 30 days.

SETTING

University of Southern California, United States; Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

The 2020-2021 MBSAQIP registry was used to evaluate patients who underwent RSG. Thirty-day outcomes were evaluated using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic and linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 226,029 patients were reviewed, of whom 1454 (.7%) underwent RSG and 224,575 (99.3%) underwent initial LSG. Patients who underwent RSG were older (45 versus 42 yr), predominantly female (86.2% versus 81.3%), had a lower body mass index (40.0 versus 43.4), fewer co-morbidities, and greater rates of gastroesophageal reflux (38.7% versus 25.1%). They demonstrated increased overall complications (3.6% versus 2.1%, P < .001) and a longer operative time (81 versus 62 min, P < .001), but there was no difference in mortality. On multivariable analysis, patients who underwent RSG were independently associated with an increased risk of overall postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.493, P = .018), organ space infection (OR: 6.231, P < .001), staple line leak (OR: 12.838, P < .001), pneumonia (OR: 3.85, P = .013), ventilator requirement over 48 hours (OR: 6.404, P = .035), sepsis (OR: 4.397, P = .010), septic shock (OR: 8.669, P < .001), reoperation (OR: 1.808, P = .013), readmission (OR: 2.104, P < .001), reintervention (OR: 4.435, P < .001), and longer operative times (β = 12.790, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national database study, RSG was associated with increased rates of postoperative complications and a longer operative time. Although these results are concerning, further studies are required to examine long-term outcomes.

Medium and Long-Term Weight Loss After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the current increase in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), data on the sustainability of weight loss remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess weight loss outcomes in adult patients undergoing RBS with follow-up > 2 years. Twenty-eight observational studies (n = 2213 patients) were included. The %TWL was 27.2 (95%CI = 23.7 to 30.6), and there was a drop in BMI of 10.2 kg/m2 (95%CI =  - 11.6 to - 8.7). The %EWL was 54.8 (95%CI = 47.2 to 62.4) but with a high risk of publication bias (Egger's test = 0.003). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Our data reinforce that current evidence on RBS is mainly based on low-quality observational studies, and further higher-quality studies are needed to support evidence-based practice.

Utilization of Anti-obesity Medications After Bariatric Surgery: Analysis of a Large National Database

PURPOSE

A significant proportion of patients experience insufficient weight loss or weight regain after bariatric surgery. There is a paucity of literature describing anti-obesity medication (AOM) use following bariatric surgery. We sought to identify prevalence and trends of AOM use following bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We utilized the IBM Explorys® database to identify all adults with prior bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy). Those prescribed AOMs (semaglutide, liraglutide, topiramate, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, orlistat) within 5 years of surgery were further identified. Data was analyzed to characterize AOM utilization among different age, demographic, and comorbid populations.

RESULTS

A total of 59,160 adults with prior bariatric surgery were included. Among AOMs studies, prevalence of use was highest for topiramate (8%), followed by liraglutide (2.9%), phentermine/topiramate (1.03%), naltrexone/bupropion (0.95%) semaglutide (0.52%), and orlistat (0.17%). Age distribution varied, with the highest utilization among those age 35-39 years for topiramate, 40-44 years for phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion, 45-49 years for semaglutide, and 65-69 years for liraglutide and orlistat. African American race was associated with higher utilization across all AOMs. Among comorbidities, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus were most associated with AOM use.

CONCLUSION

Despite a relatively high incidence of weight regain, AOMs are underutilized following bariatric surgery. It is imperative that barriers to their use be addressed and that AOMs be considered earlier and more frequently in patients with insufficient weight loss or weight regain after bariatric surgery.

The risk and benefit of revisional vs. primary metabolic- bariatric surgery and drug therapy - A narrative review

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) leads to long-term weight loss, reduced risk of cardiovascular events and cancer, and reduced mortality. Sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are currently the most common surgical techniques. Weight loss after MBS was previously believed to work through restriction and malabsorption, however, mechanistic studies show that MBS techniques with long term efficacy instead alter physiological signaling between the gut and the brain. In revisional MBS, the initial surgical technique is corrected, modified, or converted to a new one. The indication for revisional MBS can be to achieve further weight loss or improvement in obesity comorbidity, but it may be necessary due to complications (e.g., gastroesophageal reflux or obstruction). Revisional MBS is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications and often less weight loss compared to the results following primary surgery. This narrative review summarizes data from revisional MBS where information is often presented with inconsistent definitions for indications and outcomes, making comparison between strategies difficult. In summary, we suggest careful weighing of potential benefits and risks with revisional MBS, bearing in mind the option of add-on therapy with new anti-obesity drugs.

Marginal Ulcer Incidence and the Population of Gastrin Producing G cells Retained in the Gastric Pouch after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Is There a Relationship?

INTRODUCTION

Marginal ulcers are the most prevalent endoscopic abnormality after RYGB. The etiology is still poorly understood; however, an increase in acid secretion has been strongly implicated as a causal agent. Although gastrin is the greatest stimulant of acid secretion, to date, the presence of gastrin producing G cells retained in the gastric pouch, related to the occurrence of marginal ulcers, has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the density of G cells and parietal cells in the gastric pouch of RYGB patients with a diagnosis of marginal ulcer on the post-op EGD.

METHOD

We retrospectively evaluated 1104 gastric bypasses performed between 2010 and 2020. Patients with marginal ulcer who met the inclusion criteria and controls were selected from this same population. Endoscopic gastric pouch biopsies were evaluated using immunohistochemical study and HE staining to assess G cell and parietal cell density.

RESULTS

In total, 572 (51.8%) of the patients performed endoscopic follow-up after RYGB. The incidence of marginal ulcer was 23/572 (4%), and 3 patients required revision surgery due to a recalcitrant ulcer. The mean time for ulcer identification was 24.3 months (2-62). G cell count per high-power field (× 400) was statistically higher in the ulcer group (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in parietal cell density between groups (p 0.251).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a marginal ulcer after gastric bypass present a higher density of gastrin-producing G cells retained in the gastric pouch.

Patients' perspectives on weight recurrence after bariatric surgery: a single-center survey

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence (WR) affects nearly 20% of patients after bariatric surgery and may decrease its benefits, affecting patients' quality of life negatively. Patient perspectives on WR are not well known.

OBJECTIVES

Assess patient needs, goals, and preferences regarding WR treatment.

SETTING

Single MBSAQIP-accredited academic center, and online recruitment.

