Revision gastric bypass after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: a 10-year experience at a public teaching hospital

Initial experience with laparoscopic gastric bypass in an Australian general foregut surgery unit

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) is an increasingly utilized approach to bariatric surgery in Australia. A high proportion of those procedures are revisional due to Australia's legacy of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), which is not the case internationally. The aim of this study was to compare post-operative outcomes in an Australian general foregut surgery unit against benchmarks published in the literature.

METHODS

This is retrospective cohort study of morbidly obese patients undergoing primary or revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with the two senior authors between 5 May 2015 and 27 June 2019. Perioperative data for the unit's first 100 cases were collected prospectively, stored on a unit database and analysed. Post-operative complications at 30 days, 90 days, mortality, length of hospital stay, and Defined Adverse Events were chosen as indicators of the perioperative outcome (as defined in the Monash Bariatric Surgery Registry).

RESULTS

In this cohort, 35% of procedures were RYGB and 65% were OAGB. The majority (58%) were revisional procedures. Most patients (74%) were female. The median age was 50. The comorbidity profile of the population was similar to those published internationally. The median hospital stay was 4 days. There was no mortality. Early complications occurred in 9% of patients, with 3% occurring late.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of our first 100 cases are comparable with those recorded in the literature, notwithstanding a much higher proportion of revisional cases. LGB can be safely introduced in Australian general foregut surgery units by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Bariatric surgery in a public hospital: a 10-year experience

Introduction

Obesity is common and adversely impacts quality‐of‐life and healthcare cost. In Australia, less than 10% of bariatric surgeries are performed in the public sector. This study reports our 10‐year experience from a high volume public bariatric service which delivers multi‐disciplinary care for primary and revisional procedures with mid‐ to long‐term follow‐up.

Methods

A prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2010 to January 2020 at a tertiary metropolitan hospital was analysed. We analysed patient demographics, comorbidities, perioperative outcomes, 2‐ and 5‐year weight loss as well as comorbidities reduction.

Results

A total of 995 patients underwent 1086 (674 primary and 412 revisional) bariatric procedures with mean age of 46.9 years, mean BMI of 49.6 ± 9.1 kg/m² and 92% patients with ≥1 obesity‐related co‐morbidity. Length‐of‐stay was longer for revisional than primary surgery (5.6 vs. 3.5 days). Major complication rate was 4.2%. Overall, % Total body weight loss (%TBWL) for primary surgeries at 2 years was 26.2%, and for revision surgery was 17.4%. At 2 years follow‐up, treatment was ceased or reduced in 65% of diabetics, 29% of hypertensive patients and 69% of sleep apnoea patients.

Conclusion

This study confirms that bariatric surgery in Australia can be delivered effectively in resource constrained public health system with outcomes similar to private sector.

Revisional bariatric surgery to single-anastomosis gastric bypass: a large multi-institutional series

BACKGROUND

Reoperation is often required after bariatric procedures. Single-anastomosis gastric bypass (SAGB) is increasingly utilized as a primary bariatric procedure. Few series document SAGB as a revisional bariatric procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To describe our short-term experience with revisional SAGB, focusing on weight loss and reflux symptom outcomes.

SETTING

Three hospitals in Australia with both private and public (government funded) patients.

METHODS

We reviewed all revisional SAGB cases from 2012 to 2019 at. Complications were considered significant if they were Clavien-Dindo grade 3a or higher. A phone survey was conducted to assess weight loss outcomes, patient satisfaction, reflux symptoms, and other complications.

RESULTS

We identified 254 patients who had a revisional bariatric procedure to SAGB (21 previous sleeve gastrectomies and 233 previous adjustable bands), with a mean follow-up of 22 ± 15.6 months (range, 1-55 mo). The mean percentage of excess weight loss was 77% (183 patients, 72%), and the number of patients with follow-ups at 1 and 4 years was 184 (73%) and 35 patients (14%). Within 30 days, there were 29 patients (11%) who required reinterventions (21 endoscopies, 1 interventional radiology procedure, and 7 reoperations) with no deaths. Beyond 30 days, 27 patients (11%) required rerevision to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for reflux symptoms and 10 (4%) required a laparotomy or laparoscopy for another reason (e.g., bowel obstruction). At a median follow-up of 36.6 months, 87 patients (34%) completed a phone survey, 45 (52%) of whom were taking proton pump inhibitors and 66 patients (76%) of whom were satisfied with their experience.

CONCLUSION

In our series, revision to SAGB was safe, with low short-term morbidity and favorable weight loss outcomes. However, beyond 1 year, a large proportion of patients experienced severe reflux symptoms and required rerevision.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures - 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

OBJECTIVE

The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPG) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Obesity Medicine Association, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists boards of directors in adherence to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPG, algorithms, and checklists.

METHODS

Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts.

RESULTS

New or updated topics in this CPG include contextualization in an adiposity-based, chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based, and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current healthcare arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest).

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.