Outcomes after laparoscopic conversion of failed adjustable gastric banding to sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Weight Recidivism After Bariatric Surgery: A Narrative Review

Bariatric surgery, while effective for severe obesity, is often challenged by postoperative weight regain (WR), affecting 20-30% of patients. This review analyzes the mechanisms, risk factors, and management strategies for WR, emphasizing surgical considerations. WR is influenced by hormonal adaptations, including ghrelin rebound and leptin resistance, as well as metabolic adaptation, leading to reduced resting energy expenditure. Surgical factors, such as suboptimal technique, gastro-gastric fistulas, and stomach/anastomosis dilation, significantly contribute to WR. Specifically, inaccurate sleeve or pouch sizing, poorly calibrated anastomoses, and complications with gastric banding necessitate careful surgical planning and potential revision. Management strategies encompass lifestyle interventions (diet, exercise, behavioral therapy), pharmacotherapy (GLP-1 receptor agonists like liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide), and revisional surgery. Revisional procedures, including sleeve-to-bypass, bypass revision, sleeve-to-duodenal switch/SADI, and band removal with conversion to sleeve or bypass, address anatomical failures and enhance weight loss. Distinguishing surgical failure from patient nonadherence is crucial for appropriate intervention. Ultimately, a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach integrating these strategies optimizes long-term weight management and improves patient outcomes after bariatric surgery.

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.

Challenges of Revisional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Comprehensive Guide to Unraveling the Complexities and Solutions of Revisional Bariatric Procedures

Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery (RMBS) presents unique challenges in addressing weight loss failure or complications arising from initial bariatric procedures. This review aims to explore the complexities and solutions associated with revisional bariatric procedures comprehensively, offering insights into the evolving terrain of metabolic and bariatric surgery. A literature review is conducted to identify pertinent studies and expert opinions regarding RMBS. Methodological approaches, patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, preoperative assessments, and postoperative management strategies are synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of current practices and advancements in the field, including institutional protocols. This review synthesizes key findings regarding the challenges encountered in RMBS, including the underlying causes of primary procedure failure, anatomical complexities, technical considerations, and assessments of surgical outcomes. Additionally, patient outcomes, complication rates, and long-term success are presented, along with institutional approaches to patient assessment and procedure selection. This review provides valuable insights for clinicians grappling with the complexities of RMBS. A comprehensive understanding of patient selection, surgical techniques, preoperative management, and postoperative care is crucial for enhancing outcomes and ensuring patient satisfaction in the field of metabolic bariatric surgery.

Five-year outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery: gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery after an index adjustable gastric band (AGB) may be indicated to remedy weight relapse or band-related complications. We examined outcomes five years following revision from AGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (AGB-LSG) or to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (AGB-RYGB).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review to identify patients (men and women, age 18-80) who underwent one revisional bariatric procedure with AGB as the index procedure at two medical centers in our healthcare system between January 2012 and February 2017. We only included patients with a pre-revision BMI > 30 kg/m2 for whom 5-year follow-up data were available. We compared 5-year weight loss and remission of comorbidities in patients undergoing AGB-LSG and AGB-RYGB conversion.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients met inclusion criteria (65 AGB-LSG, 49 AGB-RYGB). At 5-year post-revision, percent total weight loss (3.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.001), percent excess weight loss (7.0% vs 50.8%; p < 0.001) and decrease in BMI (1.5 vs 8.8; p < 0.001) was greater in AGB-RYGB vs. AGB-LSG. No significant difference in remission or development of new comorbidities was observed.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of AGB to RYGB is associated with superior intermediate-term weight loss compared to conversion of AGB to LSG. Future multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to further describe the intermediate-term outcomes of revisional bariatric surgery.

One anastomosis gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional bariatric surgery for weight loss failure after primary restrictive procedure

INTRODUCTION

Weight loss failure after restrictive bariatric procedures initiated the debate about the choice of an adequate revisional intervention, a question still unanswered. While many surgeons went for a conversion to gastric bypass, others opted for re-trying a revisional restrictive procedure to avoid the side effects of gastric bypass. The objective of our study was to compare weight loss outcome between revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (re-LSG) and revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass (re-OAGB) for insufficient weight loss or weight regain following primary restrictive bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 20 obese patients, with a history of weight regain or insufficient weight loss after primary restrictive surgery, who underwent re-LSG (eight patients) or re-OAGB (12 patients) between January 2018 and January 2021. Patients were followed up 2 years after their revisional intervention. Statistics were performed using IBM® SPSS® software for Windows version 21.

