Comparison of safety between 1-stage and 2-stage surgery: from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

Bariatric Surgery in Cebu, Philippines: Current Status and Initial Experience With Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background The prevalence of obesity in the Philippines has increased more than three-fold over the last two decades. However, bariatric surgery has not been widely adopted yet in the country. Local data mainly on laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are limited as well. We report for the first time our experience with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and present the current local status of bariatric surgery in Cebu, Philippines. Patients and methods This is a retrospective study of all patients 18 years old and above who underwent LSG in a single, private, tertiary institution during the period 2009 - 2019. Our primary endpoint was weight loss after LSG. Secondary endpoint was postoperative complications. Results Thirty-three patients (mean age 40.9 ± 14.5 years) underwent LSG. Baseline weight and BMI were 112.6 ± 29 kg and 41.3 ± 8.6, respectively. The mean operative duration was 201 ± 72.9 minutes. The were no open conversions with minimal morbidity. Mean hospital stay was 3.7 ± 0.9 days. The postoperative mean weight and BMI after one year were 68.9 ± 17 kg and 26.6 ± 6, respectively. Overall, mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 61.9 ± 44.1 % at a median follow-up of 5.4 months. Significant weight loss was noted after the third month. Conclusion  LSG is a safe and effective method in producing weight loss. It can be a definitive treatment option as local prevalence of obesity is increasing in the Philippines. However, access to and the practice of bariatric surgery remains limited in the country. A collaboration among private and government stakeholders is essential.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Stapling Bariatric Procedures: Single- or Two-stage Approach

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety of single- versus two-stage conversion of adjustable gastric band (AGB) to gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

AGB patients often present for conversion to RYGB or SG. The impact of single- or two-stage approach of such conversion remains unclear.

METHODS

A statewide database was used to identify all patients who underwent AGB removal and concurrent (single-stage) or interval (two-stage) RYGB or SG. Propensity score matching schemes were constructed to account for differences in baseline comorbidities and demographics, allowing for matched pairs available for comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 4330 patients underwent AGB conversion. Complications, readmissions, and ED visits were noted in 394 (9.1%), 278 (6.42%), and 589 (13.6%) patients, respectively. Three hundred sixty-seven matched pairs underwent RYGB; single-stage patients experienced shorter length of stay (LOS) (median difference -1 d, P < 0.0001), less complications [risk difference (RD): -8.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI), -13.4% to -3.5%], readmissions (RD: -5.2%, 95% CI, -9.6% to -0.8%), and ED visits (RD: -5.7%, 95% CI, -11.3% to -0.2%). Eight hundred seventy-five matched pairs underwent SG; single-stage patients experienced improved outcomes in all measures examined. For single-stage procedures (809 pairs), RYGB was associated with longer LOS, and more complications (RD: 3.3%, 95% CI, 0.9%-5.8%), with similar readmissions, and ED visits.

CONCLUSIONS

AGB conversion procedures have low morbidity. Single-stage conversion is associated with lower morbidity compared with the two-stage approach. Conversion to SG seems to be safer than RYGB.

Comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failure of gastric banding: a two-center study with a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies on series comparing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after failure of gastric banding (GB) are available. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of SG and RYGB after GB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2017, patients undergoing SG (n = 186) or RYGB (n = 107) for failure of primary GB were included in this two-center study. Propensity-score matching was performed based on preoperative factors with a 2:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was the weight loss at 2 years between the SG and RYGB groups. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, reoperation, correction of comorbidities and the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up.

RESULTS

In our propensity score matching analysis, operative time was significantly less in the SG group (95 min vs. 179 min; p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were lower in the SG group (9.5% vs. 35.4%; p = 0.003). At 2 years follow-up, the mean EWL was similar as same as comorbidities. There was a significant difference in favor of SG concerning the rate of adverse events at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Revision of GB by SG or RYGB is feasible, with a higher rate of early post-operative complications for RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years follow-up is similar; however, RYGB appears to result in a higher rate of adverse events than SG.

Sleeve gastrectomy as a rescue of failed gastric banding: comparison of 1- and 2-step approaches

BACKGROUND

Series comparing gastric banding (GB) removal and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) when procedures are performed as a 1- or a 2-step approach are contradictory in their outcomes. No series comparing these approaches with midterm weight loss is available.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the outcomes and weight loss of SG performed as 1- and 2-step approaches as a revisional procedure for GB failure.

