Five-year results after resleeve gastrectomy

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.

Endoscopic Revisional Gastroplasty After Bariatric Surgery with a Single-Channel Endoscope

BACKGROUND

Less invasive endoscopic bariatric procedures are under development for the management of recurrence of obesity. The purpose of the current manuscript was to evaluate the safety of the endoscopic revisional gastroplasty (ERG) for patients with recurrence of weight gain following different bariatric procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center study over 22 patients using the ERG between January 2020 to July 2022 at Bouchard Private Hospital (Marseille, France). The demographic data, past surgical history, obesity complications, time interval between the surgical and endoscopic procedures, and intra and postoperative parameters and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients underwent ERG: 19 female (86.4%) with a mean age of 34.2 years and a mean BMI of 32.9 kg/m2 (± 3.4). Average time between the revisional bariatric surgery and ERG was 14.4 months (range 5-36). There were 14 cases of LSG (77.8%), 9 cases of RYGBP (19.4%), and 3 cases with previous gastric band. All procedures were completed by endoscopy with no complication and a mean length of hospital stay of 1.1 days (± 0.9). The weight loss results at 1-year follow-up were available for 17 of the 22 patients: two patients were lost to follow-up (4%) and 3 patients had less than a 1-year follow-up from the ERG. The mean BMI, 1 year after ERG, was 28.7 kg/m2 (± 7.4); the mean BMI loss and %EWL were, respectively, 4.2 kg/m2 (± 4.7) and 53.1% (± 17).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic revisional gastroplasty represents a safe minimal invasive approach that can be considered an effective and well-tolerated procedure for patients with previous bariatric surgery.

Re-sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and sensible intervention in selected patients: retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy is a good treatment intervention to control the metabolic syndrome in patients with obesity worldwide. However, weight regain is of great concern and would usually necessitate a reintervention. In recent years, re-sleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) has been proposed to treat weight regain in the context of a large residual stomach. Our objective was to analyze the long-term results and safety profile of this intervention in a large case series.

METHODS

From September 2010 to March 2021, a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary nonuniversity hospital was performed. Seventy-nine patients received a ReSG by laparoscopy. Preoperative radiologic imaging showed a dilation of the gastric pouch exceeding 250 cc in all cases.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients (87% females) with a mean age of 44.8 years old and a mean BMI of 40.0 kg/m 2 were enrolled in the study. The mean follow-up was 44.8 months. The ReSG indication was insufficient weight loss in 37 patients (46.8%) and weight regain in 39 patients (53.2%). The authors noticed a 10.1% complications rate: gastric stenosis (5.1%), bleeding (2.5%), and incisional site hernia in 2.5%, with no death. There was no gastric fistula detected. The mean BMI decreased to 33.1 kg/m 2 after ReSG (a decrease of 6.9 kg/m 2 ).

CONCLUSION

After insufficient weight loss or weight regain following sleeve gastrectomy and in the presence of localized or global gastric tube dilation, ReSG seems to be a good treatment choice and a safe procedure.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SETTING

Web-based survey of bariatric surgeons.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Surgical Management Algorithm for Intrathoracic Sleeve Migration: A Retrospective Series and Literature Review