RESULTS

In the re-LSG group, the average body mass index (BMI) before primary restrictive procedure was 43.7 kg/m2 . The average period between the primary and revisional surgery was 12.6 years. Patients had a nadir BMI of 33.2 kg/m2 during that period and reached a mean BMI of 40.6 kg/m2 before re-LSG. Two years after re-LSG, the average BMI was 31.5 kg/m2 with a percent of excess weight loss (%EWL) of 54% and percent of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) of 66.6%. In the re-OAGB group, the average BMI before primary restrictive procedure was 39 kg/m2 . The average period between the primary and revisional surgery was 10.7 years. Patients had a nadir BMI of 30.5 kg/m2 during that period and reached a mean BMI of 36.5 kg/m2 before re-OAGB. Two years after re-OAGB, the average BMI was 27 kg/m2 with a %EWL of 86.7% and %EBMIL of 92.6%.

CONCLUSION

For patients with insufficient weight loss or weight regain following primary restrictive bariatric surgery, re-OAGB has a better effectiveness in weight reduction compared with re-LSG after a 2-year follow up.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high technical and weight loss failure rates. We evaluate here the 1-year morbidity, mortality, and weight loss of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) as a feasible conversion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent LRYGB from July 2004 to December 2019 were selected from an electronic database at our center. Patients had a conversion to LRYGB at the same time (one-stage approach) or with a minimum of 3 months in between (two-stage approach). Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1295 patients underwent a conversion from LAGB to LRYGB at our center: 1167 patients (90.1%) in one stage and 128 patients (9.9%) in two stages. There was no mortality. An early (30-day) postoperative complication occurred in 93 patients (7.2%), with no significant difference found between groups. Hemorrhage was the most common complication in 39 patients (3.0%), and the reoperation was required in 19 patients (1.4%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, the mean %EWL 72.8%, and the mean %EBMIL 87.0%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to LRYGB can be considered as a safe and effective option with low complication rate and good weight loss outcomes at 1 year. One-stage conversion provides the same early outcome as two-step surgery with a competent surgeon.

Medium Term Outcomes of Revision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy after Gastric Banding: A Propensity Score Matched Study

PURPOSE

Revision bariatric surgery may be undertaken after weight loss failure and/or complications following primary bariatric surgery. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of revision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) after gastric banding (GB) to those of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (PLSG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, propensity-score matched study was conducted to compare between PLSG (control) patients and RLSG after GB (treatment) patients. Patients were matched using 2:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Patients were compared on weight loss outcomes and postoperative complications for up to five years.

RESULTS

144 PLSG patients were compared against 72 RLSG patients. At 36 months, PLSG patients had significantly higher mean %TWL than RLSG patients (27.4 ± 8.6 [9.3-48.9]% vs. 17.9 ± 10.2 [1.7-36.3]%, p < 0.01). At 60 months, both groups had similar mean %TWL (16.6 ± 8.1 [4.6-31.3]% vs. 16.2 ± 6.0 [8.8-22.4)]%, p > 0.05). Early functional complication rates were slightly higher with PLSG (13.9% vs. 9.7%), but late functional complication rates were comparatively higher with RLSG (50.0% vs. 37.5%). The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Both early (0.7% vs 4.2%) and late (3.5% vs 8.3%) surgical complication rates were lower in PLSG patients compared to RLSG patients but did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RLSG after GB has poorer weight loss outcomes than PLSG in the short-term. Although RLSG may carry higher risks of functional complications, the safety of RLSG and PLSG are overall comparable.

Secondary Bariatric Surgery-Does the Type of Index Procedure Affect Outcomes After Conversion?

BACKGROUND

Although revisions account for 17% of cases performed at bariatric centers of excellence, scarce data exists on whether index operation type influences outcomes after secondary operations.

OBJECTIVE

We designed a study investigating the effect of primary procedure type on weight loss and perioperative complications after conversion bariatric surgery.

