The anatomy of a weight recidivism and revision bariatric surgical clinic

Characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery due to persistent obesity: a retrospective cohort study of 10,589 patients

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery in an option for patients who experience weight regain or inadequate weight loss after primary elective bariatric procedures. However, there is conflicting data on safety outcomes of revisional procedures. We aim to characterize patient demographics, procedure type, and safety outcomes for those undergoing revisional compared to initial bariatric interventions to guide management of these patients.

METHODS

The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) registry was analyzed, comparing primary elective to revisional bariatric procedures for inadequate weight loss. Bivariate analysis was performed to determine between group differences. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors associated with serious complications or mortality.

RESULTS

We evaluated 158,424 patients, including 10,589 (6.7%) revisional procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more like to be female (85.5% revisional vs. 81.0% initial; p < 0.001), had lower body mass index (43.6 ± 7.8 kg/m² revisional vs. 45.2 ± 7.8 kg/m² initial; p < 0.001), and less metabolic comorbidities than patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery. The most common revisional procedures were Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (48.4%) and sleeve gastrectomy (32.5%). Revisional procedures had longer operative duration compared to primary procedures. Patients undergoing revisional procedures were more likely to experience readmission to hospital (4.8% revisional vs. 2.9% initial; p < 0.001) and require reoperation (2.4% revisional vs. 1.0% initial; p < 0.001) within 30 days of the procedure. Revisional procedures were independently associated with increased serious complications (OR 1.49, CI 1.36-1.64, p < 0.001) but were not a significant predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 0.74, CI 0.36-1.50, p = 0.409).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to primary bariatric surgery, patients undergoing revisional procedures have less metabolic comorbidities. Revisional procedures have worse perioperative outcomes and are independently associated with serious complications. These data help to contextualize outcomes for patients undergoing revisional bariatric procedures and to inform decision making in these patients.

Evolution of depressive symptoms from before to 24 months after bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Depression after bariatric surgery can lead to suboptimal health outcomes. However, it is unclear how depressive symptoms evolve over the 24 months after surgery. We determined the extent depressive symptoms changed up to 24 months after bariatric surgery and how this was impacted by measurement tool and surgical procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching five databases from database inception to June 2021 for studies that prospectively measured depressive symptoms before and up to 24 months after bariatric surgery. Change scores were converted to Hedge's g, and analyses were performed using mixed-effects models. Subgroup analyses examined differences across time of follow-up, measurement tool, and surgical procedure.

FINDINGS

Forty-six studies met inclusion criteria (32,342 patients). Meta-analysis indicated a postsurgical reduction in depressive symptom scores that were significant (large effect, g = 0.804; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88, I²  = 95.7%). Subgroup analyses found that symptom reductions did not differ between the timing of follow-up periods, measurement tool, and surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressive symptom scores reduced substantially following surgery; comparable decreases occurred 6 through 24 months after surgery. These findings can help inform practitioners of the typical evolution of depressive symptoms following surgery and where deviations from this may require additional intervention.

The Factor Structure and Stability of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) in a Population Undergoing Bariatric Surgery

PURPOSE

Depression is a multifaceted psychiatric condition that has been associated with suboptimal weight loss following bariatric surgery. Previous variations of Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition (BDI-II) subscales been proposed, including those identified within bariatric populations; however, it is unclear whether the BDI-II items contained within these subscales would remain consistent after the procedure considering the physical and lifestyle changes that occur following bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A two-step analytic approach that comprised of exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) that aimed to identify a stable factor structure using pre- and 6-month post-surgical BDI-II responses. Baseline BDI-II responses of 149 patients (Group 1) were used to identify an initial EFA model. Five BDI-II models underwent CFA using BDI-II responses of a comparable pre-surgical group (Group 2; n = 142), and 6-month post-surgical data from Group 1.

RESULTS

EFA generated a two-factor solution. Of the five CFA models performed, the three-factor model that was initially identified by Hayes (2015) among patients undergoing bariatric surgery demonstrated superior fit across time and between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the EFA initially identified a two-factor model, CFA determined that a previously defined three-factor model reliably fit both pre- and post-surgical BDI-II responses. This study supports using the Hayes (2015) subscales when monitoring pre- and post-bariatric surgery facets of depression specific to this population. Being able to accurately and reliably monitor depressive symptoms of patients that are undergoing bariatric surgery will allow for the provision and monitoring of targeted interventions aimed at improving their mental and physical health outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with 12+ months of adjuvant multidisciplinary support

Background

The laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and the incisionless endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) weight loss procedures require further investigation of their efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes in the Australian setting.

Methods

The aim was to examine the 6- and 12-month weight loss efficacy, safety, and weight-related quality of life (QoL) of adults with obesity who received the ESG or LSG bariatric procedure with 12+ months of adjuvant multidisciplinary pre- and postprocedural support. Data were from a two-arm prospective cohort study that followed patients from baseline to 12-months postprocedure from a medical center in Queensland. Percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, android:gynoid ratio, bone mineral content) via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, weight-related QoL, lipid, glycemic, and hepatic biochemistry, and adverse events.

