A retrospective comparison of early results of conversion of failed gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass

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.

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.

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

PURPOSE

Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years.

RESULTS

144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3-48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7-36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6-31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8-22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable.

Postoperative morbidity and weight loss after revisional bariatric surgery for primary failed restrictive procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

revisional bariatric surgery is gaining increasing interest as long term follow-up studies demonstrate an elevated failure rate of primary surgery due to insufficient weight loss, weight regain or complications. This particularly concerns restrictive bariatric surgery which has been widely adopted from the '80s till present through different procedures, notably vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to define which revisional bariatric procedure performs the best after failure of primary restrictive surgery.

METHODS

a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 39 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol.

RESULTS

biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch guarantees the best results in terms of weight loss (1 and 3-years %TWL MD: 12.38 and 28.42) followed by single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (9.24 and 19.13), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (7.16 and 13.1), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (4.68 and 7.3) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy. Duodenal switch and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are associated to an increased risk of late major morbidity (OR: 3.07 and 2.11 respectively) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy while no significant difference was highlighted for the other procedures. Re-sleeve gastrectomy is the revisional intervention most frequently burdened by weight recidivism; compared to it, patients undergoing single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass have the lowest risk of weight regain (OR: 0.07).

CONCLUSION

considering the analyzed outcomes altogether, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass are the most performing revisional procedures after failure of restrictive surgery due to satisfying short and mid-term weight loss and low early and late morbidity. Moreover, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass has low risk of weight recidivism.

Efficacy and safety of bariatric revisions in patients older than 65 years old

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery in advanced age patients (>65-years-old) has been proven safe and effective. Revisional bariatric surgery is infrequently required for cases of refractory obesity. However, there is a paucity of data regarding revisional surgery for the elderly. We hypothesize that revisional bariatric surgery is viable and safe in elderly patients.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all bariatric revisions performed at two high-volume bariatric centers of excellence between 2011 and 2018. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between patients >65 and those <65-years-old.

RESULTS

145 bariatric revisions were performed for weight loss. 10% (N = 15) were >65 years old. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups There was a longer median length of stay in the younger cohort (2 vs 1 day, p = 0.001). Percent excess weight loss was similar at 12-months, as was resolution of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric revisions in elderly patients appears to be safe and effective. Revisional surgery in this population was not shown to have increased morbidity or mortality with similar excess body weight loss when compared to a younger cohort.

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.

Reoperations for Long-Term Complications Following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: Analysis of Incidence and Causality

Background: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) gained popularity in the early 2000s as a purely restrictive procedure with modest weight loss. The potential for complications requiring reoperation has since become evident. A retrospective review was performed to determine the incidence of long-term complications and predictive factors requiring surgical reintervention after LAGB.

Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and a retrospective review of 200 consecutive patients undergoing LAGB over a period of six years was conducted at a single institution with American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence designation. Data were collected on patient characteristics, comorbid conditions and complications requiring reintervention. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results: Of the 200 patients, 176 (90.7%) were female with an average age of 53.6 years and preoperative body mass index (BMI) of 44.2 kg/m². The average follow-up was 46 months. Complications occurred in 55 (28.4%) patients with band slippage/prolapse as the most common need for reoperation. Younger age, lack of comorbidities and diet/exercise compliance were associated with reintervention.

Conclusions: LAGB has a high rate of reoperation secondary to complications associated with younger age. Alternative bariatric procedures may be more appropriate in these patients who have fewer comorbid conditions and are motivated to improve his or her health.

Clinical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Over recent decades, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been among the most common bariatric surgeries. Nowadays, many patients require revision surgery due to insufficient weight loss and band-related complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are the two most common revision surgeries for failed LAGB, but the conclusions about their efficacy and safety have been inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to review the clinical outcomes of SG and RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for articles that had studied the efficacy and safety of SG and RYGB. The most appropriate effects model was chosen based on the heterogeneity of the articles included in this meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0.

RESULTS

Of 586 articles that were retrieved, 16 articles which examined 2141 SG and 2990 RYGB patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients in RYGB groups showed increased percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 and 24 months after revision surgery but no statistically significant change was found about %EWL after 3, 6, or 36 months. In addition, RYGB was associated with a higher rate of complications, interventions, and readmission in addition to being of more operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggested that RYGB was more effective at demonstrating weight loss after 12 and 24 months, but comparisons of the long-term efficacy of RYGB with that of SG remain inconclusive. In addition, RYGB was accompanied by a greater number of post-operative complications, interventions, and readmissions. Thus, surgeons should consider the overall status of the patients and their comorbidities as crucial factors when selecting a form of revision surgery. Additional high-quality randomized controlled studies are required to further compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments with longer follow-up times.

Outcomes After Laparoscopic Conversion of Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB) to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) or Single Anastomosis Duodenal Switch (SADS)

BACKGROUND

Inadequate weight loss following LAGB (laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding) requiring band removal and conversion to another bariatric procedure is common. There is a paucity of objective data to guide procedure selection. Single anastomosis modifications (SIPS, SADI, SADS) of the duodenal switch biliopancreatic division (DS-BPD) are being investigated. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become the most prevalent primary bariatric procedure and has been used for revision following LAGB.