SETTING

Tertiary Referral Hospital, USA.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing conversion from sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or adjustable gastric band (AGB) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) from 2009 to 2019. Post-operatively, we measured short- and medium-term complications and changes in body weight at various time points. Univariate and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Forty-two (SG) patients and 116 (AGB) patients underwent conversion to RYGB, most commonly for GERD (57.1%) in SG patients vs. weight regain (77.6%) in AGB patients. Mean pre-conversion BMI was 36.7 kg/m² (SG) vs 43.8 kg/m² (AGB). Mean time to conversion (months) was 52.9 (SG) vs 94.7 (AGB). Complication rate was 9.5% (SG) vs 6% (AGB) at 30 days (p = 0.48) and 31%(SG) vs 14.5% (AGB) (p = 0.02) at 2 years. Mean post conversion %TWL was 11.6% (SG) vs 24.6% (AGB) in patients with GERD/dysphagia (p = 0.014) and 20.7% (SG) vs 27.6% (AGB) in patients converted for weight-related reasons (p = 0.027) at 1 year. Overall mean %TWL was 13.2% (SG) vs 24.7% (AGB) at 2 years (p < 0.0035).

CONCLUSION

After conversion to RYGB, patients with AGB experience better short- and medium-term weight loss than those with SG, even after accounting for conversion indications. SG to RYGB conversions have a higher resolution of reflux disease.

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Gastric Bypass as Redo Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-Observation Comparative Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the outcome of one-stage and two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as a revision procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent a one-stage RYGB (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) revision procedure after failing AGB between 2005 and 2019 were analyzed. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, operating time, change in weight and BMI, and remission of comorbidities at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Data from 230 patients after OS-RYGB and 197 after TS-RYGB were analyzed. The total perioperative complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups (overall p > 5%). In the category of other complications, there was a significant difference between the two groups, with a lower rate in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.020). Wound infections occurred more frequently after TS-RYGB than after OS-RYGB (p = 0.015). Mean operating time differed significantly between the two groups (OS-RYGB (149.9 min) and TS-RYGB 191 min; p < 0.001). The change in hypertension was significantly higher in OS-RYGB (37.9 vs. 21.1%; p = 0.007). Other comorbidities showed no significant change within 1 year after surgery. Regarding the change in BMI, %TWL, and %EWL, there were no significant benefits for either group (p = 0.574, 0.762, and 0.378, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Removing a failed AGB using the OS- or TS-RYGB is safe and feasible. The decision between OS- and TS-RYGB is still individual and depends on the patient's general condition, the desired goal of the procedure, and the personal competence of the surgeon. Further studies are needed to clarify long-term outcome and effect of both procedures.

Postoperative morbidity and weight loss after revisional bariatric surgery for primary failed restrictive procedure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

revisional bariatric surgery is gaining increasing interest as long term follow-up studies demonstrate an elevated failure rate of primary surgery due to insufficient weight loss, weight regain or complications. This particularly concerns restrictive bariatric surgery which has been widely adopted from the '80s till present through different procedures, notably vertical banded gastroplasty, laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to define which revisional bariatric procedure performs the best after failure of primary restrictive surgery.

METHODS

a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 39 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol.

RESULTS

biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch guarantees the best results in terms of weight loss (1 and 3-years %TWL MD: 12.38 and 28.42) followed by single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass (9.24 and 19.13), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (7.16 and 13.1), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (4.68 and 7.3) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy. Duodenal switch and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are associated to an increased risk of late major morbidity (OR: 3.07 and 2.11 respectively) compared to re-sleeve gastrectomy while no significant difference was highlighted for the other procedures. Re-sleeve gastrectomy is the revisional intervention most frequently burdened by weight recidivism; compared to it, patients undergoing single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass have the lowest risk of weight regain (OR: 0.07).