Results

16 ESG (19% attrition; 81.2% female; aged:41.4 (SD: 10.4) years; BMI: 35.5 (SD: 5.2) kg/m²) and 45 LSG (9% attrition; 84.4% female; aged:40.4 (SD: 9.0) years; BMI: 40.7 (SD: 5.6) kg/m²) participants were recruited. At 12-months postprocedure, ESG %EWL was 57% (SD: 32%; p < 0.01) and LSG %EWL was 79% (SD: 24%; p < 0.001). ESG and LSG cohorts improved QoL (19.8% in ESG [p > 0.05]; 48.1% in LSG [p < 0.05]), liver function (AST: − 4.4 U/L in ESG [p < 0.05]; − 2.7 U/L in LSG [p < 0.05]), HbA1c (− 0.5% in ESG [p < 0.05]; − 0.1% in LSG [p < 0.05]) and triglycerides (− 0.6 mmol/L in ESG [p > 0.05]; − 0.4 mmol/L in LSG [P < 0.05]) at 12-months. Both cohorts reduced fat mass (p < 0.05). The ESG maintained but LSG decreased fat-free mass at 6-months (p < 0.05); and both cohorts lost fat-free mass at 12-months (p < 0.05). There were no adverse events directly related to the procedure. The ESG reported 25% mild-moderate adverse events possibly related to the procedure, and the LSG reported 27% mild-severe adverse events possibly related to the procedure.

Conclusions

In this setting, the ESG and LSG were safe and effective weight loss treatments for obese adults alongside multidisciplinary support. Patients who elected the ESG maintained fat-free mass at 6-months but both cohorts lost fat-free mass at 12-months postprocedure. Patients who elected the LSG had large and significant improvements to weight-related quality of life. Further well-powered studies are required to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

This study was registered prospectively at the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 06/03/2018, Registration Number ACTRN12618000337279.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01629-7.

The fate of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal

Background

Long-term complications and lack of weight loss have caused a surge in laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) removal. This study reviews the trend of LAGB removal and examines outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent revision bariatric surgery at a single tertiary care centre in Canada.

Methods

All LAGB removals performed between January 2008 and December 2016 were reviewed. A subset of patients who underwent revision surgery was then analyzed for patient demographics, weight, body mass index and postoperative complications.

Results

During the study period, 211 patients underwent LAGB removal (87.7% female). Most bands were inserted out of province. Reasons for band removal included dysphagia, band slip and weight recidivism. Fifty-nine patients (28%) underwent revision surgery at a mean of 12.8 ± 9.3 (range 0–55) months after LAGB removal. Mean age was 47 ± 9.7 (range 26–63) years, and mean pre-LAGB weight was 131.0 ± 30.0 kg. Following LAGB, the mean weight decreased to 120.5 ± 26.4 kg, but most regained weight after removal to a mean prerevision weight of 125.1 ± 27.0 kg. The lowest mean weight was achieved 12 months after revision surgery (98.7 ± 30.2 kg). The mean percent total weight loss was not significantly different after revision laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass compared with revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (22.8 ± 9.6% v.17.5 ± 6.5%, p = 0.179). The overall revision surgery 30-day complication rate was 18.6% and increased to 23.7% long-term. No deaths occurred.

Conclusion

The number of LAGB removals is increasing. Revision bariatric surgery leads to improved weight loss; however, revision surgery is associated with complications.

Efficacy of High-Dose Liraglutide as an Adjunct for Weight Loss in Patients with Prior Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the most effective long-term treatment of severe obesity. Unfortunately, many patients experience inadequate weight loss, weight plateau, or weight recidivism. We sought to determine the efficacy of high-dose liraglutide (3.0 mg once daily) in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of 33 consecutive patients, aged 18-65, who received liraglutide for weight loss in the setting of any previous bariatric surgery. Indications were weight recidivism (> 10% weight regain from lowest post-surgical weight), inadequate weight loss (< 20% weight loss from initial clinic assessment, or pre-surgical weight if unavailable), and plateau (patient desires further weight loss but does not fit into either other category). Our primary outcomes were median percentage weight loss and median BMI change at 16 and 28 weeks, inclusive of time taken to titrate the medication to target dose. Secondary outcomes were the presence of adverse effects and the need to discontinue the medication.

RESULTS

Of a total of 33 patients identified, 20 met inclusion criteria and had adequate data to be included in our analysis. At 16 weeks median percentage weight loss was 7.1% (IQR 5.1-12.2%), and at 28 weeks 9.7% (IQR 7.8-13.9%). Median BMI change was 3.5 kg/m² (16 weeks, IQR 2.2-4.6 kg/m²) and 4.7 kg/m² (28 weeks, IQR 3.7-5.6 kg/m²). There were no major adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose liraglutide is an effective adjunct treatment for weight loss in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

A comparison of revisional and primary bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is an important component of addressing weight regain and complications following primary bariatric surgery. Owing to provincial need and the complexity of this patient population, a specialized multidisciplinary revision clinic was developed. We sought to characterize patients who undergo revision surgery and compare their outcomes with primary bariatric surgery clinic data.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of bariatric revision clinic patients compared with primary bariatric surgery patients from December 2009 to June 2014.

RESULTS

We reviewed the charts of 2769 primary bariatric clinic patients, 886 of whom had bariatric surgery, and 534 revision bariatric clinic patients, 83 of whom had revision surgery. Fewer revision clinic patients underwent surgery than primary clinic patients (22% v. 32%). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.7 ± 9.5 in revision patients compared with 45.7 ± 7.6 in primary bariatric surgery patients. Most revision patients had a prior vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG; 48%) or a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB; 24%). Bands were removed in 36% of all LAGB patients presenting to clinic. Of the 134 procedures performed in the revision clinic, 83 were bariatric weight loss surgeries, and 51 were band removals. Revision clinic patients experienced a significant decrease in BMI (from 44.7 ± 9.5 to 33.8 ± 7.5, p < 0.001); their BMI at 12-month follow-up was similar to that of primary clinic patients (34.5 ± 7.0, p = 0.7). Complications were significantly more frequent in revision patients than primary patients (41% v. 15%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A bariatric revision clinic manages a wide variety of complex patients distinct from those seen in a primary clinic. Operative candidates at the revision clinic are chosen based on favourable medical, anatomic and psychosocial factors, keeping in mind the resource constraints of a public health care system.