Background: With the increase in utilization of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), intrathoracic sleeve migration (ITSM) has introduced a novel challenge for bariatric surgeons. Despite being an underreported complication, effective and safe solutions for ITSM are being sought. The aim of this study is to present our center's experience as well as a comprehensive review of the literature on ITSM. Accordingly, we propose an algorithm for the surgical management of ITSM. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 4000 patients who underwent LSG at our center. ITSM was clinically suspected with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and/or epigastric pain resistant to proton pump inhibitors. Diagnosis of ITSM was confirmed in all patients by three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) volumetry. Several corrective procedures were offered based on the findings of the 3D-CT volumetry, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and the diaphragmatic pillars' condition: cruroplasty with gastropexy, one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with or without re-sleeve gastrectomy, omentopexy, or ligamentum teres augmentation. We conducted a literature review of ITSM using several databases. Results: Fifteen patients were diagnosed with postoperative ITSM. The most common presenting complaint was severely worsened GERD symptoms not responding to medical treatment. The mean time interval between the primary operation and diagnosis of ITSM was 38.8 ± 29.1 months. Three patients had re-sleeve gastrectomy and gastropexy, 5 patients had OAGB, and 7 patients had RYGB. The mean postoperative body mass index was 31.2 ± 4.9 kg/m². No case of recurrent ITSM was detected during follow-up. Our electronic database search yielded 19 studies to be included in our review, which included 201 patients. Conclusion: A high index of suspicion is required to diagnose ITSM. CT volumetry with 3D reconstruction may be the most sensitive diagnostic modality. ITSM management should depend on the results of the diagnostic workup and the condition of the diaphragmatic pillars during surgery.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Banded and Non-banded Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common bariatric procedure performed worldwide. It accounts for more than 50% of primary bariatric surgeries performed each year. Recent long-term data has shown an alarming trend of weight recidivism. Some authors have proposed the concurrent use of a non-adjustable gastric band to decrease long-term sleeve failure.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes (weight loss) and safety (rate of complication and presence of upper GI symptoms) between SG and BSG.

METHODS

A systematic search with no language or time restrictions was performed to identify relevant observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating people with morbid obesity undergoing SG or SGB for weight loss. An inverse-of-the-variance meta-analysis was performed by random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane X² and I² analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 7 observational studies and 3 RCT were included in the final analysis. There were 911 participants pooled from observational studies and 194 from RCT. BSG showed a significant higher excess of weight loss (% EWL). The difference among groups was clinically relevant after the third year where the weighted mean difference (SMD) was 16.8 (CI 95% 12.45, 21.15, p < 0.0001), while at 5 years, a SMD of 25.59 (16.31, 34.87, p < 0.0001) was noticed. No differences related to overall complications were noticed. Upper GI symptoms were up to three times more frequent in the BSG group (OR 3.26. CI 95% 1.96, 5.42, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, BSG is superior to SG in weight loss at 5 years but is associated with a higher incidence of upper GI symptoms. However, these conclusions are based mainly on data obtained from observational studies. Further RCT are needed to evaluate the effect and safety of BSG.

Staple Line Reinforcement During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

Staple line reinforcement (SLR) during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is controversial. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the most commonly utilized techniques for SLR.

Materials and Methods

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare no reinforcement (NR), suture oversewing (SR), glue reinforcement (GR), bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement (Gore® Seamguard®) (GoR), and clips reinforcement (CR). Risk Ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used as pooled effect size measures.

Results

Overall, 3994 patients (17 RCTs) were included. Of those, 1641 (41.1%) underwent NR, 1507 (37.7%) SR, 689 (17.2%) GR, 107 (2.7%) GoR, and 50 (1.3%) CR. SR was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding (RR=0.51; 95% CrI 0.31–0.88), staple line leak (RR=0.56; 95% CrI 0.32–0.99), and overall complications (RR=0.50; 95% CrI 0.30–0.88) compared to NR while no differences were found vs. GR, GoR, and CR. Operative time was significantly longer for SR (WMD=16.2; 95% CrI 10.8–21.7), GR (WMD=15.0; 95% CrI 7.7–22.4), and GoR (WMD=15.5; 95% CrI 5.6–25.4) compared to NR. Among treatments, there were no significant differences for surgical site infection (SSI), sleeve stenosis, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality.

Conclusions

SR seems associated with a reduced risk of bleeding, leak, and overall complications compared to NR while no differences were found vs. GR, GoR, and CR. Data regarding GoR and CR are limited while further trials reporting outcomes for these techniques are warranted.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11695-022-05950-z.