CONCLUSION

considering the analyzed outcomes altogether, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass are the most performing revisional procedures after failure of restrictive surgery due to satisfying short and mid-term weight loss and low early and late morbidity. Moreover, single-anastomosis duodenoileal bypass has low risk of weight recidivism.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass as a rescue procedure following failed restrictive bariatric surgery. A systematic review of literature with metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Although different procedures have been proposed as revisional surgery for patients who had previously undergone a failed primary restrictive procedure, the ideal revisional procedure is still a matter of debate.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in all electronic databases to find studies comparing one anastomosis-mini gastric bypass (OAGB-MGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as revisional bariatric surgery for weight regain or intolerance/complications of a primary restrictive procedure. The data regarding sample size, patients' gender, age, primary surgery type, number of perioperative complications, operative time, pre- and post-revisional body mass index (BMI), and excess weight loss % (EWL%) at 1-year follow-up were extracted. Five studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The primary bariatric procedures were represented by vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). About perioperative complications, both RYGB and OAGB-MGB showed a similar rate of leaks but OAGB-MGB had a lower rate of bleedings; considering the progression from pre- to post-revisional BMI, OAGB-MGB reveals a better outcome as well as a shorter operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis has shown OAGB-MGB, used as revisional intervention after failed restrictive surgery, achieves outcomes comparable to RYGB in terms of perioperative complications providing a simpler and more effective technique.

A 4-tier Protocolized Radiological Classification System for Leaks Following Sleeve Gastrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a classification of sleeve gastrectomy leaks able to reliably predict outcomes, from protocolized computed tomography (CT) findings and readily available variables.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Leaks post sleeve gastrectomy remain morbid and resource-consuming. Incidence, treatments, and outcomes are variable, representing heterogeneity of the problem. A predictive tool available at presentation would aid management and predict outcomes.

METHODS

From a prospective database (2009-2018) we reviewed patients with staple line leaks. A Delphi process was undertaken on candidate variables (80-20). Correlations were performed to stratify 4 groupings based on outcomes (salvage resection, length of stay, and complications) and predictor variables. Training and validation cohorts were established by block randomization.

RESULTS

A 4-tiered classification was developed based on CT appearance and duration postsurgery. Interobserver agreement was high (κ=0.85, P<0.001). There were 59 patients, (training: 30, validation: 29). Age 42.5±10.8 versus 38.9±10.0 years (P=0.187); female 65.5% versus 80.0% (P=0.211), weight 127.4±31.3 versus 141.0±47.9 kg, (P=0.203). In the training group, there was a trend toward longer hospital stays as grading increased (I=10.5 d; II=24 d; III=66.5 d; IV=72 d; P= 0.005). Risk of salvage resection increased (risk ratio grade 4=9; P=0.043) as did complication severity (P=0.027). Findings were reproduced in the validation group: risk of salvage resection (P=0.007), hospital stay (P=0.001), complications (P=0.016).

CONCLUSION

We have developed and validated a classification system, based on protocolized CT imaging that predicts a step-wise increased risk of salvage resection, complication severity, and increased hospital stay. The system should aid patient management and facilitate comparisons of outcomes and efficacy of interventions.

Is bariatric surgery safe in patients with history of cardiac revascularization?

BACKGROUND

The number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery with prior cardiac revascularization (CR) is rising. However, scarce data exist regarding the safety of bariatric procedures in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare postoperative cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes among patients with different CR procedures.

SETTING

Academic hospital, United States.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 2884 patients undergoing bariatric surgery from 2009-2018. Patients with prior CR were included and stratified into groups: coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention with stent (PCI), and CABG + PCI. We described patient demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, smoking status, history of myocardial infarction, type of bariatric surgery, number of vessels grafted/stents, time from CR to bariatric surgery, length of stay, and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular 30-day outcomes. A control group composed of patients without prior CR undergoing bariatric surgery was used to compare the rate of complications to the total patients with prior CR. For continuous and categorical variables, t test and χ² tests were performed, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 76 patients with prior CR undergoing bariatric surgery. The mean patient age was 61.4 ± 7.9 years, the mean body mass index was 41.7 ± 6.5 kg/m², and male sex was predominant (71.1%). Among these, 50% (n = 38) had PCI, 39.4% (n = 30) had CABG, and 10.5% (n = 8) had CABG + PCI. Early cardiovascular complications rate included ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n = 2), pulmonary embolism (n = 1), supraventricular arrhythmia (n = 2), ventricular arrhythmia (n = 1), and pacemaker/defibrillator-insertion (n = 1). The overall rate of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular complications was 9.2% (n = 7) and 10.5% (n = 8) during the 30 days. Mortality rate was 0%. Comparison of rate of complications between groups did not show any statistical difference; no significant difference was found when comparing patients with prior CR to the 76 patients in the control group (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although revascularized individuals have severe co-morbidities and are high-risk patients, bariatric surgery remains safe in this population when outcomes are compared with bariatric patients without prior CR.

