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

Decision-making Considerations in Revisional Bariatric Surgery

OBJECTIVE

With drastic variations in bariatric practices, consensus is lacking on an optimal approach for revisional bariatric surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed and consolidated bariatric surgery literature to provide specific revision suggestions based on each index surgery, including adjustable gastric band (AGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve (SADI-S), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG).

RESULTS

AGB has the highest weight recurrence rate and can be converted to RYGB, SG, and BPD-DS. After index SG, common surgical options include a resleeve or RYGB. The RYGB roux limb can be distalized and pouch resized in context of reflux, and the entire anatomy can be revised into BPD-DS. Data analyzing revisional surgery after a single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve was limited. In patients with one anastomosis gastric bypass and vertical banded gastroplasty anatomy, most revisions were the conversion to RYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

As revisional bariatric surgery becomes more common, the best approach depends on the patient's indication for surgery and preexisting anatomy.

Revision of restrictive bariatric procedures in elderly patients: results at a 5-year follow-up

Revisional Bariatric Surgery (RBS) is increasing in popularity. Elderly patients (> 65 years old) are sometimes referred for RBS evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes of elderly patients undergoing RBS. A retrospective analysis of a cohort from a single-tertiary bariatric center. All elderly patients undergoing RBS after restrictive procedures between 2012 and 2022 were included. Thirty Nine patients undergoing RBS were included in the comparative analysis - 23 patients (57.5%) after adjustable gastric banding (s/p LAGB) and 16 patients (40%) after Sleeve Gastrectomy (s/p SG). The mean age and body mass index (BMI) of patients were comparable (67.2 ± 2.8 years and 38.3 ± 7.4, respectively). There was no difference in associated medical problems except reflux which was higher in s/p SG (68% vs. 13%; p < 0.001). The mean time interval between surgeries was 8.7 ± 5.1 years. The surgeries included One anastomosis gastric bypass (n = 22), SG (n = 8) and Roux-en-y gastric bypass (n = 9). Early major complication rates were comparable (4.3% and 12.5%; p = 0.36), and readmission rate was higher in patients s/p SG (p = 0.03). Ninety percent of patients were available to a follow-up of 59.8 months. The mean BMI and total weight loss was 29.2 and 20.3%, respectively with no difference between groups. The rate of patients with associated medical problems at last follow-up was significantly reduced. Five patients (12.5%) underwent revisional surgery due to complications during follow-up. In conclusion, RBS in the elderly is associated with a reasonable complication rate and is effective in terms of weight loss and improvement of associated medical problems in a 5-year follow-up.

Scoping review of obesity interventions: Research frontiers and publication status

Obesity and overweight are significant global health issues, and numerous obesity intervention studies have been conducted. Summarizing current knowledge of interventions aims to inform researchers and policymakers to keep up-to-date with the latest scientific advancements and trends. In this review, we comprehensively retrieved and screened 4,541 studies on obesity intervention published between 2018 and 2022 in the Web of Science Core Collection, and objectively presented research frontiers using bibliometric analysis. The research frontiers of intervention are mainly focused on dietary, exercise, pharmacological interventions, bariatric surgery, environmental, and cognitive interventions. Time-restricted eating is the hottest research topic, followed by probiotics and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Gut microbiota is located in the "Basic and transversal themes" quadrant with a high centrality and low density, which has great development potentiality. Obesity intervention is becoming increasingly common,and we advocate for researchers to undertake more focused research endeavors that consider the specific characteristics of diverse populations or patients.

Reports of Gastric Banding and Bowel Obstruction: A Narrative Review of the Literature

The utilization rates of laparoscopic gastric banding (LAGB) declined worldwide from 42.3% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2018. Rates of complications requiring removal may reach 40-50% in the medium to long term. Bowel obstruction is a rare but severe complication that occurs after LAGB. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed was carried out to identify all available case reports of intestinal obstruction after gastric banding. The search terms were as follows: "intestinal obstruction", "small bowel obstruction", "gastric band", "gastric banding", "gastric band complications", and "laparoscopic gastric band obstruction". The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flowchart was used. Forty-three case reports were included in our review. Laparotomy was necessary in 18/43 (41%) of patients. Vomit was not always reported, while abdominal pain was constantly present. A CT scan was the preferred diagnostic tool. The main causes of occlusion were found to be the erosion of the gastrointestinal tract or internal hernia due to a loose tube loop. Forty-six percent of cases occurred within 5 years from insertion. Even if rare, small bowel obstruction after LAGB requires surgical intervention often with an open approach. The absence of vomit masks symptoms, but an obstruction must be always suspected in the case of severe colicky abdominal pain. A CT scan is recommended for making diagnoses.

