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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high technical and weight loss failure rates. We evaluate here the 1-year morbidity, mortality, and weight loss of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) as a feasible conversion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent LRYGB from July 2004 to December 2019 were selected from an electronic database at our center. Patients had a conversion to LRYGB at the same time (one-stage approach) or with a minimum of 3 months in between (two-stage approach). Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1295 patients underwent a conversion from LAGB to LRYGB at our center: 1167 patients (90.1%) in one stage and 128 patients (9.9%) in two stages. There was no mortality. An early (30-day) postoperative complication occurred in 93 patients (7.2%), with no significant difference found between groups. Hemorrhage was the most common complication in 39 patients (3.0%), and the reoperation was required in 19 patients (1.4%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, the mean %EWL 72.8%, and the mean %EBMIL 87.0%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to LRYGB can be considered as a safe and effective option with low complication rate and good weight loss outcomes at 1 year. One-stage conversion provides the same early outcome as two-step surgery with a competent surgeon.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Challenges in Bariatric Surgery: Outcomes in Patients Having Three or More Bariatric Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Over the last two decades, a progressive increase in failure rate of bariatric surgery (BS) has occurred in conjunction with an exponential increase in BS worldwide. Bariatric surgeons are confronted with challenging situations in patients with a complex bariatric history. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of revisional BS in patients with at least two or more previous bariatric procedures.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively retrieved from a prospectively held database of bariatric procedures performed at our tertiary referral bariatric center and included procedures done from February 2013 up to April 2019 by a single center.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent a third bariatric procedure. The median age was 40 (18-57) and 54 (27-69) years at the time of the first and the last procedures, respectively. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding was the first procedure in 26 patients. The complication rate was 33%; no patient required additional surgery because of postoperative complications. A total weight loss of 29.6% and an excess loss of 53.4% were obtained at a mean follow-up of 61 months after the last redo bariatric procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that redo BS either conversional or revisional is feasible and effective in patients with a complex bariatric history including two or more previous procedures. Careful patients' selection is mandatory and extensive information should be given on the increased risk of postoperative complications.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with a 150-cm Biliopancreatic Limb After Failure of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Mid-Term Outcomes and Comparison Between One- and Two-Stage Approaches

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was a common procedure worldwide but associated with a high rate of long-term failure. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after failed LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database in a tertiary referral center for bariatric surgery. All cases of revisional OAGB with a biliopancreatic limb (BPL) of 150 cm after failed LAGB performed between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 215 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB. Indication for surgery was primary weight loss (WL) failure in 30.7% of cases and long-term complications in the remaining patients, with or without associated weight regain. At the time of OAGB, the mean age was 43.2 ± 10.5 years and the mean BMI was 42 ± 6.9. Overall postoperative morbidity was 13.5%. The postoperative abscess ± leak rate was 5.9% in the overall population. Two years after OAGB, 9.7% of patients were lost to follow-up, % excess weight loss (EWL) was 88.2 ± 23.9, and % total weight loss (TWL) was 38.7 ± 9.3. At 5 years, 16.6% of patients were lost to follow-up, %EWL was 82.4 ± 25, and %TWL was 36.1 ± 10. There was no statistical difference in complication rates or WL results between the one-stage and two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSION

OAGB with a 150-cm BPL represents a safe and effective option after failed LAGB. Both synchronous OAGB and two-step revisional OAGB guarantee satisfying results in terms of postoperative morbidity and WL outcomes.