Outcomes in revisional bariatric surgery: a high-volume single institution experience

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate outcomes of adjustable gastric band (AGB) conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), SG conversion to RYGB and RYGB revision procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing secondary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Primary outcomes were weight loss and improvement in comorbidities. For weight loss, percent of total body weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were included. Comorbidities included were hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), cardiovascular risk (CV) and hypertension.

RESULTS

266 Secondary bariatric procedures were analyzed. There were four Grade IIIb complications within 30 days. There was greater %EBMIL at 12 and 24 months in the AGB to RYGB group, and in %TWL at 24 months compared to AGB to SG group (p < 0.05). Only AGB to RYGB had significantly continued improvement in these two parameters at 24 months compared to at 6 months post-operatively-%EBMIL and %TWL tapered off in the other procedures. There was significantly lower CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months in the AGB to RYGB compared to the AGB to SG group. In the SG to RYGB patients, there was significant improvement in CV risk in dyslipidemic patients at 24 months compared to baseline. There was significant improvement in HbA1C in diabetics in AGB to RYGB patients at 6 and 12 months, in AGB to SG patients at 12 months, and in SG to RYGB patients at 12 and 24 months compared to baseline. In RYGB revision and SG to RYGB patients, there was a relative increase in the number of patients being normotensive at 24 months compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Secondary bariatric surgery is a complex and challenging procedure that may improve weight loss and cardiovascular risk for certain procedures but further studies will be necessary.

Clinical Outcomes of Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Over recent decades, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been among the most common bariatric surgeries. Nowadays, many patients require revision surgery due to insufficient weight loss and band-related complications. Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are the two most common revision surgeries for failed LAGB, but the conclusions about their efficacy and safety have been inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to review the clinical outcomes of SG and RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for articles that had studied the efficacy and safety of SG and RYGB. The most appropriate effects model was chosen based on the heterogeneity of the articles included in this meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata 14.0.

RESULTS

Of 586 articles that were retrieved, 16 articles which examined 2141 SG and 2990 RYGB patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients in RYGB groups showed increased percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 12 and 24 months after revision surgery but no statistically significant change was found about %EWL after 3, 6, or 36 months. In addition, RYGB was associated with a higher rate of complications, interventions, and readmission in addition to being of more operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggested that RYGB was more effective at demonstrating weight loss after 12 and 24 months, but comparisons of the long-term efficacy of RYGB with that of SG remain inconclusive. In addition, RYGB was accompanied by a greater number of post-operative complications, interventions, and readmissions. Thus, surgeons should consider the overall status of the patients and their comorbidities as crucial factors when selecting a form of revision surgery. Additional high-quality randomized controlled studies are required to further compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments with longer follow-up times.

Decreasing complication rates for one-stage conversion band to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study

Background:

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) revision surgery is often necessary because of its high failure rate. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that better patient selection, when converting a failed LAGB to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a one-stage revision procedure, is safe, feasible and improves the complication rate.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent a one-stage conversion of failed gastric banding to a LSG. Collected data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), intraoperative complications, length of stay and post-operative complications. The results were compared to a previous study of 90 cases of LSG as a revision procedure for failed LAGB.

Results:

There were 75 patients in the current study, 61 women and 14 men, aged 25–67 (average: 46), with a mean BMI of 45 kg/m² (32–66). Seventy patients (93.3%) were operated for insufficient weight loss and 5 patients (6.7%) for intolerance to the band. In our previous study, 35 patients (39%) were operated for slippage, erosion or obstruction and 14 (15.6%) had post-operative complications as opposed to only 4 patients (5.3%) in this series (P = 0.0359). Gastric leak also improved to 1.3% compared to 5.5% previously. Average hospitalisation time was 2.5 days (1–40).

Conclusions:

Rigorous patient selection, without band complications such as slippage, erosion or obstruction, allows for a significantly lower rate of operative complications for a one-stage conversion of failed gastric banding to a LSG.

Safety of Revision Sleeve Gastrectomy Compared to Roux-Y Gastric Bypass After Failed Gastric Banding: Analysis of the MBSAQIP

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of revisional surgery to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) compared to laparoscopic Roux-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB).

BACKGROUND

The number of reoperations after failed gastric banding rapidly increased in the United States during the last several years. A common approach is band removal with conversion to another weight loss procedure such as gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in a single procedure. The safety profile of those procedures remains controversial.