METHODS

An 18-item, web-based survey was distributed to adults seeking treatment for WR after a primary bariatric surgery (PBS), in addition to online recruitment, between 2021 and 2023. Survey items included somatometric data, questions about the importance of factors for successful weight loss, procedure decision-making, and treatment expectations.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with > 10% increase from their nadir weight were included in the study. Patients had initially undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (62.5%), sleeve gastrectomy (28.6%), adjustable gastric banding (3.6%), or other procedures (5.3%). When assessing their satisfaction with PBS, 57.1% were somewhat/extremely satisfied, 33.9% somewhat/extremely dissatisfied, while 8.9% were ambivalent. Patients considered the expected benefits (for example, weight loss) as the most important factor when choosing a treatment option for WR. Patient goals included "feeling good about myself" (96.4% very/extremely important), "being able to resume activities I could not do before" (91% very/extremely important), and "improved quality of life" and "-life expectancy" (> 90% very/extremely important). Finally, RBS, lifestyle modification with peer support, and anti-obesity medication were ranked as first treatment options for WR by 40%, 38.8%, and 29.8% of the respondents, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considered weight loss as the most important factor when choosing treatment modality for WR, with RBS and lifestyle changes being preferred over weight-loss medications. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to counsel this patient population better.

Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal bypass (SADI-S) as Primary or Two-Stage Surgery: Mid-Term Outcomes of a Single Canadian Bariatric Center

PURPOSE

Compare primary single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) and two-stage SADI after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in terms of weight loss, reduction/remission of comorbidities, and morbidity.

METHODS

Retrospective study including 179 patients treated laparoscopically between 2016 and 2020. A 50Fr bougie was used for the SG in the primary SADI-S (group 1) and 36/40Fr for the two-stage procedure (group 2). The duodeno-ileal anastomosis was performed at 250 cm from the ileocecal valve and at least 2 cm after the pylorus.

RESULTS

Mean age was 44.1 years old, and there were 148 women and 31 men. There were 67 (37.4%) patients in group 1 and 112 (62.6%) in group 2, with 67% completing the 4-year follow-up. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 51.1 kg/m2 and 44.6 kg/m2 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Preoperative comorbidities were obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia in 103 (57.5%), 93 (52%), 65 (36.3%), and 58 (32.4%) of cases. At 4 years postoperatively, excess weight loss (EWL) was 67.5% in group 1 and 67% in group 2 (p = 0.1005). Both groups had good comorbidity remission rates. Early postoperative morbidity rate was 10.4% in group 1 and 3.6% in group 2. In group1, there were mostly postoperative intra-abdominal hematomas managed conservatively (n = 4). Two revisional surgeries were needed for duodeno-ileal anastomosis leaks. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), daily diarrhea, vitamin, and protein levels were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both types of strategies are efficient at short and mid-term outcomes. Preoperative criteria will inform surgeon decision between a primary and a two-stage strategy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15-20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions.

Interaction Effects of FTO and MC4R Polymorphisms on Total Body Weight Loss, Post-Surgery Weight, and Post-Body Mass Index after Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery (BS) is considered the most effective intervention for patients with severe obesity and is used to maintain long-term weight loss and glycemic control. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of genotypes and haplotypes of the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) and melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R) genes on total body weight loss (TBWL), post-surgery weight, and post-BMI after bariatric surgery. We retrospectively selected 101 patients from Bajio High Specialty Regional Hospital, León Guanajuato, México, who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) to determine their body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, biochemical characteristics, and comorbidities. Post-surgery, patients were referred for registered anthropometry and blood pressure. Glucose, lipid and hepatic profiles, and insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels were measured, and rs9939609, rs9930506, and rs1421085 FTO and rs17782313 MC4R polymorphisms were genotyped. Six (4-8) years after BS, post-surgery weight was greater in carriers of the rs9939609 and rs1421085 risk genotypes. TBWL was lower for the rs9930506 and rs1421085 risk genotypes. Insulin and HOMA-IR were greater in patients with the three FTO polymorphisms. There were significant interaction effects of the rs9930506 and rs1421085 FTO risk genotypes on weight and BMI in response to BS. No association was found with the MC4R polymorphism. The genotypes and haplotypes of the FTO gene influence post-surgery weight, TBWL, insulin levels, and HOMA-IR.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) worldwide, some patients require conversional procedures due to weight recurrence or late complications. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) gained popularity as a viable option to address those problems. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of conversional OAGB after primary SG in the management of patients with obesity.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to February 2023 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023403528).

RESULTS

From 1,117 studies screened, twenty studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,057 patients with obesity undergoing conversional OAGB after primary SG. The mean age ranged from 28.2 to 49.5 years, and 744 patients (75.2%) were women. At one year after revisional OAGB, the pooled mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 65.2% (95%CI: 56.9, 73.4, I2 = 97%). The pooled mean %EWL after conversional OAGB was 71.1% (95%CI: 62.2, 80.0, I2 = 90%) at two years and 71.6% (95%CI: 61.0, 82.2, I2 = 50%) at five years. Additionally, resolution rates of diabetes and hypertension were 65.4% (95%CI: 0.522, 0.785, I2 = 65%) and 58.9% (95%CI: 0.415, 0.762, I2 = 89%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated OAGB as an effective conversional procedure after primary SG in terms of weight loss and obesity-associated medical problems for selected patients. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods are necessary to determine if the OAGB is the best conversional surgery after SG.

The outcomes of Re-Redo bariatric surgery-results from multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

The increasing prevalence of bariatric surgery has resulted in a rise in the number of redo procedures as well. While redo bariatric surgery has demonstrated its effectiveness, there is still a subset of patients who may not derive any benefits from it. This poses a significant challenge for bariatric surgeons, especially when there is a lack of clear guidelines. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent Re-Redo bariatric surgery. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on a group of 799 patients who underwent redo bariatric surgery between 2010 and 2020. Among these patients, 20 individuals underwent a second elective redo bariatric surgery (Re-Redo) because of weight regain (15 patients) or insufficient weight loss, i.e. < 50% EWL (5 patients). Mean BMI before Re-Redo surgery was 38.8 ± 4.9 kg/m2. Mean age was 44.4 ± 11.5 years old. The mean %TWL before and after Re-Redo was 17.4 ± 12.4% and %EBMIL was 51.6 ± 35.9%. 13/20 patients (65%) achieved > 50% EWL. The mean final %TWL was 34.2 ± 11.1% and final %EBMIL was 72.1 ± 20.8%. The mean BMI after treatment was 31.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Complications occurred in 3 of 20 patients (15%), with no reported mortality or need for another surgical intervention. The mean follow-up after Re-Redo was 35.3 months. Although Re-Redo bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for obesity, it carries a significant risk of complications.