Feasibility and Short-Term Outcomes of One-Step and Two-Step Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revision Procedures for Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding Compared With Those After Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background: The practice of bariatric surgery was studied using the German Bariatric Surgery Registry (GBSR). The focus of the study was to evaluate whether revision surgery One-Step (OS) or Two-Step (TS) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has a large benefit in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (AGB). Methods: The data collection includes patients who underwent One-Step SG (OS-SG) or Two-Step SG (TS-SG) as revision surgery after AGB and primary SG (P-SG) between 2005 and 2019. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality, and operating time. Results: The study analyzed data from 27,346 patients after P-SG, 320 after OS-SG, and 168 after TS-SG. Regarding the intraoperative complication, there was a significant difference in favor of P-SG and TS-SG compared to OS-SG (p < 0.001). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly higher in the OS-SG (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in occurrence of staple line stenosis in favor of TS-SG (p = 0.005) and the occurrence of sepsis (p = 0.008). The mean operating time was statistically longer in the TS-SG group than in the OS-SG group (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.727). Conclusion: In general, our study shows that converting a gastric band to a SG is safe and feasible. However, lower complications were obtained with TS-SG compared to OS-SG. Despite acceptable complication and mortality rates of both procedures, we cannot recommend any surgical method as a standard procedure. Proper patient selection is crucial to avoid possible adverse effects.

Outcomes from Explantation of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Band: Experience from a Canadian Bariatric Center of Excellence

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has declined in popularity due to poor weight loss and high revision rates. The study aim was to evaluate complication rates following LAGB removals, including conversions to other bariatric procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LAGB removal, identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database from the Toronto Western Hospital site. Patients were filtered using principal procedure and concurrent procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Patients converted to other bariatric procedures were also included. Outcomes were evaluated for 30-day morbidity, mortality, readmissions, and costs.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 93 patients met inclusion. 96.77% had elective surgery, and 3.23% were emergent. Thirty-day postoperative complication rate was 11.83%, with 4.30% readmissions and no deaths. Surgical site infections accounted for 81.82% of complications (54.55% superficial, 27.27% deep). Thirty-day complication rate for LAGB removal alone was 17.50% and 33.33% following emergent explantation. 56.99% LAGBs were converted to other bariatric procedures: 48.39% laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and 8.6% sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Conversion to LSG had a significantly higher 30-day complication rate (all Clavien-Dindo class I-II) compared to conversion to LRYGB (37.50% versus 2.22%, p < 0.009). Direct costs of LAGB explantation to the healthcare system were $665,443, amounting to $7,155 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day complication rates for LAGB explantation and conversion to other bariatric procedures are significant and may be higher than previously reported for LAGB removal alone. Conversion to LSG may have the highest complication rate, amounting to significant costs.

One anastomosis gastric bypass vs. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive bariatric surgery

Background

Failure occurs in up to 60% of the patients that were treated with primary restrictive bariatric operations such as Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), or restrictive/metabolic operations like Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). Insufficient weight loss and weight regain are the most commonly reported reasons of failure. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure in terms of weight loss, procedure time, complication rate and morbidity.

Methods

491 patients operated on between 2012 and 2017 for failed restrictive surgery were included in this study (OAGB (n=185) or RYGB (n=306)). Failure was defined as total weight loss (TWL) less than 25%, excess weight loss (EWL) less than 50% and/or a remaining body mass index (BMI) larger than 40 kg/m2 at two years of follow up. Primary outcome measures were %TWL and % excess BMI loss (EBMIL) at 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, reduction of comorbidity, early and late complication rate, and mortality.

Results

%TWL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 24.1±9.8 vs. 21.9±9.7, p = 0.023) and 24 months (mean 23.9±11.7 vs. 20.5±11.2, p = 0.023) of follow-up. %EBMIL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 69.0±44.6 vs. 60.0±30.1, p = 0.014) and 24 months (mean 68.6±51.6 vs. 56.4±35.4, p = 0.025) of follow-up. Intra-abdominal complications (leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess and perforation) occurred less frequently after revisional OAGB (1.1% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.025). Surgical intervention for biliary reflux (5.4% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) was more prevalent in the OAGB group. Surgical intervention for internal herniation (0.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002) was more prevalent in the RYGB group.