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.

ReSleeve or revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass for failed primary sleeve gastrectomy with dilated gastric tube: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has been increasingly performed due to weight loss failure (WLF). Many revisional procedures have been proposed after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (pLSG) failure, including ReSleeve gastrectomy (ReLSG), and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB). Choosing the RBS post-pLSG failure represents a challenge. WLF without gastric tube (GT) dilation is undoubtedly converted to a malabsorptive procedure, but the presence of GT dilation makes it more difficult to select a RBS. This study aimed to compare two relatively simple revisional procedures after pLSG failure with dilated GT to help decision making on which procedure better done to which patient.

METHODS

Data of 52 patients who completed one year follow-up (FU) after their RBS (ReLSG: 27 or LOAGB: 25) for their failed pLSG were collected, assessed, correlated to weight loss (WL) and compared.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 97 ± 18.4 min. with revisional LOAGB (RLOAGB) and 62 ± 11 min. with ReLSG. Six patients (11.5%) had seven postoperative procedure-specific complications. Significant hemorrhage occurred in three patients. Two cases of leakage were encountered with each procedure. LOAGB Patients had lower mean final weight (76.2 ± 10.5 vs 85.3 ± 13), lower mean Final BMI (26.4 ± 2.5 vs 29.7 ± 2.9) and higher mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) (83.6 ± 13.5% vs 60.29 ± 14.6%). All RLOAGB patients and 77.8% of ReLSG patients had EWL% > 50%. RLOAGB patients had higher EWL% compared to ReLSG (p < 0.001). Insufficient WL (IWL) patients had higher EWL% compared to weight regain (WR) patients (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Both procedures (RLOAGB and ReLSG) were relatively safe and effective in terms of WL. RLOAGB led to higher WL compared to ReLSG in all types of patients despite higher Caloric intake. IWL patients had more WL compared to WR patients. WL was not related to GT dilation type. Large-scale longer-FU studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR202310644487566 (retrospectively registered).

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.

Does One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Expose Patients to Gastroesophageal Reflux: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the incidence of new-onset gastroesophageal reflux, reflux change, esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, and revision due to reflux, gastritis, and marginal ulcer after one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). We performed subgroup analyses based on primary and revisional OAGB and time of follow-up. Meta-analysis of 87 studies with 27,775 patients showed a 6% rate of new-onset reflux after OAGB. Preoperative reflux status did not change significantly after OAGB. The rate of esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus was 15% and 1%, respectively. The new-onset reflux rate after OAGB was significantly higher than gastric bypass but not different with sleeve gastrectomy. The current study showed a relatively low rate of reflux and its complications after OAGB, but it was significantly higher than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Gastroesophageal reflux management after vertical sleeve gastrectomy

VSG is the most used surgical procedure in the world. Among the main complications linked to this procedure is GERD. It is apparent that endoscopic control protocols should be undertaken in all patients recovering from a VSG procedure. This is particularly key when taking into account the large number of patients suffering from GERD that show no symptoms, a situation that in many cases leads to severe esophagitis or even adenocarcinoma. Once the pertinent diagnostic tests have been carried out, the specialist should seek a conservative medical treatment including PPI. In the event that this treatment should fail, the next step to be considered should be a surgical procedure. In this case, the ideal procedure would be a reconversion to gastric bypass due to its low-risk and its results. There are other alternatives such as the Stretta, Linx or ARMS procedures; however, further research is necessary to prove their reliability.