Management of Malnutrition and Hepatic Impairment After Duodenal Switch

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition and liver impairment after duodenal switch (DS) are possible and undesired complications, often conservatively treated. However, in specific cases, surgical revision may be necessary. This study aims to describe outcomes achieved by two bariatric surgery centers and address effectiveness and safety of revisional surgical procedures to resolve these complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed in two bariatric surgery centers from 2008 to 2022. Patients who required revisional surgery to treat malnutrition and/or liver impairment refractory to nutritional and total parenteral nutrition intervention (TPN) after duodenal switch were included. No comparisons were performed due to the descriptive nature of this study.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients underwent revisional surgery, the mean age was 44.7, the 53.8% were females, and the mean preoperative BMI was 54.7 kg/m2; the mean time between DS and revisional procedure was 26.5 months, and 69.1% of patients were placed on TPN. One patient developed hepatic encephalopathy; one patient presented with ascites, pleural effusion, and renal insufficiency, undergoing reoperation after revisional procedure due to a perforated ileal loop. Mortality rate was 0%; all patients regained weight after the revisional procedure, and the mean total protein and albumin blood levels 12 months after surgery were 6.3 and 3.6 g/dl, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While refractory malnutrition and/or liver failure are rare among patients post-DS, if underdiagnosed and untreated, this can lead to irreversible outcomes and death. All revisional procedures included in this study resulted in improvement of the nutritional status and reversal of liver impairment, with low complication rates.

Revisional bariatric surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease: characterizing patient and procedural factors and 30-day outcomes for a retrospective cohort of 4412 patients

INTRODUCTION

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a well-established potential consequence of bariatric surgery and can require revisional surgery. Our understanding of the population requiring revision is limited. In this study, we aim to characterize patients requiring revisional surgery for GERD to understand their perioperative risks and identify strategies to improve their outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry, a retrospective cohort of patients who required revisional surgery for GERD in 2020 was identified. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to assess correlations between baseline characteristics and morbidity.

RESULTS

4412 patients required revisional surgery for GERD, encompassing 24% of all conversion procedures. In most cases, patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as their original surgery (n = 3535, 80.1%). The revisional surgery for most patients was a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n = 3722, 84.4%). Major complications occurred in 527 patients (11.9%) and 10 patients (0.23%) died within 30 days of revisional surgery. Major complications included anastomotic leak in 31 patients (0.70%) and gastrointestinal bleeding in 38 patients (0.86%). Multivariable analyses revealed that operative length, pre-operative antacid use, and RYGB were predictors of major complications.

CONCLUSION

GERD is the second most common indication for revisional surgery in patients who have undergone bariatric surgery. Patients who underwent SG as their initial procedure were the primary group who required revisional surgery for GERD; most underwent revision via RYGB. Further inquiry is needed to tailor operative approaches and pre-operative optimization for revisional surgery patients.

Effect of Primary Versus Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) on Fatty Acid Profile

INTRODUCTION

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is one option of a revisional procedure for failed sleeve gastrectomy. Moreover, it can be used as a primary bariatric procedure, and is an effective surgery resulting in significant weight loss and the resolution or improvement of obesity-associated medical problems, accompanied by low perioperative complications. However, as with any therapy, OAGB has its limitations, including micronutrient deficiency or malnutrition. In our study, we compared the fatty acid (FA) profile in serum of patients after both primary OAGB (pOAGB) and revisional OAGB (rOAGB) to identify potential postsurgical FA alterations.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on patients with obesity who underwent OAGB procedures (pOAGB n=68; rOAGB n=17), conducted from 2016 to 2018. In blood, we analyzed a series of biochemical parameters, and in the serum, the FA profile was determined using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

The percentage of excess BMI loss (% EBMIL) after pOAGB was 73.5 ± 2.47% in comparison to 45.9 ± 4.15% in the rOAGB group (p<0.001). In contrast to the lack of effect of rOAGB on most polyunsaturated FAs, in the pOAGB group, there was a decrease in eicosapentaenoic acid, and eicosatetraenoic and docosahexaenoic acid levels (p<0.001). We also found a decrease in very long-chain FAs (VLCFAs) and an increase in branched-chain FAs (BCFAs) after both types of OAGB procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OAGB procedures improved the profile of most FAs, leading to a decrease in VLCFAs, which are considered harmful, and an improvement in BCFAs, which are considered to be beneficial. There is a need to further investigate the possibility of n-3 polyunsaturated FA supplementation after pOAGB, due to the large decrease in these FAs after pOAGB.

The length of hospital stay following bariatric surgery in Australia: the impact of patient, procedure, system and surgeon

BACKGROUND

The length of a patient's stay (LOS) in a hospital is one metric used to compare the quality of care, as a longer LOS may flag higher complication rates or less efficient processes. A meaningful comparison of LOS can only occur if the expected average length of stay (ALOS) is defined first. This study aimed to define the expected ALOS of primary and conversion bariatric surgery in Australia and to quantify the effect of patient, procedure, system, and surgeon factors on ALOS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Bariatric Surgery Registry of 63 604 bariatric procedures performed in Australia. The primary outcome measure was the expected ALOS for primary and conversion bariatric procedures. The secondary outcome measures quantified the change in ALOS for bariatric surgery resulting from patient, procedure, hospital, and surgeon factors.

RESULTS

Uncomplicated primary bariatric surgery had an ALOS (SD) of 2.30 (1.31) days, whereas conversion procedures had an ALOS (SD) of 2.71 (2.75) days yielding a mean difference (SEM) in ALOS of 0.41 (0.05) days, P < 0.001. The occurrence of any defined adverse event extended the ALOS of primary and conversion procedures by 1.14 days (CI 95% 1.04-1.25), P < 0.001 and 2.33 days (CI 95% 1.54-3.11), P < 0.001, respectively. Older age, diabetes, rural home address, surgeon operating volume and hospital case volume increased the ALOS following bariatric surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings have defined Australia's expected ALOS following bariatric surgery. Increased patient age, diabetes, rural living, procedural complications and surgeon and hospital case volume exerted a small but significant increase in ALOS.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data.