Conclusions

This study suggests that OAGB is superior to RYGB as a remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive surgery with more weight loss and a lower early complication rate. To substantiate these findings, further research from prospective randomized controlled trials is needed.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass as a rescue procedure following failed restrictive bariatric surgery. A systematic review of literature with metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Although different procedures have been proposed as revisional surgery for patients who had previously undergone a failed primary restrictive procedure, the ideal revisional procedure is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in all electronic databases to find studies comparing one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as revisional bariatric surgery for weight regain or intolerance/complications of a primary restrictive procedure. The data regarding sample size, patients' gender, age, primary surgery type, number of perioperative complications, operative time, pre- and post-revisional body mass index (BMI), and excess weight loss % (EWL%) at 1-year follow-up were extracted. Five studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The primary bariatric procedures were represented by vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). About perioperative complications, both RYGB and OAGB-MGB showed a similar rate of leaks but OAGB-MGB had a lower rate of bleedings; considering the progression from pre- to post-revisional BMI, OAGB-MGB reveals a better outcome as well as a shorter operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis has shown OAGB-MGB, used as revisional intervention after failed restrictive surgery, achieves outcomes comparable to RYGB in terms of perioperative complications providing a simpler and more effective technique.

Enhanced Recovery After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Retrospective Study of 321 Patients with Laparoscopic Conversion of Failed Gastric Banding or Failed Mason Gastroplasty to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

PURPOSE

With the rising incidence of failed bariatric procedures, the importance of revisional surgery has been increasing. These revisional procedures come with a higher risk of complications leading to longer hospital stays. We believe though that enhanced recovery after revisional bariatric surgery is possible and needs to be advocated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our laparoscopic conversions of failed gastric banding and failed Mason gastroplasty to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A total of 321 patients was included in the study, from February 2010 until December 2019. The primary endpoints were length of stay (LoS), in-hospital complication rate, and early readmission rate (< 30 days). Logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of several independent variables on complication and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were male and 267 female. The mean age was 44.2 years and mean BMI at the time of conversion was 37.9 kg/m². We converted 273 failed adjustable gastric bandings (85,0%) and 48 failed Mason gastroplasties (15.0%). The main reason for conversion was the recurrence of obesity. A mean LoS of 2.10 days was calculated. We had an overall in-hospital complication rate of 3.73% and the overall early readmission rate was 3.43%. The odds ratio for LoS on early readmission is 1.52 (p=0.0079; CI 95% [1.12-2.07]).

CONCLUSION

The above data imply that the implementation of advanced ERAS principles for revisional surgery in our center is safe and does not lead to a higher risk of early readmission.

Revisional One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Restrictive Index Surgery-a Metaanalysis and Comparison with Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) was established as a recognized bariatric procedure in the 2018 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) position statement. This study evaluates the outcomes of revisional OAGB (rOAGB) after a restrictive index procedure, and to compare it to revisional RYGB (rRYGB).

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines on papers published from inception till February 2020. Original studies involving patients who underwent rOAGB after a primary failed restrictive procedure were included. The primary outcome measured was postrOAGB weight loss. Secondary outcome measures include comorbidity resolution, operative duration, length of stay, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies with 1377 patients were included. Five studies compared rOAGB versus rRYGB. Majority of the patients (76%) were female, with mean age of 43.5 years old. Mean body mass index (BMI) before revisional surgery was 41.6 kg/m². The most common biliopancreatic limb length was 200 cm. Percentage of excess weight loss after rOAGB increases to a maximum of 76.0% at 48 months postsurgery. rOAGB resulted in a pooled prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea resolution of 74.9%, 48.4%, 63.2%, and 75.7% respectively. When compared to rRYGB, rOAGB demonstrated greater weight loss, comparable metabolic syndrome resolution, but with a shorter operating time. Morbidity and mortality rates were low across all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