The analysis of factors increasing the odds for type 2 diabetes mellitus remission following re-do bariatric surgery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy- cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Metabolic/bariatric surgery is the only proven treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) with curative intent. However, in a number of patients, the surgery is not effective or they may experience a relapse. Those patients can be offered re-do bariatric surgery (RBS).

PURPOSE

The study aimed to determine factors increasing the odds for T2D remission one year after RBS following primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2010 and January 2020, which included 12 bariatric centers in Poland. The study population was divided into groups: Group 1- patients with T2D remission after RBS (n = 28) and Group 2- patients without T2D remission after RBS (n = 49). T2D remission was defined as HBA1c < 6.0% without glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy and glycemia within normal range at time of follow-up that was completed 12 months after RBS.

RESULTS

Fifty seven females and 20 males were included in the study. Patients who achieved BMI < 33 kg/m2 after RBS and those with %EBMIL > 60.7% had an increased chance of T2D remission (OR = 3.39, 95%CI = 1.28-8.95, p = 0.014 and OR = 12.48, 95%CI 2.67-58.42, p = 0.001, respectively). Time interval between primary LSG and RBS was significantly shorter in Group 1 than in Group 2 [1 (1-4) vs. 3 (2-4) years, p = 0.023].

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter time interval between LSG and RBS may ease remission of T2D in case of lack of remission after primary procedure. Significant excess weight loss seems to be the most crucial factor for T2D remission.

Management of leaks following one-anastomosis gastric bypass: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 318 patients

INTRODUCTION

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) complication, such as leakage, can be dangerous and should be managed properly, yet little data exist in the literature regarding the management of leaks after OAGB, and there are no guidelines to date.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and 46 studies, examining 44 318 patients were included.

RESULTS

There were 410 leaks reported in 44 318 patients of OAGB published in the literature, which represents a prevalence of 1% of leaks after OAGB. The surgical strategy was very variable among all the different studies; 62.1% of patients with leaks had to undergo another surgery due to the leak. The most commonly performed procedure was peritoneal washout and drainage (with or without T-tube placement) in 30.8% of patients, followed by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 9.6% of patients. Medical treatment with antibiotics, with or without total parenteral nutrition alone, was conducted in 13.6% of patients. Among the patients with the leak, the mortality rate related to the leak was 1.95%, and the mortality due to the leak in the population of OAGB was 0.02%.

CONCLUSION

The management of leaks following OAGB requires a multidisciplinary approach. OAGB is a safe operation with a low leak risk rate, and the leaks can be managed successfully if detected in a timely fashion.

Revisional bariatric surgery after adjustable gastric band: a multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

BACKGROUND

Adjustable gastric band (AGB) hadbeen the preferred treatment for morbid obesity because it is minimally invasive and reversible. But now it seems to be slowly becoming a historic procedure due to the disappointing effects. The aim of the study was to systematize and present the available data on revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) after AGB among Polish patients.

METHODS

It is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic RBS after AGB in 12 Polish bariatric centers. The database included patient demographics, comorbidities and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The group consisted of 234 patients who underwent AGB, which accounted for 29% of revisional cases recorded in the Polish Revisional Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS). 195 were women (83%), and 39 were men (17%). One hundred seventy-five patients after AGB experienced a weight regain (74.5%), 36 patients a gastric band slippage (15.0%), 14 patients had gastric band intolerance (6.0%). Types of RBS included 116 sleeve gastrectomies (SG) (49.4%), 86 Roux-en Y gastric by-passes (RYGB) (36.6%), 20 one anastomosis gastric by-passes (OAGB) (8,5%). The highest weight loss expressed as %EBMIL was observed after OAGB (63.5 ± 32.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The main indication for RBS after AGB was weight regain. SG was the most frequently chosen type of RBS after AGB. RBS after AGB leads to weight loss and improvement in type 2 diabetes and hypertension with an acceptable low risk of complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05108532.

Efficacy and Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Conversion Following Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Given revision or conversion surgery is required in up to 60% of patients who had adjustable gastric band (LAGB), we compared safety and efficacy of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as conversion surgical procedures in patients with suboptimal response or weight recurrence following LAGB.