Experience of Robotic Complex Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a High-Volume Center

PURPOSE

A revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is necessary in about 28% of the patients. The role of robotic surgery in RBS is still a subject of debate. We aim to report the outcomes of robotic-assisted RBS at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients who underwent robotic-assisted RBSs between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2022. We analyzed patient demographics and indications for surgery. Measured outcomes included peri- and postoperative morbidity, comorbidity management, and weight loss outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included. Primary procedures were adjustable gastric band 44 (41.5%), sleeve gastrectomy 42 (39.6%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) 18 (17%), duodenal switch (DS) 1 (0.9%), and vertical banded gastroplasty 1 (0.9%). RBSs performed included 85 (78.7%) RYGB, 16 (14.8%) redo-gastrojejunostomy, and 5 (4.6%) DS. The median time to revision was 8 (range 1-36) years, and the main indication was insufficient weight loss (49%). Median length of hospital stay was 2 (range 1-16) days, and 9 (8.5%) patients were readmitted during the first 30 days. Only 4 (3.7%) patients had early Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Median excess weight loss was 35.1%, 42.23%, and 45.82% at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Of 57 patients with hypertension, 29 (50.9%) reduced their medication dosage, and 20/27 (74.1%) reduced their diabetes mellitus medication dosage. Finally, of the 75 patients with symptoms, 64 (85.3%) reported an improvement after the RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBS is feasible, significantly improves patients' comorbidities and symptoms, and leads to considerable weight loss.

Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery in People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Retrospective Analysis From the ATHENA Cohort

BACKGROUND

The implications of bariatric surgery (BS) on virologic and metabolic outcomes in people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PWH) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) are unknown.

METHODS

Here, we report a retrospective analysis up to 18 months post-BS in PWH from the AIDS Therapy evaluation in The Netherlands (ATHENA) cohort with data from all dutch HIV treating Centers. Primary end points were a confirmed virologic failure (2 consecutive HIV-RNA measurements >200 copies/mL) and the percentage of patients who achieved >20% total body weight loss up to 18 months post-BS. Switches from baseline ART and trough plasma concentrations of antiretrovirals were also reported post-BS. Metabolic parameters and medication usage were compared pre- and post-BS.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included. One case of confirmed virologic failure and 3 cases with viral blips were detected in this cohort up to 18 months post-BS. Eighty-five percent of patients achieved >20% total body weight loss at 18 months post-BS, with a mean difference from baseline (95% confidence interval) of -33.5% (-37.7% to -29.3%). Trough plasma concentrations of measured antiretroviral agents were all above minimum effective concentrations, except for 1 sample of darunavir. Lipid profiles, but not serum creatinine and blood pressure, improved significantly (P < .01) post-BS. Total medications and obesity-related comedications declined from 203 to 103 and from 62 to 25, respectively, at 18 months post-BS.

CONCLUSIONS

BS was an effective intervention for weight loss and lipid control in PWH using ART in this cohort with no clear link to poor virologic outcomes.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy as revisional bariatric procedures after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The frequency of revisional bariatric surgery is increasing, but its effectiveness and safety are not yet fully established. The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of primary (pRYGB and pSG) and revisional bariatric surgeries (rRYGB and rSG).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study assessing all patients submitted to primary and revisional (after a failed AGB) RYGB and SG in 2019. Each patient was followed-up at 6 months and 12 months after surgery. We compared pRYGB vs. rRYGB, pSG vs. rSG and rRYGB vs. rSG on weight loss, surgical complications, and resolution of comorbidities.

RESULTS

We assessed 494 patients, of which 18.8% had undergone a revisional procedure. Higher weight loss at 6 and 12 months was observed in patients undergoing primary vs. revisional procedures. Patients submitted to rRYGB lost more weight than those with rSG (%EWL 12 months = 82.6% vs. 69.0%, p < 0.001). Regarding the resolution of obesity-related comorbidities, diabetes resolution was more frequent in pRYGB than rRYGB (54.2% vs. 25.0%; p = 0.038). Also, 41.7% of the patients who underwent rRYGB had dyslipidemia resolution vs. 0% from the rSG group (p = 0.035). Dyslipidemia resolution was also more common in pSG vs. rSG (68.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.001). No significant differences in surgical complications were found.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery is effective and safe treating obesity and related comorbidities after AGB. Primary procedures appear to be associated with better weight loss outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the role of revisional bariatric surgery.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery due to Complications: Indications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The increasing prevalence of bariatric procedures has led to a surge in revisional surgeries. Failure of bariatric surgery can be attributed to inadequate weight loss or complications necessitating revisional surgery. In this study, we investigated the indications and outcomes of revisional surgery due to complications following primary bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using data from the Tehran Obesity Treatment Study, which included patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery between March 2013 and September 2021 due to complications following primary bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 5382 patients who underwent primary bariatric surgery (sleeve gastrectomy, one-anastomosis gastric bypass, and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), 203 (3.70%) required revisional surgery, with 37 cases performed due to surgical complications. The indications of revisional operations were gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (n=17, 45.9%), protein-calorie malnutrition (PCM) (n=14, 37.8%), unexplained abdominal pain (n=5, 13.5%), and phytobezoar (n=1, 0.03%). In the postoperative follow-up, most patients exhibited improvement in signs and symptoms related to underlying causes. However, eight patients experienced early or late complications of grade III or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, with one death resulting from liver failure.

CONCLUSION

Revisional bariatric surgery may effectively address complications from primary bariatric surgery, with the majority of patients experiencing improvements in symptoms. While the overall incidence of revisional surgery due to complications is relatively low, our findings suggest that GERD and PCM are the most common indications for revisional surgery.

Trends and safety of bariatric revisional surgery in Italy: multicenter, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) represents a further solution for patients who experience inadequate weight loss (IWL) following primary bariatric surgery (BS) or significant weight regain (WR) following initial satisfactory response. RBS guidelines are lacking; however, an increased trend in further BS offerings has been reported recently.

OBJECTIVE

Analyze trend, mortality, complication, readmission, and reoperation rates for any reason at 30 days after RBS in Italy.

SETTING

Ten Italian high-volume BS centers (university hospitals and private centers).

METHODS

Prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolling patients undergoing RBS between October 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, registering reasons for RBS, technique, mortality, intraoperative and perioperative complications, readmissions, and reinterventions for any reason. Patients undergoing RBS during the same calendar interval in 2016-2020 were considered control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were enrolled and compared with 560 control-group patients. Mortality was .45% versus .35% (n.s), with an overall mortality of .25%, while open surgery or conversion to open surgery was registered in 1%. No difference was found for mortality, morbidity, complications, readmission (1.3%), and reoperation rates (2.2%). IWL/WR was the most frequent cause, followed by gastroesophageal reflux disease; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was the most used revisional procedure (56%). Sleeve gastrectomy was the most revised procedure in the study group, while gastric banding was the most revised in the control group. RBS represents up to 9% of the total BS in the Italian participating centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy represents the standard approach for RBS, which appears safe. Current Italian trends show a shift toward sleeve gastrectomy being the most revised procedure and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass being the most frequent revisional procedure.