It is really time to retire laparoscopic gastric banding? Positive outcomes after long-term follow-up: the management is the key

After the initial widespread diffusion, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been progressively abandoned and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become the worldwide most adopted procedure. Nevertheless, recent reports raised concerns about the long-term weight regain after different bariatric techniques. Considering the large LAGB series recorded in our multicentric bariatric database, we analysed the anthropometric and surgical outcomes of obese patients underwent LAGB at a long-term follow-up, focusing on LAGB management. Between January 2008 to January 2018, demographics, anthropometric and post-operative data of obese patients undergone LAGB were retrospectively evaluated. To compare the postoperative outcomes, the cohort was divided in two groups according to the quantity of band filling (QBF): low band filling group (Group 1) with at most 3 ml of QBF, and patients in the high band filling group (Group 2) with at least 4 ml. 699 obese patients were considered in the analysis (351 in Group 1 and 348 in Group 2). Patients in Group 1 resulted significantly associated (p < 0.05) to higher % EWL and quality of life score (BAROS Score), 49.1 ± 11.3 vs 38.2 ± 14.2 and 5.9 ± 1.8 vs 3.8 ± 2.5, respectively. Moreover, patients with lower band filling (Group 1) complained less episodes of vomiting, epigastric pain and post-prandial reflux and significantly decreased slippage and migration rate (p < 0.001 for all parameters). LAGB is a safe and reversible procedure, whose efficacy is primarily related to correct postoperative handling. Low band filling and strict follow-up seem the success' key of this technique, which deserves full consideration among bariatric procedures.

Single Anastomosis Duodeno-ileal Bypass As a Revisional Procedure Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: Review of the Literature

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies (LSGs) can experience weight-loss failure and conversion to another bariatric procedure. An analysis of the bariatric literature concerning the single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) as revisional surgery after LSG in terms of safety and efficacy identified 607 studies. Fifty-nine studies were analyzed for full content review and 9 primary studies (398 patients) were included. Revisional single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI) was performed in 294 patients at a mean interval of 37.7 months (range 11-179). Total weight loss (%) varies from 20.5% to 46.2%. Early complications after surgery occurred in 4.1% surgeries including leak (7 cases -1.9%). Mortality was nil. SADI after LSG, after failed sleeve gastrectomy or as a sequential procedure, offers a satisfactory weight loss result. Both early and late term complications are acceptable.

Revisional Surgeries of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Bariatric surgery has become increasingly common due to the worldwide obesity epidemic. A shift from open to laparoscopic surgery, specifically, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), has occurred in the last two decades because of the low morbidity and mortality rates of LSG. Although LSG is a promising treatment option for patients with morbid obesity due to restrictive and endocrine mechanisms, it requires modifications for a subset of patients because of weight regain and tough complications, such as gastroesophageal reflux, strictures, gastric leak, and persistent metabolic syndrome., Revision surgeries have become more and more indispensable in bariatric surgery, accounting for 7.4% in 2016. Mainstream revisional bariatric surgeries after LSG include Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, repeated sleeve gastrectomy, biliopancreatic diversion, duodenal switch, duodenal-jejunal bypass, one-anastomosis gastric bypass, single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SAID) and transit bipartition. This review mainly describes the revisional surgeries of LSG, including the indication, choice of surgical method, and subsequent effect.

Resleeve for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite excellent long-term results, insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and pathologic gastroesophageal reflux disease may require revisional procedures after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Resleeve gastrectomy (ReSG) for failed LSG, has been proposed as an alternative to more complex malabsorptive procedures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the current evidence on the therapeutic role and outcomes of ReSG for failed LSG. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science data sets were consulted. A systematic review and Frequentist meta-analysis were performed. Ten studies published between 2010 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria for a total of 300 patients. The age of the patient population ranged from 20 to 66 years old and 80.5% were females. The elapsed time between the LSG and ReSG ranged from 9 to 132 months. The estimated pooled prevalence of postoperative leak and overall complications were 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = .5%-4.7%) and 7.6% (95%CI = 3.1%-13.4%). The estimated pooled mean operative time and hospital length of stay were 51 minutes (95%CI = 49.4-52.6) and 3.3 days (95%CI = 3.13-3.51). The postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 36 months and the estimated pooled mean percentage excess weight loss was 61.46% (95%CI = 55.9-66.9). The overall mortality ranged from 0% to 2.2%. ReSG after failed LSG seems feasible and safe with acceptable postoperative leak rate, overall complications, and mortality. The effectiveness of ReSG in term of weight loss seems promising in the short-term but further studies are warranted to explore its effect on patients' quality of life, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease, and long-term weight loss.