METHODS

Conversion surgery was performed in 335 patients between 2016 and 2020. Weight loss, early and late-stage complications, and comorbidity outcomes were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three patients underwent cSG (BMI: 38.3 ± 8.3 kg/m²), and 172 patients underwent cOAGB (BMI: 45.2 ± 9.3 kg/m²). Percent total body weight loss (%TWL) was 28.7 ± 9.9% at 12 months, 30.3 ± 12.8% at 2 years, 31.0 ± 14.5% at 3 years, and 31.1 ± 14.7% at 4 years following OAGB, which was significantly higher than SG; 18.4 ± 8.7%, 18.8 ± 9.8%, 19.3 ± 11.1%, and 16.9 ± 10.9%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Remission of comorbidities, regardless of conversion procedure type, was 20.8% for hypertension (HT), 52% for dyslipidemia (DLD), 60% for type 2 diabetes (DM), 64% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and 76% for insulin resistance (IR).There were no leaks or deaths following SG or OAGB. A twofold greater frequency of complications was seen in the OAGB group vs SG group (15.1% and 6.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Significant weight loss, acceptable complication rates, and similar remission of comorbidities were seen regardless of the type of conversion procedure. Prospective randomized clinical trials are recommended for further elucidation of long-term outcomes.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Revision of Restrictive Procedures: Mid-Term Outcomes and Analysis of Possible Outcome Predictors

PURPOSE

Revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) for insufficient weight reduction following primary restrictive procedures is still investigated. We report mid-term outcomes and possible outcome predictors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative study of revisional OAGB outcomes (2015-2018) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG); silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (SRVG) is separately discussed.

RESULTS

In all, 203 patients underwent revisional OAGB following LAGB (n = 125), SG (n = 64), and SRVG (n = 14). Comparing LAGB and SG, body mass index (BMI) at revision were 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42 ± 11.2 kg/m² (p = 0.64), reduced to 31.3 ± 8.3 and 31.9 ± 8.3 (p = 0.64) at mid-term follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) > 50% was achieved in ~ 50%, with EWL of 79.4 ± 20.4% (corresponding total weight loss 38.5 ± 10.4%). SRVG patients had comparable outcomes. Resolution rates of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension (HTN) were 93.3% and 84.6% in LAGB compared with 100% and 100% in SG patients (p = 0.47 and p = 0.46), respectively. In univariable analysis, EWL > 50% was associated with male gender (p < 0.001), higher weight (p < 0.001), and BMI (p = 0.007) at primary surgery, and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for EWL > 50% were male gender (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.27-6.18; p = 0.01) and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Revisional OAGB for insufficient restrictive procedures results in excellent weight reduction in nearly 50% of patients, with resolution of T2D and HTN at mid-term follow-up. Male gender and higher BMI at revision were associated with EWL > 50% following revisional OAGB. Identification of more predictors could aid judicious patient selection.

Five-year outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass as conversional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss failure

The most accepted procedures as conversion for poor weight changes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG), are malabsorptive surgeries. This study was designed to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) following SG due to weight loss failure and weight regain. From September 2014 to January 2017, totally 23 patients with a history of SG conversion to OAGB in terms of weight loss failure or weight regain who had completed their 5-year follow-ups were studied. Some obesity related co-morbidities containing type-2 diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were also investigated at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after conversional surgery. All cases had remission/improvement in DM, DLP, HTN and OSA 1 year after conversional OAGB. Analysis showed statistically significant (P < 0.001) change in trend of BMI. Mean BMI before conversional surgery, at 1, 2, 3and 5 years were 46.3 ± 10.4, 34.5 ± 8.5, 34.1 ± 8.6, 35.7 ± 8.7 and 37.5 ± 11.6, respectively. Mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years was 51.6 ± 11.0, 52.9 ± 13.1, 45.5 ± 16.4 and 41.0 ± 18.0, respectively. Mean percent total weight loss (%TWL) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years was 26.6 ± 5.9, 27.4 ± 7.2, 23.9 ± 9.2 and 20.9 ± 9.3, respectively. OAGB is an effective conversional procedure for insufficient weight loss and weight regain following failed SG and lead to satisfactory changes in obesity associated medical problems. The optimal weight loss results are obtained at 2-year follow-ups and these effects are then reduced.