METHODS

Preoperative characteristics and 30-day outcomes from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Files 2015 were selected for all patients who underwent a 1-stage conversion of LAGB to LSG (conv-LSG) or LRYGB (conv-LRYGB). Conv-LSG cases were matched (1:1) with conv-LRYGB patients by age (±1 year), body mass index (±1 kg/m(2)), sex, and comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, venous stasis, and sleep apnea.

RESULTS

A total of 2708 patients (1354 matched pairs) were included in the study. The groups were closely matched as intended. The mean operative time in conv-LRYGB was significantly longer in comparison to conv-LSG patients (151 ± 58 vs 113 ± 45 minutes, P < 0.001). No mortality was observed in either group. Patients after conv-LRYGB had a clinically increased anastomotic leakage rate (2.07% vs 1.18%, P = 0.070) and significantly increased bleed rate (2.66% vs 0.44%, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission rate was significantly higher in conv-LRYGB patients (7.46% vs 3.69%, P < 0.001), as was 30-day reoperation rate (3.25% vs 1.26%, P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was longer in conv-LRYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-stage conversion of failed LAGB leads to greater morbidity and higher complication rates when converted to LRYGB versus LSG in the first 30 days postoperatively. These differences are particularly notable with regards to bleed events, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, operative time, and hospital stay.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one anastomosis gastric bypass as rescue therapy after failed adjustable gastric banding: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

To date, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding remains the third most commonly performed surgical procedure for weight loss. Some patients fail to get acceptable outcomes and undergo revisional surgery at rates ranging from 7% to 60%. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are among the most common salvage options for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to RYGB, OAGB, or SG.

METHODS

Data collected from 7 experienced bariatric centers around the world were retrospectively collected, reviewed, and analyzed. Final body mass index (BMI), change in BMI, percentage excess BMI loss, and major complications with particular attention to leaks, hemorrhage, and mortality were reported.

RESULTS

Of 1219 patients analyzed, 74% underwent RYGB, 16% underwent OAGB, and 10% underwent SG after banding failure. The mean age was 38 years (±10 yr), and 82% of patients were women. The mean follow-up was 33 months. The follow-up rate was 100%, 87%, and 52% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. At the latest follow-up, percentage excess BMI loss >50% was achieved by 75% of RYGB, 85% of OAGB, and 67% of SG patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 13% of patients after RYGB, 5% after OAGB, and 15% after SG.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that it is possible to achieve or maintain significant weight loss with an acceptable complication rate with all 3 surgical options.

Outcomes of Two-Step Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Reasons for the Gastric Banding Explantation Matter

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the reason for gastric band explantation would influence percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

MATERIALS & METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study, whose data are maintained in a prospective surgical database. The study period was from January 2012 to March 2017. Revisional surgeries were performed in a two-step manner, namely, first surgery LAGB explantation and second surgery (RYGB or SG). Two-way between-groups analysis of variance was used to examine effects of reason for band explantation (failed versus complication) and type of revisional surgery (RYGB versus SG) on %EWL at 10 months, 1 and 2 years.

RESULTS

Cohort included 171 patients-146 women (85.4%) and 25 men, median age 51 years (range 22-76). Band-related complications accounted for 55% of explantations. Overall, 95 patients (56%) underwent a revisional RYGB, and 76 patients underwent a revisional SG. There was no difference in age or gender in terms of reason for band explantation or choice of revisional surgery. There was no difference in morbidity between the two groups (SG 2.6% versus RYGB 4.2%; p = .464). Patients undergoing revisional RYGB for failed weight loss had a significantly lower %EWL at 2 years compared to patients undergoing an SG for failed weight loss (p = .014) or an RYGB for band-related complications (p = .021).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revisional RYGB following band explantation for failed weight loss have a significantly lower %EWL at 2 years compared to patients undergoing an SG for failed weight loss or an RYGB for band-related complications.

Rate of revisions or conversion after bariatric surgery over 10 years in the state of New York

BACKGROUND

A primary measure of the success of a procedure is the whether or not additional surgery may be necessary. Multi-institutional studies regarding the need for reoperation after bariatric surgery are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of revisions/conversions (RC) after 3 common bariatric procedures over 10 years in the state of New York.

SETTING

University Hospital, involving a large database in New York State.