SETTING

University Hospital, France, public practice.

METHODS

Between February 2006 and January 2017, all patients undergoing SG with a previous history of implementation of GB (n = 358) were included in this 2-center, retrospective, observational study. Revisional surgery was proposed in patients with insufficient excess weight loss (excess weight loss ≤50%) or weight regain after GB. A 1-step (1-step group, n = 270) or 2-step (2-step group, n = 88) approach was decided depending on patient's choice and/or surgeon's preference. The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the 1- and 2-step groups at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary efficacy endpoints were short-term outcomes (overall mortality and morbidity at postoperative day 30, specific morbidity, reoperation, length of hospital stay, and readmission).

RESULTS

In the 1-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index before SG was 40.5 kg/m² (27.0-69.0), while in the 2-step group, the mean preoperative body mass index was 43.5 kg/m² (31.5-61.7). Mean operating time was 109 minutes (50-240) in the 1-step group and 78.7 minutes (40-175) in the 2-step group (P = .22). In the 1-step group, 6 conversions to laparotomy occurred, while in the 2-step group, 2 conversions to laparotomy occurred (P = .75). One death (.2%, in the 2-step group) and 39 complications (30 in the 1-step group [11.1%] and 9 in the 2-step group [10.2%]) also occurred. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.2 days in the 1-step group and 4.1 days in the 2-step group. At 2-year follow-up, mean body mass index was 32.4 kg/m² in the 1-step group and 33.2 kg/m² in the 2-step group (P = .15), representing excess weight losses of 61.9 and 50.1 (P = .05), respectively. The rates of revisional surgery were .7% and 2.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SG after previous GB is efficient with similar outcomes depending on the 1- or 2-step approach. The 1-step approach seems to have increased weight loss compared with the 2-step approach.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Converting Laparoscopic Gastric Band to Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Rural Tertiary Center's Experience

Gastric banding for surgical treatment of morbid obesity has a complication rate of 20 to 50 per cent. Complications include band erosion, band slippage, and failed weight loss. One salvage procedure used is the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. We aimed to compare our results between single-stage and two-stage conversation of gastric band with sleeve gastrectomy. We performed a retrospective review of 27 gastric band patients converted to sleeve gastrectomy. Hospital length of stay, surgical complications, and weight loss were compared. Twelve patients had a two-stage conversion and 15 patients had a single-stage conversion. There were no surgical complications in either group. There was a significant reduction in BMI after conversion, starting at one month and continuing forward to 12 months. The average BMI reduction over the two-year follow-up period was 8.19. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between the groups. Single-stage conversion of gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy does not lead to increased hospital length of stay or surgical morbidity. In the presence of gastric band slip or erosion, a two-stage approach is preferable. Conversion resulted in statistically significant weight loss in all patients.

Revisional bariatric surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding - a single-center, long-term retrospective study

Introduction

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) used to be one of the most popular bariatric procedures.

Aim

To present our institution’s experience with LAGB, its complications, causes of failure and revisional bariatric procedures, in a long-term follow-up.

Material and methods

Records of patients who underwent pars flaccida LAGB from 2003 to 2006 were gathered. We selected data on patients with a history of additional bariatric procedures. Their initial demographic data, body mass index and causes of revision were gathered. We analyzed length of stay and early perioperative complications.

Results

60% of patients (n = 57) who underwent LAGB in our institution between 2003 and 2006 had their band removed (out of 107, 11% lost to follow-up). Median time to revisional surgery was 50 months. The main reasons for removal were: weight regain (n = 23; 40%), band slippage (n = 14; 25%), and pouch dilatation (n = 9; 16%). Thirty (53%) patients required additional bariatric surgery, 10 (33%) of which were simultaneous with band removal. The most popular procedures were: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) (n = 15; 50%), open gastric bypass (n = 8; 27%), and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) – (n = 3; 10%). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.4 ±2.0. One (3%) perioperative complication was reported.

Conclusions

The results show that LAGB is not an effective bariatric procedure in long-term follow-up due to the high rate of complications causing band removal and the high rate of obesity recurrence. Revisional bariatric surgery after failed LAGB may be performed in a one-stage approach with band removal.