rOAGB has potential as an alternative revisional surgery, with weight loss profiles and rates of metabolic syndrome resolution that are comparable to rRYGB.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m², p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m² (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as an Effective Bariatric Revisional Surgery after Restrictive Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Revisional surgery must be considered when insufficient weight loss is attained or weight is subsequently regained. This study aimed to investigate the value of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure after restrictive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational, retrospective study including patients initially operated on for morbid obesity with restrictive techniques (vertical-banded gastroplasty [VBG], adjustable gastric band [AGB], and sleeve gastrectomy) and reoperated with RYGB in our centre between December 1994 and January 2019. Demographic and anthropometric data, associated comorbidities (diabetes mellitus type II, arterial hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and surgery-related data (approach, complications, and hospital stay) were evaluated at 5 different time points: initial (prior to first intervention), after the first surgical intervention, before the second intervention (gastric bypass), after the gastric bypass, and at present.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included. VBG was the most frequent initial procedure (n = 33). The mean age was 39 ± 9.52 years, and the average initial weight was 143.53 ± 28.6 kg. Weight loss was achieved in all groups, with a median excess weight loss of 58% after the first surgery and 40.3% after gastric bypass. In terms of weight loss, the best results after the second surgery were obtained when the first surgery was AGB, with statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is effective as a conversion procedure after a previous restrictive surgery, obtaining a significant reduction in weight and BMI. It has an acceptable morbidity rate and is more effective after an AGB.

Revisional But Not Conversional Gastric Bypass Surgery Increases the Risk of Leaks: Review of 176 Redo out of 932 Consecutive Cases

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, surgeons are dealing more and more with patients experiencing failure of a previous bariatric procedure after the worldwide exponential increase of bariatric surgery. Only a few and contradictory studies investigated both outcomes and complications risk factors in this subset population of bariatric patients. We aimed to study a homogeneous population of patients undergoing redo bariatric surgery (REDO-BS) resulting in bypass anatomy to evaluate early postoperative outcomes and identify risk factors of postoperative complications and mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, we compared the outcomes of patients undergoing REDO-BS from another former bariatric procedure into Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGP) to those undergoing primary RYGP. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight conversional bariatric surgery (CBS) cases resulting in RYGP anatomy and 38 RBS cases of pouch resizing (PR) were compared with 756 primary RYGP. There were no statistical significant difference in outcomes between the primary and CBS groups but patients undergoing PR had a significant higher risk of developing a leak than others. CBS complication risk factors were age (OR = 1.05; p = 0.04), operative time, and T2DM (OR = 4.11; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

CBS is safe and leads to similar early postoperative outcomes as primary RYGP whereas the indication for revisional surgery such as PR should be carefully evaluated as it is associated with an increased risk of leak.

Conversion from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): preliminary data from a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been for a decade one of the most popular interventions for weight loss. After LSG and LAGB, some patients may require a second surgery due to weight regain or late complications. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a promising bariatric procedure, which provides effective long-term weight loss and has a favorable effect on type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively analyze data from 10 Italian centers on conversion from LAGB and LSG to OAGB.

SETTING

High-volume centers for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 10 high-volume centers were retrospectively reviewed. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss, reasons for redo, remission from co-morbidities (hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia), and major complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included in the study; 196 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB and 104 were converted from LSG. BMI was 45.1 ± 7 kg/m² at the time of first intervention, 41.8 ± 6.3 kg/m² at redo time, and 30.5 ± 5.5 kg/m² at last follow-up appointment. Mean percentage of excess BMI loss was 13.2 ± 28.2 at conversion and 73.4 ± 27.5 after OAGB. Remission rates from hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia were 40%, 62.5%, 58.7% and 52%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 20.8 (range, 6-156) months and overall complications rate was 8.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that OAGB is a safe and effective revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.

Laparoscopic Revision of Failed Bariatric Procedures

Background:

The main indications for revision of bariatric surgery are inadequate weight loss, weight regain, or complications. The objective of revision is to restore the restrictive component and/or add a malabsorptive component.

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery for loss of weight and assess the risks and benefits associated with these technically demanding procedures.

