What About My Weight? Insufficient Weight Loss or Weight Regain After Bariatric Metabolic Surgery

Context

This review study aimed to investigate the definition, etiology, risk factors (RFs), management strategy, and prevention of insufficient weight loss (IWL) and weight regain (WR) following bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS).

Evidence Acquisition

Electronic databases were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The inclusion criteria were English articles with adult participants assessing the definition, prevalence, etiology, RFs, management strategy, and prevention of IWL/WR.

Results

Definition: The preferred definition for post-BMS IWL/WR are the terms "Lack of maintenance of total weight loss (TWL)>20%" and "weight change in percentage compared to nadir weight or weight loss". Prevalence: The exact prevalence of IWL/WR is still being determined due to the type of BMS and various definitions. Etiology: Several mechanisms, including hormonal/metabolic, dietary non-adherence, physical inactivity, mental health, and anatomic surgical failure, are possible etiologies of post-BMS IWL/WR. Risk factors: Preoperative body mass index (BMI), male gender, psychiatric conditions, comorbidities, age, poor diet, eating disorders, poor follow-ups, insufficient physical activity, micronutrients, and genetic-epigenetic factors are the most important RFs. Management Strategy: The basis of treatment is lifestyle interventions, including dietary, physical activity, psychological, and behavioral therapy. Pharmacotherapy can be added. In the last treatment line, different techniques of endoscopic surgery and revisional surgery can be used. Prevention: Behavioral and psychotherapeutic interventions, dietary therapy, and physical activity therapy are the essential components of prevention.

Conclusions

Many definitions exist for WR, less so for IWL. Etiologies and RFs are complex and multifactorial; therefore, the management and prevention strategy is multidisciplinary. Some knowledge gaps, especially for IWL, exist, and these gaps must be filled to strengthen the evidence used to guide patient counseling, selection, and improved outcomes.

Transoral Outlet Reduction to Tackle Weight Regain After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Single Center Initial Experience

BACKGROUND

Long-term failure after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is well known and occurs in 10-15% of patients according to the literature. Causes are multifactorial and dilatation of the gastro-jejunal anastomosis (GJA) is only one of these. A transoral outlet reduction (TORe) with endoscopic sutures to reinstall more restriction could be a valid and safe alternative to reduce regained weight after failed gastric bypass surgery. The objective of this article is to describe our single-center experience and discuss the adverse events of the technique.

OBJECTIVES

To describe our single-center case series and adverse events after TORe for weight regain after RYGB.

METHODS

We report a case series of 20 patients referred due to weight regain after RYGB with a dilated GJA. TORe was performed using an endoscopic full-thickness suture device (Apollo OverStitch®) to reduce the diameter of the GJA and the volume of the gastric reservoir. Prospectively collected data on technical feasibility, safety and efficacy are described with a median follow-up of 22 (6-38) months.

RESULTS

Mean BMI was 44.5 kg/m² at the time of RYGB. Postoperative nadir BMI was 27,7 kg/m². The average time to TORe was 12.1 years after initial RYGB. Patients regained a mean 45.9% of excess body weight loss (EWL) before TORe and had a mean preprocedural BMI of 35.3 kg/m². The aim was to reduce the aperture of the GJA to 5 mm which was done with a mean of 1.7 sutures and 3.5 stitches. The mean absolute weight loss was 13 kg and BMI reduction was 3.9 kg/m² after 6 months. After a median follow-up of 22 months, a BMI of 31.4 kg/m² was observed. Dumping symptoms resolved in four of our patients 6 weeks after TORe. Procedural adverse events were nausea and vomiting, sore throat, mild transient abdominal pain, diarrhea and constipation. All of them were treated conservatively. Due to a lack of weight loss, a suture failure was assumed in two of our patients. We describe one case of postprocedural mediastinitis, presumably due to a distal esophageal perforation, treated with a laparoscopic drainage without clinical evidence for perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic TORe by narrowing the dilated GJA appears to be an efficient and safe minimal invasive option to tackle weight regain after RYGB and should be more used in clinical practice.