Revisional Surgery of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Severe Protein–Energy Malnutrition

Comparison of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy for Revision of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: 5-Year Outcomes

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is in continuous decline due to low effectiveness and high reoperation rates. This study aims to evaluate outcomes of converting LAGB to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for insufficient weight loss or weight regain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective comparative study, based on prospective registry database of a tertiary center (2012-2019).

RESULTS

In all, 276 LAGB patients were converted to OAGB (n = 125) and SG (n = 151). Body mass index (BMI) at revision was 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42.3 ± 9.6 kg/m2 (P = 0.34) in OAGB and SG patients, respectively. Time interval was longer in OAGB patients (p < 0.001). Major early complication rates were comparable (2.4% and 4%; p = 0.46). At 5-years, OAGB patients had lower BMI (31.9 vs. 34.5 kg/m2; p = 0.002), and a higher total weight loss (25.1% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.003), compared with SG patients. Resolution of type 2 diabetes was higher in OAGB patients (93.3% vs. 66.6%; p = 0.047), while resolution of hypertension was not significantly different (84.6% and 80.5%; p = 0.68). Revision due to delayed complications was required in five (4%) OAGB patients and nine (8.6%) SG patients (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

OAGB for revision after LAGB due to insufficient weight loss or weight regain is safe, and has better effectiveness in weight reduction and resolution of type 2 diabetes than SG.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Compared with Sleeve Gastrectomy in Elderly Patients: Safety and Long-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

As life expectancy increases, more elderly patients are being considered for metabolic bariatric surgery. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term effectiveness of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) compared to sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative study of OAGB and SG (2012-2019) in patients aged ≥ 65 years.

RESULTS

In all, 124 patients underwent OAGB (n = 41) and SG (n = 83). Mean age was 67.6 ± 2.8 and 67.6 ± 2.6 years (p = 0.89), respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable, except lower rates of hypertension (HTN) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in OAGB than SG patients (43.9% vs. 74.6%; p < 0.001, and 39.0% vs. 89.1%; p < 0.001, respectively). Body mass index (BMI) of OAGB and SG patients decreased from 41.8 ± 7.8 and 43.3 ± 5.9 kg/m² (p = 0.25) to 28.6 ± 4.7 and 33.2 ± 5.3 (p < 0.001), at long-term follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) > 50% was achieved in 80.6% and 43.2% of OAGB and SG patients, with a mean EWL of 67.2% ± 22.3 and 45.8% ± 18.0 (p < 0.001) and a mean total weight loss (TWL) of 30.7% ± 10.4 and 21.9% ± 8.1 (p < 0.001), respectively. Resolution rates of obesity-associated medical problems were similar, except type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HTN, which were 86.6% and 73.3% in OAGB, compared with 29.7% and 36.3% in SG patients (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001), respectively. Major early complication rates were comparable (2.4% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.73, respectively). Revision for late complications was required in two OAGB patients.

CONCLUSIONS

OAGB in the elderly is safe and results in better long-term weight reduction and resolution of T2D and HTN than SG.

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.