Methods:

Revision cases performed between 2001 and 2013 were identified and grouped according to the primary procedure and type of revision. A retrospective analysis was carried out for weight loss as well as perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Results:

The total of 271 patients underwent revisional laparoscopic surgery during the study period and were categorized into four groups. Group 1 (n = 67) had an adjustable gastric band converted to gastric bypass (GBP). Group 2 (n = 128) had a dilated gastric pouch after GBP and underwent pouch reduction. Group 3 (n = 57) had a GBP and underwent pouch reduction and elongation of the biliopancreatic limb. Group 4 (n = 19) had a vertical banded gastroplasty converted to a GBP. The mean total body weight loss for Groups 1 to 4 was 35.3%, 22.9%, 39.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. The average operative times were 185, 75, 142, and 205 minutes; and the average hospitalization was 1.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5 days, respectively. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Concomitant procedures were liver biopsy, cholecystectomy, partial gastrectomy, hiatal, ventral, and internal hernia repairs. Complication rates were 2.9%, 0%, 3.5%, and 5.2% for each of the groups and there were no mortalities.

Conclusion:

Results of revisional bariatric surgery vary depending on the original procedure and the reasons for revision. In particular, if the main reason for reoperation is inadequate weight loss, then the burden is to demonstrate a surgically correctable deficiency. Revisional procedures incorporating malabsorption result in greater weight loss than gastric restriction alone.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one anastomosis gastric bypass as rescue therapy after failed adjustable gastric banding: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

To date, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding remains the third most commonly performed surgical procedure for weight loss. Some patients fail to get acceptable outcomes and undergo revisional surgery at rates ranging from 7% to 60%. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are among the most common salvage options for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to RYGB, OAGB, or SG.

METHODS

Data collected from 7 experienced bariatric centers around the world were retrospectively collected, reviewed, and analyzed. Final body mass index (BMI), change in BMI, percentage excess BMI loss, and major complications with particular attention to leaks, hemorrhage, and mortality were reported.

RESULTS

Of 1219 patients analyzed, 74% underwent RYGB, 16% underwent OAGB, and 10% underwent SG after banding failure. The mean age was 38 years (±10 yr), and 82% of patients were women. The mean follow-up was 33 months. The follow-up rate was 100%, 87%, and 52% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. At the latest follow-up, percentage excess BMI loss >50% was achieved by 75% of RYGB, 85% of OAGB, and 67% of SG patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 13% of patients after RYGB, 5% after OAGB, and 15% after SG.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that it is possible to achieve or maintain significant weight loss with an acceptable complication rate with all 3 surgical options.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The incretin system ABCs in obesity and diabetes - novel therapeutic strategies for weight loss and beyond

Incretins are gastrointestinal-derived hormones released in response to a meal playing a key role in the regulation of postprandial secretion of insulin (incretin effect) and glucagon by the pancreas. Both incretins, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), have several other actions by peripheral and central mechanisms. GLP-1 regulates body weight by inhibiting appetite and delaying gastric, emptying actions that are dependent on central nervous system GLP-1 receptor activation. Several other hormones and gut peptides, including leptin and ghrelin, interact with GLP-1 to modulate appetite. GLP-1 is rapidly degraded by the multifunctional enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). DPP-4 is involved in adipose tissue inflammation, which is associated with insulin resistance and diabetes progression, being a common pathophysiological mechanism in obesity-related complications. Furthermore, the incretin system appears to provide the basis for understanding the high weight loss efficacy of bariatric surgery, a widely used treatment for obesity, often in association with diabetes. The present review brings together new insights into obesity pathogenesis, integrating GLP-1 and DPP-4 in the complex interplay between obesity and inflammation, namely, in diabetic patients. This in turn will provide the basis for novel incretin-based therapeutic strategies for obesity and diabetes with promising benefits in addition to weight loss. © 2016 World Obesity.

Vitamin and Mineral Deficiencies After Biliopancreatic Diversion and Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch--the Rule Rather than the Exception

INTRODUCTION

Malabsorptive bariatric procedures, like the biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) and BPD with duodenal switch (BPD/DS), have excellent results in terms of weight loss. However, these malabsorptive techniques are associated with severe malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vitamin and mineral status after BPD and BPD/DS in the long term.

METHODS

All patients who underwent BPD or BPD/DS were selected and invited for an additional follow-up (FU) visit, including blood sampling for vitamin and mineral levels.