Single-Anastomosis Sleeve Jejunal (SAS-J) Bypass as Revisional Surgery After Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures

Purpose

Single-anastomosis sleeve jejunal (SAS-J) bypass is the modification of a single-anastomosis sleeve ileal (SASI) bypass with a short biliary limb. SAS-J bypass is reported to be a good primary bariatric procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the results of SAS-J bypass as a revisional surgery after failed primary restrictive bariatric procedures.

Material and Methods

This was a prospective cohort study including 43 patients who underwent SAS-J bypass as a revisional surgery for weight regain after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), or laparoscopic gastric plication.

Results

Of the total patients, 35 (81.4%) were female, and 8 (18.6%) were male. The mean BMI was 46.3 kg/m². The mean age was 41 years. Thirty-two patients (74.4%) had a failed sleeve, 9 (20.9%) had a failed LAGB, and 2 (4.7%) had a failed gastric plication. The mean operative time was 104 min. Intra-abdominal bleeding occurred in 1 case (2.3%), and intraluminal bleeding occurred in 3 cases (7%). No case (0%) developed a leak. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) reached 76.5% after 1 year. Type 2 diabetes mellitus remission occurred in all diabetic patients, hypertension remitted in 80%, hyperlipidemia remitted in 83.3%, and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome improved in all cases. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms were improved in 86.7% of patients. Significant biliary gastritis occurred in 4 patients (9.3%). Dumping syndrome was reported in 4 patients (9.3%).

Conclusions

SAS-J bypass was effective as a salvage surgery after failed restrictive bariatric procedures, but long-term follow-up is needed.

Graphical abstract

Adjustable Gastric Banding Conversion to One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Data Analysis of a Multicenter Database

INTRODUCTION

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has been proposed as a rescue technique for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders.

AIM

We sought to analyze, complications, mortality, and medium-term weight loss results after LAGB conversion to OAGB.

METHODS

Data analysis of an international multicenter database.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-nine LAGB-to-OAGB operations were retrospectively analyzed. Eighty-seven (46.0%) were converted in one stage. Patients operated on in two stages had a higher preoperative body mass index (BMI) (37.9 vs. 41.3 kg/m², p = 0.0007) and were more likely to have encountered technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (36% vs. 78%, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications occurred in 4.8% of the patients (4.6% and 4.9% in the one-stage and the two-stage group, respectively). Leak rate, bleeding episodes, and mortality were 2.6%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively. The final BMI was 30.2 at a mean follow-up of 31.4 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 100%, 88%, and 70%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Conversion from LAGB to OAGB is safe and effective. The one-stage approach appears to be the preferred option in non-complicate cases, while the two-step approach is mostly done for more complicated cases.

Revisional Surgery After One Anastomosis/Minigastric Bypass: an Italian Multi-institutional Survey

BACKGROUND

Efficacy and safety of OAGB/MGB (one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass) have been well documented both as primary and as revisional procedures. However, even after OAGB/MGB, revisional surgery is unavoidable in patients with surgical complications or insufficient weight loss.

METHODS

A questionnaire asking for the total number and demographics of primary and revisional OAGB/MGBs performed between January 2006 and July 2020 was e-mailed to all S.I.C. OB centres of excellence (annual caseload > 100; 5-year follow-up > 50%). Each bariatric centre was asked to provide gender, age, preoperative body mass index (BMI) and obesity-related comorbidities, previous history of abdominal or bariatric surgery, indication for surgical revision of OAGB/MGB, type of revisional procedure, pre- and post-revisional BMI, peri- and post-operative complications, last follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

Twenty-three bariatric centres (54.8%) responded to our survey reporting a total number of 8676 primary OAGB/MGBS and a follow-up of 62.42 ± 52.22 months. A total of 181 (2.08%) patients underwent revisional surgery: 82 (0.94%) were suffering from intractable DGER (duodeno-gastric-esophageal reflux), 42 (0.48%) were reoperated for weight regain, 16 (0.18%) had excessive weight loss and malnutrition, 12 (0.13%) had a marginal ulcer perforation, 10 (0.11%) had a gastro-gastric fistula, 20 (0.23%) had other causes of revision. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was the most performed revisional procedure (109; 54%), followed by bilio-pancreatic limb elongation (19; 9.4%) and normal anatomy restoration (19; 9.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that there is acceptable revisional rate after OAGB/MGB and conversion to RYGB represents the most frequent choice.