Outcome of Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy: a German Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is a common bariatric procedure that has been shown to be effective in both the short and long term, but it is not without risks, some of which necessitate revision or redo surgery (RS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

GBSR (German Bariatric Surgery Registry) data were evaluated in this multicenter analysis. Short-term results (1-year follow-up) of RS (Re-Sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, RYGB, Omega-loop gastric bypass, OLGB, and duodenal switch, DS) following primary SG (n = 27939) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of PSG patients, 7.9% (n=2195) needed revision surgery. Nine hundred ninety-four patients underwent the aforementioned four surgical procedures (95 with R-SG, 665 with RYGB, 141 with OLGB, and 93 DS). Loss of follow-up within 1 year 52.44%. The most common reasons for RS were weight regain and/or a worsening of preexisting comorbidities. Regarding the operating time, R-SG was the shortest of the four procedures, and DS was the longest. In general, there were no significant advantages of one procedure over another in terms of complication incidence in these categories. However, certain complications were seen more often after R-SG and DS than with other redo procedures. There were significant differences in BMI reduction 1 year after surgery (RYGB: 5.9; DS: 10.1; OLGB: 9.1; and R-SG: 9.1; p<0.001). GERD, hypertension, and sleep apnea demonstrated statistically significant comorbidity remission. Diabetes exhibited non-significant differences.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of our study, all revision surgeries effectively resolved comorbidities, promoted weight loss, and lowered BMI. Due to the disparate outcomes obtained by various methods, this study cannot recommend a particular redo method as the gold standard. Selecting a procedure should consider the redo surgery's aims, the rationale for the revision, the patient's current state, and their medical history.

Is one-anastomosis gastric bypass a good revisional bariatric surgery? A single-center retrospective cohort study

<b><br>Introduction:</b> The rate of revisional surgeries following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has increased. One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) appears to have multiple advantages as a primary bariatric procedure. OAGB as revisional surgery is still being investigated.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of OAGB performed as a post-SG revisional surgery.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted using a routinely collected database of adults undergoing revisional OAGB after SG. A survey of patients was conducted, obtaining information on changes in body weight and improvement in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and obesity-related diseases.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The study group included 74 patients: 59 women (80%) and 15 men, mean age of 41.61 9.21 years. The most common indication for OAGB was weight regain. The follow-up was up to 7 years, the mean time was 3.58 1.21 years. The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 40.38 6.15. All patients experienced significant weight loss, reaching a BMI of 33.61 (27.28- 37.13) at the last observation. After surgery, 35% of patients achieved successful weight loss and 48% of patients achieved remission or improvement of GERD.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Revisional OAGB seems to be a good alternative after a failed SG in terms of obesity-related disease recurrence, not of weight regain. Long-term follow-up revealed that only a third of patients achieved successful weight loss. When proposing revisional OAGB, the risk of complications - mainly anemia and the possibility of de novo GERD should be considered.</br>.

Non-response After Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy-the Theoretical Need for Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Results from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is a second-line treatment option after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GBP) in patients with primary or secondary non-response. The aim was to analyze the theoretical need for revisional surgery after SG and GBP when applying four indication benchmarks.

METHOD

Based on data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, SG and GBP were compared regarding four endpoints: 1. excess weight loss (%EWL) < 50%, 2. weight regain of more than 10 kg after nadir, 3. fulfillment of previous IFSO-guidelines, or 4. ADA criteria for bariatric metabolic surgery 2 years after primary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 60,426 individuals were included in the study (SG: n = 7856 and GBP: n = 52,570). Compared to patients in the GBP group, more SG patients failed to achieve a %EWL > 50% (23.0% versus 8.5%, p < .001), regained more than 10 kg after nadir (4.3% versus 2.5%, p < .001), and more often fulfilled the IFSO criteria (8.0% versus 4.5%, p < .001) or the ADA criteria (3.3% versus 1.8%, p < 001) at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SG is associated with a higher risk for weight non-response compared to GBP. To offer revisional bariatric surgery to all non-responders exceeds the bounds of feasibility and operability. Hence, individual prioritization and intensified evaluation of alternative second-line treatments are necessary.

How to address weight regain after bariatric surgery in an individualized way

Bariatric surgery is the most effective obesity treatment. As a chronic and progressive disease, weight loss response to surgery will vary individually. Thus, insufficient weight loss or regain can happen after surgery, but they lack a standard definition. There are different mechanisms underlying weight regain and/or insufficient weight loss, such as genetics, maladaptive eating behaviors, and the inadequate choice of index operations, among others. Patients with weight regain or insufficient weight loss should be submitted to an individualized and comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team. This may help identify the causes and direct the appropriate treatment individually. Options for patients with insufficient weight loss and/or weight regain following bariatric surgery include repair of postoperative complications, conversion into another operation, endoscopic therapies with inconsistent outcomes, and dietary/behavioral counseling. Revision and conversion surgeries have higher complication rates than primary operations. Although there is no standard pharmacological regimen for that indication, the new agents seem efficient and safe to promote the loss of the regained weight and even be adjunctive to selected patients before they reach the plateau. This review aims to summarize the knowledge of the best approach for patients with weight regain/insufficient weight loss and suggests an algorithm to customize the approach and therapeutic options after bariatric surgery.

Revisional surgery after restrictive surgery: midterm outcomes of a tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is a challenging type of procedure for the surgeons due to its specific morbidity and efficiency. The RBS has a higher prevalence nowadays and this study may help to improve scarce data upon this specific topic.

METHODS

Data from 252 patients undergoing RBS after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2005 and 2019, were analyzed at 2 years of follow up. A subgroup analysis of third procedure was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the LSG group and 40 patients (25%) in the LAGB group (p = 0.045). At 2 years of RBS, mean weight was 92.8 ± 26.7 kg, BMI was 33.1 ± 8.56 kg/m2 for patients who had RBS after LSG. When RBS was performed after LAGB, mean weight at 2 years was 90.1 ± 20.7 kg and BMI was 32.5 ± 6.45 kg/m2. TWL for RBS performed after LSG was 12.7 ± 16.4% versus 25.5 ± 10.3% after LAGB (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RBS after LSG seems to lead to higher overall morbidity whereas RBS after LAGB lead to more perioperative issues.