RESULTS

Forty patients completed the blood sampling with a median FU of 42 (range 12-90) months. At that time, all patients used some kind of supplementation. However, 93 % of all patients were diagnosed with a deficiency. There were no significant differences in mean serum level vitamins and minerals between BPD and BPD/DS. Forty-three per cent of the patients were anaemic, and 40 % had an iron deficiency (ID). High deficiency rates for fat-soluble vitamins were present: vitamin A in 28 %, vitamin D in 60 %, vitamin E in 10 % and vitamin K in 60 % of the patients. Hypervitaminosis was found in 43 % of the patients for vitamin B1 and in 50 % for vitamin B6.

CONCLUSION

High numbers of vitamin and mineral deficiencies were found after BPD and BPD/DS despite vitamin supplementation. Anaemia, ID and deficiencies for fat-soluble vitamins are frequently diagnosed. Repeated monitoring is necessary to detect deficiencies at an early stage. Taking all of this into consideration, a stringent multivitamin supplementation regimen should be implemented after malabsorptive procedures.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal and outcome of subsequent revisional bariatric procedures: A retrospective review of 214 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) removal is required in cases of slippage, erosion, infection, intolerance, or failure in weight loss. The aim of the study was to follow up the patients who underwent band removal and analyze the outcome of subsequent revisional bariatric procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent LAGB removal during 3.5 years. All patients underwent a phone interview in early 2015. Patients were divided to three groups following band removal: without additional surgery, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and Redo LAGB(Re-LAGB). Outcome of different revisional procedures was compared according to causes and symptoms before band removal, patient satisfaction, weight loss, quality of life (QOL) questionnaire, and the bariatric analysis and reporting outcome system II (BAROSII) score.

RESULTS

Overall 214 patients (73.8% females) with mean age of 41.9 years were enrolled in the study. The mean time between LAGB placement and removal was 81.0 months. Mean % estimated weight loss (%EWL) was 29.6 at time of band removal. There was no difference between groups in patient age, gender, BMI before LAGB, and most co-morbidities. Patients with 1-5 outpatient visits preferred additional surgery. Patients suffering from vomiting from 1 to 10 times per week preferred revision as LSG or LRYGB. Patients with lower BAROS score underwent LSG or LRYGB. Most of the patients with band intolerance underwent conversion to another bariatric procedure, while patients with band erosion and infected band preferred Re-LAGB. Most of the patients without band gained weight. There was a significant improvement in %EWL (39.9 vs 29.6), QOL (1.08 vs 0.07), and BAROS(2.82 vs-0.11) in patients who underwent additional bariatric surgery before and after band removal irrespective of surgery type.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient selection for different revisional bariatric procedures after LAGB removal is a main point for surgery success. This results in high patient satisfaction, EWL, and QOL. All options (Re-LAGB, LSG, LRYGB) are feasible and safe.

Long-Term Follow-Up Is Essential to Assess Outcome of Gastric Banding in Morbidly Obese Adolescents: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Adolescent obesity is rapidly becoming more prevalent and is associated with chronic health conditions and psychosocial morbidity. Lifestyle intervention is often ineffective in morbidly obese adolescents, and bariatric surgery is gradually becoming an accepted treatment. However, little is known about long-term results.

METHODS

Hospital charts of patients who had undergone gastric banding more than 5 years ago at an age of 18 years or younger, were retrospectively analyzed. Weight loss, complications, reoperations, and comorbidity reduction were assessed as well as health status, food behavior, and personality.

RESULTS

BMI loss in 10 adolescents was 10.7 kg/m2 (-0.9 to 12.9 kg/m2) after a median follow-up of 64 months (52-84 months); the major part of weight loss occurred after the first year. In 4 patients the gastric band was removed after 3.5-5.5 years. Two out of 3 patients effectively lost weight after conversion to a bypass type procedure. One patient is maintaining a stable healthy weight after band removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in morbidly obese adolescents had a failure rate of 40%, but was a successful therapy in the other 60% without major adverse events. Follow-up longer than 36 months was crucial for optimal evaluation of weight loss and reoperation rate.