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.

Ten-Year Results of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Retrospective Matched Comparison with Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-Is There a Significant Difference in Long Term?

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most common bariatric procedure performed worldwide while the laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been almost abandoned. Aim of this study was to retrospectively assess 10-year outcomes of LSG through a matched comparison with LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective search of prospectively maintained database of our university was carried out to find all patients that underwent LSG before December 2010. Each subject with LSG was matched one-to-one with a patient that had undergone LAGB in the same period with correspondent preoperative age, BMI, and sex.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients underwent LSG before 2010 and were all included in this study; a matched group of 76 out of 178 LAGB patients with 10-year follow-up was retrieved from our database. Comparison between the two groups showed better outcomes after LSG at 1 and 5 years but weight loss was comparable with the LAGB group at 10 years (%TWL 22.2 ± 13 vs 21.2 ± 16.1; p = 0.89). No significant difference was found in conversion/removal rate (15.8% vs 18.4%; p = 0.67).

CONCLUSION

LSG is an effective stand-alone bariatric procedure with better outcomes than LAGB in medium term, but results are comparable at 10 years. Subjects undergoing LSG should be informed that conversion to RYGB or OAGB may be necessary to achieve further weight loss or to treat reflux.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Outcomes

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of robotic-assisted surgery in patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery (RBS). According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was performed: (("sleeve"AND "gastr*")OR "bariatric"OR "gastric bypass")AND("robot*"OR "DaVinci"OR "Da Vinci")AND("revision*"OR "conversion*"). In this review, six studies with 29,890 patients were included (2459 in the robotic group). No difference in postoperative complications (RR 1.070, 95%CI 0.930-1.231, p = 0.950), conversions to open surgery (RR 1.339, 95%CI 0.736-2.438, p = 0.339), length of stay (SMD - 0.041, 95%CI - 0.420-0.337, p = 0.831) or operative time (RR 0.219, 95%CI - 0.539-0.977, p = 0.571) was found. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of robotic-assisted RBS; on the other hand, it showed a non-inferior efficacy compared to standard laparoscopy.

IFSO Update Position Statement on One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB)

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued a position statement on the role of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in the field of bariatric/metabolic surgery in 2018 De Luca et al. (Obes Surg. 28(5):1188-206, 2018). This position statement was issued by the IFSO OAGB task force and approved by the IFSO Scientific Committee and IFSO Executive Board. In 2018, the OAGB task force recognized the necessity to update the position statement in the following 2 years since additional high-quality data could emerge. The updated IFSO position statement on OAGB was issued also in response to inquiries to the IFSO by society members, universities, hospitals, physicians, insurances, patients, policy makers, and media. The IFSO position statement on OAGB has been reviewed within 2 years according to the availability of additional scientific evidence. The recommendation of the statement is derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature and available knowledge. The IFSO update position statement on OAGB will again be reviewed in 2 years provided additional high-quality studies emerge.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Recent data demonstrates that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is found to be associated with high rates of weight loss failure and long-term complications. Therefore, the search for the optimal revisional bariatric procedure is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of converting a failed LAGB to laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a revisional procedure.

SETTING

Large, metropolitan, tertiary, university hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent OAGB after LAGB.Demographics, comorbidities, BMI before and after the procedure, complications, and length of stay were documented.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients underwent OAGB after LAGB. For 41 patients, the band was removed, and an OAGB was performed in a single procedure (71.9%), and 96.5% of the cases were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (15.7%), including one mortality. Average BMI decreased from 42.8 ± 7.0 to 31.3 ± 5.2 kg/m² at least 1 year after surgery, representing a mean %EWL of 64.5%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the 1-stage and 2-stage approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of a failed LAGB to OAGB is effective but carries higher complication rates. Randomized controlled studies comparing different procedures are necessary to further clarify the optimal revisional bariatric operation.