METHODS

The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was used to identify all patients undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) between 2004 and 2010. Patients were followed for RC to other bariatric procedures for at least 4 years (up to 2014). Multivariable cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for additional surgery after each common bariatric procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to check the factors associated with having ≥2 follow-up procedures.

RESULTS

There were 40,994 bariatric procedures with 16,444 LAGB, 22,769 RYGB, and 1781 SG. Rate of RC was 26.0% for LAGB, 9.8% for SG, and 4.9% for RYGB. Multiple RC ( = />2) were more common for LAGB (5.7% for LAGB, .5% for RYGB, and .2% for LSG). Band revision/replacements required further procedures compared with patients who underwent conversion to RYGB/SG (939 compared with 48 procedures). Majority of RC were not performed at initial institution (68.2% of LAGB patients, 75.9% for RYGB, 63.7% of SG). Risk factors for multiple procedures included surgery type, as LAGB was more likely to have multiple RC.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation was common for LAGB, but less common for RYGB (4.9%) and SG (9.8%). RC rate are almost twice after SG than after RYGB. LAGB had the highest rate (5.7%) of multiple reoperations. Conversion was the procedure of choice after a failed LAGB.

Laparoscopic treatment of gastroparesis: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Gastroparesis (GP) is a chronic disorder of gastric motility with delayed gastric emptying. Gastric electrical stimulator (GES) implantation and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are surgical options for medically refractory GP.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate operational outcomes and symptom improvement of patients with diabetic (DM) and idiopathic (IP) GP.

SETTING

University Hospital, United States.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent surgical treatment of GP from February 2003 to December 2014. Subgroup analysis was performed based on etiology of GP (DM versus IP) and procedure received (GES versus RYGB). Postoperative outcomes and postoperative symptom improvements were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of 93 patients, 47 (50.5%) had IP and 46 (49.5%) had DM. The majority underwent GES implantation (83.8%, n = 78), and 15 patients (16%) underwent RYGB. There were significant differences in hospital stay (2 versus 3 days) and reoperation rate (30% versus 7%) between IP and DM. Operation time, complication rate, and 30-day readmission rate were similar in both groups. DM patients significantly improved GP-related complaints compared with preoperatively. IP patients also improved nausea and vomiting and had no change in abdominal pain between pre- and postoperative period. GES showed significant improvement of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. RYGB showed improvement of nausea, but not vomiting or abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is a feasible intervention for GP for both DM and IP patients; however, based on the data presented in this manuscript and the current literature, the use of gastric bypass as an effective treatment modality for patients with intractable GP remains highly controversial. Care must be taken for IP patients in the postoperative period due to high incidence of reoperation. Although both procedures offer some degree of symptomatic improvement, GES seems to provide improvement of more GP symptoms. However, there is no significant difference in the need for postoperative medications regardless of the procedure used.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedures after Adjustable Gastric Band: 5-Year Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a worldwide bariatric surgery survey showed that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been abandoned in favor of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGBP).

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare results of LRYGBP and LSG performed as a revisional procedure after LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients converted from LAGB to LSG or to LRYGBP from January 2007 to December 2011 were included in the study. Clinical data collected were age, gender, indications for revision, complications, body mass index (BMI), and body weight at revisional procedures. Weight loss was calculated at 1, 3, and 5 years after conversion.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included in this study, 43 females and 8 males. Twenty-four patients were converted to LRYGBP (LRYGBP group) and 27 to LSG (LSG group). Indication for conversion was weight loss failure in 34 (67%) patients and band complications in 17 (33%) patients. No significant difference in age, BMI, and body weight in the two groups was found at the time of revision. One patient converted to LRYGBP had an internal hernia; one patient initially scheduled for LSG was intraoperatively converted to LRYGBP due to staple line leak. No other major perioperative complication was observed. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 84.3% (43 patients out of 51 patients) Delta-BMI and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) were not significantly different in the two groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LRYGBP or LSG are feasible and effective surgical options after LAGB. Satisfactory weight loss was achieved after both procedures.

Revisional Bariatric/Metabolic Surgery: What Dictates Its Indications?