Bariatric Surgeon Perspective on Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) for Weight Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Weight recurrence (WR) after bariatric surgery occurs in nearly 20% of patients. Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) may benefit this population but remains controversial among surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

Explore surgeon perspectives and practices for patients with WR after primary bariatric surgery (PBS).

SETTING

Web-based survey of bariatric surgeons.

METHODS

A 21-item survey was piloted and posted on social media closed groups (Facebook) utilized by bariatric surgeons. Survey items included demographic information, questions pertaining to the definition of suboptimal and satisfactory response to bariatric surgery, and general questions related to different WR management options.

RESULTS

One hundred ten surgeons from 19 countries responded to the survey. Ninety-eight percent responded that WR was multifactorial, including behavioral and biological factors. Failure of PBS was defined as excess weight loss < 50% by 31.4%, as excess weight loss <25% by 12.8%, and as comorbidity recurrence by 17.4%. Surgeon responses differed significantly by gender (P = .036). 29.4% believed RBS was not successful, while 14.1% were unsure. Nevertheless, 73% reported that they would perform RBS if sufficient evidence of benefit existed. Most frequently performed revisional procedures included conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), adjustable gastric band to RYGB, and RYGB revision (21.9% versus 18.2% versus 15.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrates significant variability in surgeon perception regarding causes and the effectiveness of RBS. Moreover, they disagree on what constitutes a nonsatisfactory response to PBS and to whom they offer RBS. These findings may relate to limited available clinical evidence on best management options for this patient population. Clinical trials investigating the comparative effectiveness of various treatment options are needed.

Bariatric Surgeries, from Weight Loss to Weight Regain: A Retrospective Five-Years Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery may lead to unsatisfactory weight loss, weight loss plateau, and even weight regain after various types of surgery. Despite the numerous studies, the mid-term results of surgery, after repetitive weight fluctuations remain a major concern. The aim of the present study was to determine the key time points of weight changes after three types of bariatric procedures, as well as to determine 5-year weight loss outcome after surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study including patients with morbid obesity conducted in the Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center. The patients underwent one of the three types of bariatric surgeries including laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), who had been followed up for weight loss trend during 5 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean excessive weight loss (%EWL) and total weight loss (%TWL) of 2,567 participants with obesity (mean age = 39.03, mean BMI = 45.67) in the first 6 months after surgery was independent of the type of surgery (p > 0.05). OAGB and RYGB showed significantly higher weight loss compared to LSG in ninth and 24th month after surgery, respectively (p < 0.05). The 5 years %WL could be comparable with %WL in 6, 9, and 12 months after LSG, RYGB, and OAGB, respectively.

CONCLUSION

OAGB provides the fastest and highest %EWL and %TWL, while LSG induced the earliest and largest weight plateau and weight regain during 5-years post-surgery. The pattern of early weight loss could predict the mid-term outcome of bariatric surgery. So, early identification of suboptimal weight loss could enhance long-term weight loss.

Weight-Related Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery in Patients with Non-response After Sleeve Gastrectomy-a Systematic Review

Weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy is an emerging issue. This systematic review compared revisional procedures for weight-related outcomes. We searched several databases for relevant articles and included adult patients with revisional bariatric procedures after primary sleeve gastrectomy. Twelve trials with 1046 patients were included, covering five revisional procedures. There were no randomised controlled trials, and 10 studies had a critical risk of bias. Significant variations in inclusion criteria, therapy benchmarks, follow-up schemes, and outcome measurements were observed, preventing meaningful comparison of results. Evidence-based treatment strategies for weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy cannot be deduced from the current literature. Prospective studies with well-defined indications, standardised techniques, and strict adherence to outcome measurements are needed.

Preoperative Depression Status and 5 Year Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Outcomes in the PCORnet Bariatric Study Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether depression status before metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) influenced 5-year weight loss, diabetes, and safety/utilization outcomes in the PCORnet Bariatric Study.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Research on the impact of depression on MBS outcomes is inconsistent with few large, long-term studies.

METHODS

Data were extracted from 23 health systems on 36,871 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n=16,158) or gastric bypass (RYGB; n=20,713) from 2005-2015. Patients with and without a depression diagnosis in the year before MBS were evaluated for % total weight loss (%TWL), diabetes outcomes, and postsurgical safety/utilization (reoperations, revisions, endoscopy, hospitalizations, mortality) at 1, 3, and 5 years after MBS.

RESULTS

27.1% of SG and 33.0% of RYGB patients had preoperative depression, and they had more medical and psychiatric comorbidities than those without depression. At 5 years of follow-up, those with depression, versus those without depression, had slightly less %TWL after RYGB, but not after SG (between group difference = 0.42%TWL, P = 0.04). However, patients with depression had slightly larger HbA1c improvements after RYGB but not after SG (between group difference = - 0.19, P = 0.04). Baseline depression did not moderate diabetes remission or relapse, reoperations, revision, or mortality across operations; however, baseline depression did moderate the risk of endoscopy and repeat hospitalization across RYGB versus SG.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with depression undergoing RYGB and SG had similar weight loss, diabetes, and safety/utilization outcomes to those without depression. The effects of depression were clinically small compared to the choice of operation.

[Pharmacotherapy of obesity-Competition to bariatric surgery or a meaningful supplement?]

Obesity is a complex chronic disease and requires a long-term multimodal approach. The current treatment algorithm for treatment of obesity mainly consists of a stepwise approach, which starts with a lifestyle intervention followed by or combined with medication treatment, whereas bariatric surgery is often reserved for the last option. This article provides an overview of the currently available conservative medicinal treatment regimens and the currently approved medications as well as medications currently undergoing approval studies with respect to the efficacy and possible side effects. Special attention is paid to the importance of combination treatment of pharmacotherapy and surgery in the sense of a multimodal treatment. The data so far show that using a multimodal approach an improvement in the long-term weight loss and metabolic benefits can be achieved for the patients.

Weight Regain After Bariatric Surgery: Scope of the Problem, Causes, Prevention, and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment of severe obesity, a proportion of patients experience clinically significant weight regain (WR) with further out from surgery. The purpose of this review is to summarize the prevalence, predictors, and causes of weight regain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Estimating the prevalence of WR is limited by a lack of consensus on its definition. While anatomic failures such as dilated gastric fundus after sleeve gastrectomy and gastro-gastric fistula after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass can lead to WR, the most common causes appear to be dysregulated/maladaptive eating behaviors, lifestyle factors, and physiological compensatory mechanisms. To date, dietary, supportive, behavioral, and exercise interventions have not demonstrated a clinically meaningful impact on WR, and there is limited evidence for pharmacotherapy. Future studies should be aimed at better defining WR to begin to understand the etiologies. Additionally, there is a need for non-surgical interventions with demonstrated efficacy in rigorous randomized controlled trials for the prevention and reversal of WR after bariatric surgery.

Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) for Poor Response of Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (DJB-SG) (Video Report)

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has actually focused not only on obesity but also more on the improvements or remission of the metabolic diseases. Therefore, revisional surgery is indicated for patients with poor response to the primary bariatric surgery to control weight and obesity-associated medical conditions.

METHOD

In this video report, the patient was a 27-year-old Asian female with an initial BMI of 36.5 kg/m² and poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c: 11.9%). She underwent primary bariatric surgery of laparoscopic duodenal-jejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (DJB-SG) in June 2019. She had a nadir BMI of 28.8 kg/m² (corresponding body weight of 72 kg) in June 2020. However, she regained weight (BMI: 34 kg/m²) and had a relapse of diabetes with an HbA1c of 12.0% at the time of consultation for revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) in September 2022. After a multidisciplinary team evaluation, laparoscopic procedures of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with resizing the gastric tube, removal of duodenal-jejunal anastomosis, and lengthening of the biliopancreatic limb were performed.

RESULTS

The operative time was 186 min and blood loss was 50 ml. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged on postoperative day 5. At the 3-month follow-up after RBS, the patient had lost 13 kg (weight dropped from 85 to 72 kg) and achieve remission of diabetes with HbA1c of 5.7%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic OAGB is technically feasible and practical as a revisional procedure for poor response of DJB-SG.

Bariatric Surgery Efficiency, Safety and Health Outcomes in Government Versus Privately Funded Hospitals

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine if the hospital efficiency, safety and health outcomes are equal in patients who receive bariatric surgery in government-funded hospitals (GFH) versus privately funded hospitals (PFH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry of 14,862 procedures (2134 GFH and 12,728 PFH) from 33 hospitals (8 GFH and 25 PFH) performed in Victoria, Australia, between January 1st, 2015, and December 31st, 2020. Outcome measures included the difference in efficacy (weight loss, diabetes remission), safety (defined adverse event and complications) and efficiency (hospital length of stay) between the two health systems.

RESULTS

GFH treated a higher risk patient group who were older by a mean (SD) 2.4 years (0.27), P < 0.001; had a mean 9.0 kg (0.6) greater weight at time of surgery, P < 0.001; and a higher prevalence of diabetes at day of surgery OR = 2.57 (CI_95%2.29-2.89), P < 0.001. Despite these baseline differences, both GFH and PFH yielded near identical remission of diabetes which was stable up to 4 years post-operatively (57%). There was no statistically significant difference in defined adverse events between the GFH and PFH (OR = 1.24 (CI_95% 0.93-1.67), P = 0.14). Both healthcare settings demonstrated that similar covariates affect length of stay (LOS) (diabetes, conversion bariatric procedures and defined adverse event); however, these covariates had a greater effect on LOS in GFH compared to PFH.

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric surgery performed in GFH and PFH yields comparable health outcomes (metabolic and weight loss) and safety. There was a small but statistically significant increased LOS following bariatric surgery in GFH.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery in China: A summary of the Greater China Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Database and comparison with other international registry databases

AIMS

To summarize the Greater China Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Database (GC-MBD) and to compare patient characteristics and different procedures performed with data from published reports from other international bariatric surgery registries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from the GC-MBD registry in 2021. Baseline demographic characteristics, obesity-related comorbidities and operational information were analysed. Descriptive comparisons of these data were made with the published reports from four other international/national databases, including the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) registry, the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database of the United States, the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR) of the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg).

RESULTS

Fifty-three centres in China registered 6807 cases in the GC-MBD. Compared with published data from the IFSO registry, MBSAQIP, NBSR and SOReg, patients in China undergoing surgery were younger and had a lower body mass index. The incidence of other obesity-related comorbidities, except for gastroesophageal reflux disease, was also higher than in Western countries. Furthermore, more patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy, less revisional bariatric surgery was reported in China, and jejunojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy, uncommon in other countries, was China's second-leading bariatric procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

By establishing comprehensive national registries such as the GC-MBD, real-world information can be gathered on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Insights into variations in clinical practice can be identified by comparing reports from different countries, which can help in making and evaluating healthcare policies on the best clinical practices at a national level.

Conversion of gastric sleeve to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch: safe and viable options

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) remains the most performed bariatric surgery. As numbers of SG increase, so do the numbers of patients requiring conversion for insufficient weight loss or weight regain. However, the literature has cited complication rates as high as 30% for reoperative bariatric surgery.

OBJECTIVE

With the recent inclusion of conversion surgery variables in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, we compared the safety and efficacy of SG conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPD/DS).

SETTING

MBSAQIP database.

METHODS

Analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP Participant Use Files revealed 6020 patients who underwent SG conversion to RYGB (5348) and BPD/DS (672). We examined 30-day outcomes including death, anastomotic leak, readmission, any complication, dehydration, and weight loss.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (.12% versus 0%) or; complication rate (6.5% versus 5.1%) with SG conversion to RYGB or BPD/DS. There was a statistically significant difference in anastomotic leak (.5% versus 1.2%, P = .024). Interestingly, BPD/DS was less likely to require dehydration treatments (4.2% versus 2.2%, P = .009) and had fewer readmissions within 30 days (7.3% versus 5.4%, P = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates after conversion of SG to RYGB or BPD/DS may be significantly lower than previously reported and only slightly higher than after primary weight loss surgery. SG conversion to either RYGB or BPD/DS remain safe, viable options for patients who had insufficient weight loss or regain, and BPD/DS may be the better option in the appropriate patient.

Nutritional Interventions for Patients with Severe Obesity Seeking Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery (BS) is usually considered when other weight-loss treatments have failed, and remains an effective long-term treatment for severe obesity and its related medical complications [...].