Sleeve Gastrectomy Failure-Revision to Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass or Roux-n-Y Gastric Bypass: a Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most popular bariatric procedure performed worldwide. However, many patients undergo secondary surgery due to either weight-related and complication-related reasons or both. Conversional options vary with one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and Roux-n-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) being the most common. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of converting failed LSG to either OAGB or RYGB, and compare weight-related results and post-conversion complications.

METHODS

Retrospective review of hospital records of patients who underwent conversion from LSG to either RYGB or OAGB due to insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 7 bariatric centers between 2013 and 2019. Data retrieved included demographics, anthropometrics, comorbidities, indication for conversion, conversion type, complications, and weight loss.

RESULTS

During the study period, 396 patients were included in the study. Eighty-four (21%) patients were lost to follow-up. RYGB and OAGB were performed in 119 and 144 patients, respectively. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) at revision were 44.2 years (range 19-72) and 40.6 ± 5.9 kg/m² (range 35-71), respectively. Of these, 191 (73%) were female. Percent total body weight loss (%TWL) was 16% ± 1% for the RYGB group vs. 23% ± 12% for the OAGB group (p = 0.0007) at a median follow-up of 29 months (range 7-78 months) following conversion. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was significantly higher 1 year following conversion to OAGB vs. RYGB occurring in 25 (17.4%) and 9 (7.6%) patients, respectively (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of LSG to OAGB, compared to RYGB, results in increased weight loss but a higher rate of GERD and potential nutritional deficiencies.

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.

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.

One Anastomosis/Mini-Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) as Revisional Surgery Following Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) has gained popularity in the past decade. International databases were searched for articles published by September 10, 2020, on OAGB/MGB as a revisional procedure after restrictive procedures. Twenty-six studies examining a total of 1771 patients were included. The mean initial BMI was 45.70 kg/m², which decreased to 31.52, 31.40, and 30.54 kg/m² at 1, 3, and 5-year follow-ups, respectively. Remission of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) following OAGB/MGB at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up was 65.16 ± 24.43, 65.37 ± 36.07, and 78.10 ± 14.19%, respectively. Remission/improvement rate from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, 7.4% of the patients developed de novo GERD following OAGB/MGB. Leakage was the most common major complication. OAGB/MGB appears to be feasible and effective as a revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric procedures.

Do we understand the pathophysiology of GERD after sleeve gastrectomy?

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a prevalent problem among obese individuals, is strongly associated with obesity and weight loss. Hence, bariatric surgery effectively improves GERD for many patients. Depending on the type of bariatric procedure, however, surgery can also worsen or even cause a new onset of GERD. As a consequence, GERD remains a relevant problem for many bariatric patients, and especially those who have undergone sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Affected patients report not only a decrease in physical functioning but also suffer from mental and emotional problems, resulting in poorer social functioning. The pathomechanism of GERD after SG is most likely multifactorial and triggered by the interaction of anatomical, physiological, and physical factors. Contributing factors include the shape of the sleeve, the extent of injury to the lower esophageal sphincter, and the presence of hiatal hernia. In order to successfully treat post-sleeve gastrectomy GERD, the cause of the problem must first be identified. Therapeutic approaches include lifestyle changes, medication, interventional treatment, and/or revisional surgery.

Is there an indication left for gastric band? A single center experience on 178 patients with a follow-up of 10 years

Background

Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB) has been widely performed in the past at our university bariatric center. Aim of this study was to retrospectively assess long term outcomes of LAGB at our university hospital, with special regard to non-response (EWL < 25%) and rate of band removal.

Methods

Retrospective search of prospectively maintained database of our university bariatric center was carried out to find all consecutive patients that had undergone LAGB at our department with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Collected data were sex, age, body mass index (BMI), obesity related diseases remission, complications and weight loss.