Bariatric/metabolic surgery is currently the only effective long-term treatment for morbid obesity- and obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and dyslipidemia. In addition, bariatric/metabolic surgery has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of diabetes and cancer and prolong life when compared to non-surgical therapies. However, as obesity is a chronic disease, recidivism of weight and comorbid conditions can occur. In addition, the surgical construct can lead to long-term consequences such as marginal ulceration, bowel obstruction, reflux, and nutritional deficiencies. Despite these drawbacks, prospective randomized controlled studies and long-term longitudinal population-based comparative studies greatly favor surgical intervention as opposed to traditional lifestyle, diet, and exercise programs. Revisional surgery can be quite complex and technically challenging and may offer the patient a wide variety of solutions for treatment of weight recidivism and complications after primary operations. Given the paucity of high quality published data, we have endeavored to provide indications for revisions after bariatric surgery.

Revisional bariatric surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding - a single-center, long-term retrospective study

Introduction

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) used to be one of the most popular bariatric procedures.

Aim

To present our institution’s experience with LAGB, its complications, causes of failure and revisional bariatric procedures, in a long-term follow-up.

Material and methods

Records of patients who underwent pars flaccida LAGB from 2003 to 2006 were gathered. We selected data on patients with a history of additional bariatric procedures. Their initial demographic data, body mass index and causes of revision were gathered. We analyzed length of stay and early perioperative complications.

Results

60% of patients (n = 57) who underwent LAGB in our institution between 2003 and 2006 had their band removed (out of 107, 11% lost to follow-up). Median time to revisional surgery was 50 months. The main reasons for removal were: weight regain (n = 23; 40%), band slippage (n = 14; 25%), and pouch dilatation (n = 9; 16%). Thirty (53%) patients required additional bariatric surgery, 10 (33%) of which were simultaneous with band removal. The most popular procedures were: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) (n = 15; 50%), open gastric bypass (n = 8; 27%), and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) – (n = 3; 10%). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.4 ±2.0. One (3%) perioperative complication was reported.

Conclusions

The results show that LAGB is not an effective bariatric procedure in long-term follow-up due to the high rate of complications causing band removal and the high rate of obesity recurrence. Revisional bariatric surgery after failed LAGB may be performed in a one-stage approach with band removal.

A one-step conversion from gastric banding to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is as safe as a two-step conversion: A comparative analysis of 885 patients

AIMS

To achieve additional weight loss or to resolve band-related problems, a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) can be converted to a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). There is limited data on the feasibility and safety of routinely performing a single-step conversion. We assessed the efficacy of this revisional approach in a large cohort of patients operated in a high-volume bariatric institution.

METHODS

Between October 2004 and December 2015, a total of 885 patients who underwent LAGB removal with RYGB were identified from a prospectively collected database. In all cases, a single-stage conversion procedure was planned. The feasibility of this approach and peri-operative outcomes of these patients were evaluated and analyzed.

RESULTS

A single-step approach was successfully achieved in 738 (83.4%) of the 885 patients. During the study period, there was a significant increase in performing the conversion from LAGB to RYGB single-staged. No mortality or anastomotic leakage was observed in both groups. Only 45 patients (5.1%) had a 30-d complication: most commonly hemorrhage (N = 20/45), with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Converting a LAGB to RYGB can be performed with a very low morbidity and zero-mortality in a high-volume revisional bariatric center. With increasing experience and full standardization of the conversion, the vast majority of operations can be performed as a single-stage procedure. Only a migrated band remains a formal contraindication for a one-step approach.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: efficacy and consequences over a 13-year period

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a common bariatric surgery. Although it is a safe and effective method of weight reduction in short term, it may result in some problems in long term. The purpose of this study was to investigate the consequences of LAGB in long term among morbid obese patients.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 80 patients underwent LAGB using pars flaccida technique from 2001 to 2006. Long-term postoperative consequences and complications of these patients were recorded.

RESULTS

The preoperative mean values of weight and body mass index were 125.5 ± 22.5 kg and 44.5 ± 6.5 kg/m(2), respectively. Over the 13-year follow-up period, 56 patients (84.8%) experienced at least one complication. The most common complications were band erosion (20 patients) and weight regains (13 patients). Fifty-one patients (78.5%) required reoperation. The band of 48 patients (72.7%) was removed; of these, twenty patients (30.3%) underwent other bariatric surgeries. Percent of excess weight loss was 47.1% ± 30.1%, and the success rate was 48.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB is a successful method with low complications in short term; however, over long term, it results in various complications.