Cost-effectiveness analysis of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: laparoscopic vs. robot assisted

There is controversy over the possible advantages of the robotic technology in revisional bariatric surgery. The aim of this study is to report the experience of a high-volume bariatric center on revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with robot-assisted (R-rRYGB) and laparoscopic (L-rRYGB) approaches, with regards to operative outcomes and costs. Patients who underwent R-rRYGB and L-rRYGB between 2008 and 2021 were included. Patients' baseline characteristics and perioperative data were recorded. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morbidity. A full economic evaluation was performed. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed on laparoscopic anastomotic leak and reoperation rates. A total of 194 patients were included: 44 (22.7%) L-rRYGB and 150 (77.3%) R-rRYGB. The robotic approach was associated with lower overall complication rate (10% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.038), longer operative time, and a reduced length of stay compared to L-rRYGB. R-rRYGB was more expensive than L-rRYGB (mean difference 2401.1€, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was 18,906.3€/complication and the incremental cost-utility ratio was 48,022.0€/QALY (quality-adjusted life years), that is below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Decision tree analysis showed that L-rRYGB was the most cost-effective strategy in the base-case scenario; a probability of leak ≥ 13%, or a probability of reoperation ≥ 14% following L-rRYGB, or a 12.7% reduction in robotic costs would be required for R-rRYGB to become the most cost-effective strategy. R-rRYGB was associated with higher costs than L-rRYGB in our base-case scenario. However, it is an acceptable alternative from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Analysis of the risk factors for perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic revisional bariatric procedures: results from the multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study

BACKGROUND

The growing number of primary bariatric operations has led to an increase in demand for revision surgeries. Higher numbers of revisional operations are also observed in Poland, yet their safety and efficacy remain controversial because of a lack of current recommendations and guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To review risk factors influencing perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the results of surgical treatment among 12 Polish bariatric centers. Inclusion criteria were laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgeries and patients ≥18 years of age. The study included 795 patients, of whom 621 were female; the mean age was 47 years (range: 40-55 years).

RESULTS

Perioperative morbidity occurred in 92 patients (11.6%) enrolled in the study, including 76 women (82.6%). The median age was 45 years (range: 39-54 years). Statistically significant risk factors in univariate logistic regression models for perioperative complications were the duration of obesity, revisional surgery after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or adjustable gastric band (AGB), difference in body mass index before revisional surgery and the lowest achieved after primary surgery, and postoperative morbidity of the primary surgery as the cause for revisional bariatric surgery. These factors were included in the multivariate regression model. Revisional surgery after AGB (odds ratio [OR] = 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-3.69; P = .004), revisional surgery performed after RYGB (OR = 6.52; 95% CI: 1.98-21.49; P = .002), and revisions due to complication of the primary surgery (OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.06-3.34; P = .030) remained independent risk factors for perioperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Revisional operations after RYGB or AGB and those performed because of postoperative morbidity after primary surgery as the main cause for revisional surgery were associated with a significantly increased risk of postoperative morbidity.

Endoscopic revision of one-anastomosis gastric bypass (ER-OAGB) for weight recurrence: a case series of 17 adults

Weight recurrence after one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), the third most common metabolic and bariatric surgery performed worldwide, is observed in a subset of patients due to the chronic, progressive nature of obesity. Endoscopic revision of the OAGB (ER-OAGB) through full-thickness suturing to reduce the gastrojejunal anastomosis and gastric pouch is a potential alternative to surgical revision. Here, we present a case series of ER-OAGB and long-term nutritional support at two international centers with expertise in bariatric endoscopy. Data were retrospectively evaluated from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome was total body weight loss (TBWL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included TBWL at 3, 6, and 15 months; excess weight loss (EWL) at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months; frequency of new/worsening symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD); and the frequency of serious adverse events. In this series, 17 adults (70.6% female, mean age 46.8 years, mean BMI 39.1 kg/m2) successfully underwent ER-OAGB an average of 8 years (range 2-21 years) after OAGB for a mean weight recurrence of 43.2% (range 10.9-86.9%). TBWL from ER-OAGB was 9.7 ± 1.8% at 3 months, 13.4 ± 3.5% at 6 months, 18.5 ± 2.1% at 12 months, and 18.1 ± 2.2% at 15 months. EWL from ER-OAGB was 30.5 ± 14.7% at 3 months, 42.6 ± 16.2% at 6 months, 54.2 ± 11.3% at 12 months, and 54.2 ± 11.7% at 15 months. There were no instances of new/worsening GERD symptoms or serious adverse events. In this small series of adults who experienced weight recurrence after OAGB, ER-OAGB facilitated safe and clinically meaningful weight loss, without new or worsening GERD symptoms, when performed by experienced bariatric endoscopists in concert with longitudinal nutritional support.

2022 American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

MAJOR UPDATES TO 1991 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR BARIATRIC SURGERY: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is recommended for individuals with a body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2, regardless of presence, absence, or severity of co-morbidities.MBS should be considered for individuals with metabolic disease and BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2.BMI thresholds should be adjusted in the Asian population such that a BMI >25 kg/m2 suggests clinical obesity, and individuals with BMI >27.5 kg/m2 should be offered MBS.Long-term results of MBS consistently demonstrate safety and efficacy.Appropriately selected children and adolescents should be considered for MBS.(Surg Obes Relat Dis 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2022.08.013 ) © 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. All rights reserved.

Factores de riesgo asociados a la pérdida insuficiente o ganancia significativa de peso en pacientes sometidos a cirugía bariátrica

Introducción. La cirugía bariátrica es efectiva para inducir una rápida pérdida del exceso de peso, pero existen dudas sobre la duración de este efecto a largo plazo. Este estudio buscaba identificar la proporción de pacientes operados que presentaron una pérdida insuficiente o una ganancia significativa de peso y los posibles factores relacionados. Métodos. Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo en pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía bariátrica. Se describieron variables demográficas y clínicas. Se realizó un análisis multivariado para identificar factores relacionados con un peso fuera de metas posterior a la cirugía. Resultados. Se incluyeron 187 pacientes, 117 con baipás gástrico y 70 con manga gástrica. La mediana de índice de masa corporal preoperatorio fue 41,3 kg/m2 y postoperatorio de 28,8 kg/m2. El 94,7 % de los pacientes en ambos grupos logró una adecuada pérdida del exceso de peso. La ganancia de peso mayor del 20 % se presentó en el 43,5 % de los pacientes, siendo mayor en el grupo de manga gástrica (p<0,004). Los factores independientes para ganancia de peso fueron el sexo masculino (OR 5,5), cirugía tipo manga gástrica (OR 3,4), síndrome de apnea del sueño (OR 2,9) y enfermedad mental medicada (OR 2,8). Conclusión. La cirugía bariátrica produce una pérdida del exceso de peso suficiente en casi la totalidad de los pacientes, pero un buen número recuperan peso luego de 3 años. Los principales factores asociados a ganancia de peso son el sexo masculino y la cirugía tipo manga gástrica.

2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO): Indications for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery

Major updates to 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines for bariatric surgery.