Results

After 10 years, patients with the band (n = 144) in place had a BMI of 35.2 ± 7.5 kg/m2, while %EWL and % TWL were 40.8 ± 52.4 and 18.9 ± 20.7. Seventy-four (41.6%) achieved a success (%EWL > 50), while 38 (21.3%) were non-responders (%EWL < 25), 32 (18%) had an insufficient weight loss (25 < %EWL < 50) and 34 (19.1%) underwent band removal. Among these, 6 (3.4%) were removed for complications and 28 (15.7%) for insufficient weight loss. Weight regain occurred in 38 out of 144 (26.4%) subjects with the band in place at 10 years. Only one case of early vomiting with readmission for medical treatment was recorded. Slippage, erosion/migration and port/tube complications occurred in 4 (2.2%), 2(1.1%) and 9(5%) cases respectively.

Conclusion

LAGB is a safe and moderately effective bariatric procedure but it showed disappointing rates of removal, non-response and remission from comorbidities. However, LAGB could still be proposed for selected/motivated patients.

The rise of one anastomosis gastric bypass: insights from surgeons and dietitians

One anastomosis gastric bypass/Mini Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) is an emerging bariatric surgery (BS) technique. We evaluated and compared attitudes of bariatric surgeons and dietitians towards the considerations for choosing BS-type ("Decision-making"), the contributing factors to the rise of OAGB/MGB in Israel ("OAGB/MGB-rise") and notions regarding the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and nutritional deficiencies following OAGB/MGB. Anonymous online surveys were distributed. The participants were asked to rate by a 10-point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 100 = very much/often) their attitudes towards "Decision-making", "OAGB/MGB-rise" and occurrence of GI symptoms and nutritional deficiencies following OAGB/MGB. For "Decision-making" and "OAGB/MGB-rise", items were considered prioritized where ≥ 50% of the group considered them as 'very-important' (rating ≥ 80). Data on age, sex, years-in-practice and main workplace were also collected. A total of 106 professionals participated in the survey (42 surgeons; 64 dietitians). The respective mean age, years-in-practice and sex were 52.3 ± 8.7 vs. 42.3 ± 9.0 years, 21.0 ± 10.8 vs. 15.5 ± 9.2 years and 85.7% vs. 3.1% males. The inter-observer agreement for prioritized items related to "Decision-making" was fair (Kappa = 0.250; P = 0.257) and both groups prioritized patient's BMI, comorbidities and compliance. The inter-observer agreement for prioritized items related to "OAGB/MGB-rise" was moderate (Kappa = 0.550; P = 0.099) and both groups prioritized ease of performance, shorter operation duration and failure of former restrictive BS. Surgeons reported lower occurrence of nutritional deficiencies and GI symptoms as adverse effects of OAGB/MGB (P ≤ 0.033). The study highlights the views of bariatric surgeons and dietitians concerning factors that underpin the rise of OABG/MGB in Israel and possible rates of GI symptoms and nutritional deficiencies associated with this modality.

Eroded Gastric Band: Where to Next? An Analysis of the Largest Contemporary Series

PURPOSE

Erosion of a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is a devastating problem. There is no clear evidence in literature to guide the choice of revisional procedure following an eroded LAGB. The purpose of this study is to analyse the largest series of erosions following LAGB published to-date with an aim to share our experience with this rare complication and how we managed this cohort of patients following explantation of their LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Patient data is maintained prospectively in a surgical database. The study period was from January 1996 to January 2019. The outcomes of patients who underwent an erosion of LAGB were studied.

RESULTS

Gastric band erosion was encountered in 4.7% of patients. Sixty patients opted for a revisional procedure which included 37 repeat LAGBs, 6 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies (LSG), 7 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses (RYGB), 1 intragastric balloon, and 9 failed revisional procedures. Re-erosions were noted in 27% of patients who underwent a repeat gastric banding. Median %TWL at a 1-year follow-up was significantly higher in LSG and RYGB groups compared with that in LAGB (P < 0.008 and P < 0.000, respectively). There was no significant difference between the LSG and RYGB groups.

CONCLUSION

The risk of re-erosion is increased in patients who undergo repeat AGB following a previous episode of erosion. Repeat LAGB should not be offered after a previous erosion. LSG and RYGB should be considered as appropriate revisional procedures in a patient who experience weight regain following explantation of an eroded LAGB.