PURPOSE

The purpose is to investigate single-stage LAGB removal to LSG SADS (single anastomosis duodenal switch). A matched cohort analysis compared each revision to a similar patient having a primary procedure. This was performed to understand the impact of prior banding on outcomes with each procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study to investigate the outcomes of revision of LAGB for inadequate weight loss to LSG or SADS. To determine whether prior banding impairs results, a matched cohort was done comparing each revision to a patient that had a primary procedure.

RESULTS

As expected, patients who had SADS had greater weight loss than LSG. There was no difference in peri-operative and early complications. Both procedures resulted in weight loss. Importantly, with matched cohort, prior LAGB decreased weight loss outcomes in LSG, but not SADS.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of LAGB to LSG or SADS results in weight loss. The presence of LAGB decreases weight loss in LSG, but not in SADS. This can have important implications for long-term outcomes.

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.

Gastric band conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass shows greater weight loss than conversion to sleeve gastrectomy: 5-year outcomes

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) are often used as revisional surgeries for a failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). There is debate over which procedure provides better long-term weight loss.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the weight loss results of these 2 surgeries.

SETTING

University hospital, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all LAGB to RYGB and LAGB to LSG surgeries performed at a single institution. Primary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), percent excess BMI lost, and percent weight loss. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications and reoperations.

RESULTS

The cohort included 192 conversions from LAGB to RYGB and 283 LAGB to LSG. The baseline age and BMI were similar in the 2 groups. Statistical comparisons made between the 2 groups at 24 months postconversion were significant for BMI (RYGB = 32.93, LSG = 38.34, P = .0004), percent excess BMI lost (RYGB = 57.8%, LSG = 29.3%, P < .0001), and percent weight loss (RYGB = 23.4%, LSG = 12.6%, P < .0001). However, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of reoperation (7.3% versus 1.4%, P = .0022), longer operating room time (RYGB = 120.1 min versus LSG = 115.5 min, P < .0001), and longer length of stay (RYGB = 3.33 d versus LSG = 2.11 d, P < .0001) than the LAGB to LSG group. Although not significant, the conversion to RYGB group had a higher rate of readmission (7.3% versus 3.5%, P = .087).

CONCLUSION

Weight loss is significantly greater for patients undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB than LAGB to LSG. However, those undergoing LAGB conversion to RYGB had higher rates of reoperation and readmission. Patients looking for the most effective weight loss surgery after failed LAGB should be advised to have RYGB performed, while also understanding the increased risks of the procedure.

Revision Procedures After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding: Comparison of Efficacy and Safety

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was one of the commonly performed bariatric operations; however, it carries a high revision rate. The aim of the present study was to report the long-term outcomes of LAGB and compare the outcomes between the different revision procedures.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LAGB in a large bariatric center in Asia between May 2002 and April 2011 were included. Interval between primary LAGB to the revision operation, the reason and type of revision surgery were identified and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 275 consecutive patients were included. All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically with no major complications. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) at 10-year follow-up was 45%. In this study, 53 patients (19.3%) had revision surgery, including with 26 single anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (R-LSAGB) (49%), 17 sleeve gastrectomy (R-LSG) (32.1%), 9 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) (17%), and 1 other procedure (1.9%). A major complication occurred in 6 patients (11.3%). All of the follow-up patients with revision surgeries had %EWL > 50% at the 2-year follow-up. R-LSAGB patients achieved better weight loss than those who underwent R-LSG and R-LRYGB (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term result for weight loss after LAGB is unsatisfactory. The revision of failed LAGB to other bariatric surgeries is safe and can be performed in one stage with a low complication rate. Patients who underwent R-LSAGB had better weight loss results than the R-LSG or R-LRYGB patients.

Conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after failure of laparoscopic gastric band: A systematic review of the literature and cost considerations

No universal consensus has been achieved as to whether the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy conversion should be performed in one or two steps. To determine the differences in operative outcomes and cost, a systematic, comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database from the National Institutes of Health. Nine studies were included with 809 patients. Weighted averages were calculated to compare operative outcomes, and cost analyses were conducted with these averages. Results indicate a longer operative time for the one-step approach than the two-step approach, but studies included in the meta-analysis found no statistical difference between the two. The two-step approach was found to have a longer length of hospital stay, but this finding refuted included studies that indicate no significant difference. Complication rates were higher for the one-step approach than the two-step approach, and costs associated with complications average $806 more for one-step patients than two-step patients. This suggests that the two-step approach could prove better for patient safety and cost outcomes, but both approaches are comparable in operating time and length of stay.

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.

Gastric Band Removal in Revisional Bariatric Surgery, One-Step Versus Two-Step: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the safety of one-step versus two-step revisional bariatric surgery from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). There is debate on the safety of removing the gastric band and performing revisional surgery immediately or in a delayed, two-step fashion due to potential higher complications in one-step revisions. A systematic and comprehensive search of the literature was conducted. Included studies directly compared one-step and two-step revisional surgery. Eleven studies were included with 1370 patients. Meta-analysis found comparable rates of complications, morbidity, and mortality between one-step and two-step revisions for both RYGB and SG groups. This suggests that immediate or delayed revisional bariatric surgeries are both safe options for LAGB revisions.