Laparoscopic revision from LAP-BAND to 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.

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.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study

PURPOSE

The optimal revisional bariatric surgery procedure following a previous failed gastric band surgery is yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to compare single- and two-stage laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LSG after a failed LAGB in Israel during 2014-2017 were included. Data were obtained from the Israeli National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Data analyzed included comorbidities, postoperative complications, and anthropometric outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 595 patients included in the data analysis, 381 (64%) underwent one-stage and 214 (36%) had two-stage LSG. No differences were observed between the groups in complication rates (5.0 vs. 5.1%, p=0.93). Percent of total weight loss was lower following one-stage than two-stage procedure at both 6 months (19.3±9.3 vs. 21.5±8.1%; p=0.02) and 1 year postoperative (24.9±10.4 vs. 27.8±9.9%; p=0.02). No difference was observed in the percent excess weight loss (51 vs. 56%; p=0.34 and 66 vs. 72%; p=0.38, at 6 months and 12 months postoperative, respectively). In a regression analysis, percent excess weight loss was greater in the two-stage procedure (p=0.02), with no difference in the complication rates (p=0.98).

CONCLUSION

Single-step LSG had a similar safety profile as two-stage LSG following a failed LAGB. Better weight loss was seen following two-stage LSG. Further prospective studies should investigate long-term follow-up after one- and two-stage procedure.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revisional Procedure After Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding

BACKGROUND

Recent data demonstrates that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is found to be associated with high rates of weight loss failure and long-term complications. Therefore, the search for the optimal revisional bariatric procedure is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of converting a failed LAGB to laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as a revisional procedure.

SETTING

Large, metropolitan, tertiary, university hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who underwent OAGB after LAGB.Demographics, comorbidities, BMI before and after the procedure, complications, and length of stay were documented.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients underwent OAGB after LAGB. For 41 patients, the band was removed, and an OAGB was performed in a single procedure (71.9%), and 96.5% of the cases were completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (15.7%), including one mortality. Average BMI decreased from 42.8 ± 7.0 to 31.3 ± 5.2 kg/m² at least 1 year after surgery, representing a mean %EWL of 64.5%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the 1-stage and 2-stage approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of a failed LAGB to OAGB is effective but carries higher complication rates. Randomized controlled studies comparing different procedures are necessary to further clarify the optimal revisional bariatric operation.

Conversion from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): preliminary data from a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most commonly performed bariatric procedure, while laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been for a decade one of the most popular interventions for weight loss. After LSG and LAGB, some patients may require a second surgery due to weight regain or late complications. One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a promising bariatric procedure, which provides effective long-term weight loss and has a favorable effect on type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively analyze data from 10 Italian centers on conversion from LAGB and LSG to OAGB.

SETTING

High-volume centers for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 10 high-volume centers were retrospectively reviewed. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss, reasons for redo, remission from co-morbidities (hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia), and major complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included in the study; 196 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB and 104 were converted from LSG. BMI was 45.1 ± 7 kg/m2 at the time of first intervention, 41.8 ± 6.3 kg/m2 at redo time, and 30.5 ± 5.5 kg/m2 at last follow-up appointment. Mean percentage of excess BMI loss was 13.2 ± 28.2 at conversion and 73.4 ± 27.5 after OAGB. Remission rates from hypertension, diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux, and dyslipidemia were 40%, 62.5%, 58.7% and 52%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 20.8 (range, 6-156) months and overall complications rate was 8.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that OAGB is a safe and effective revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric surgery.

Outcomes of primary sleeve gastrectomy versus conversion sleeve gastrectomy in morbidly obese patients

Purpose

Our aim for this study was to evaluate early and late complications and outcomes of primary sleeve gastrectomy (PSG) versus conversion sleeve gastrectomy (CSG).

Methods

From February 2013 to December 2016, a total of 180 patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy (150 PSG and 30 CSG). All patients received a metal clipping at the end of the stapling line and a continuous seromuscular suture at the resection margin, for reinforcement.

Results

There were no differences in the percentages among males and females or age between the 2 groups, but the body mass index (BMI) of the PSG group was higher at 36.8 ± 4.7 than that of the CSG group (32.4 ± 5.7, P < 0.001). Three early postoperative complications were noted in the PSG group; 1 patient underwent repeat laparoscopic exploration due to pancreatic injury, and 2 other patients developed pulmonary atelectasis. On the contrary, 2 early minor complications were noted in the CSG group. Thirty-eight patients (25.3%) in the PSG group developed 43 late, minor complications, while 9 patients (30.0%) developed 11 late minor and 1 major complication in the CSG group. However, there was no difference in complication rate between PSG and CSG. Percentage excess BMI loss at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery was comparable between the groups.

Conclusion

PSG and CSG were comparable in terms of postoperative complications and loss of weight. Therefore, CSG could be used for failed primary restrictive bariatric surgery. However, the durability of these outcomes remains unknown.

Laparoscopic Revision of Failed Bariatric Procedures

Background:

The main indications for revision of bariatric surgery are inadequate weight loss, weight regain, or complications. The objective of revision is to restore the restrictive component and/or add a malabsorptive component.

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery for loss of weight and assess the risks and benefits associated with these technically demanding procedures.

Methods:

Revision cases performed between 2001 and 2013 were identified and grouped according to the primary procedure and type of revision. A retrospective analysis was carried out for weight loss as well as perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Results:

The total of 271 patients underwent revisional laparoscopic surgery during the study period and were categorized into four groups. Group 1 (n = 67) had an adjustable gastric band converted to gastric bypass (GBP). Group 2 (n = 128) had a dilated gastric pouch after GBP and underwent pouch reduction. Group 3 (n = 57) had a GBP and underwent pouch reduction and elongation of the biliopancreatic limb. Group 4 (n = 19) had a vertical banded gastroplasty converted to a GBP. The mean total body weight loss for Groups 1 to 4 was 35.3%, 22.9%, 39.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. The average operative times were 185, 75, 142, and 205 minutes; and the average hospitalization was 1.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5 days, respectively. All cases were completed laparoscopically. Concomitant procedures were liver biopsy, cholecystectomy, partial gastrectomy, hiatal, ventral, and internal hernia repairs. Complication rates were 2.9%, 0%, 3.5%, and 5.2% for each of the groups and there were no mortalities.

Conclusion:

Results of revisional bariatric surgery vary depending on the original procedure and the reasons for revision. In particular, if the main reason for reoperation is inadequate weight loss, then the burden is to demonstrate a surgically correctable deficiency. Revisional procedures incorporating malabsorption result in greater weight loss than gastric restriction alone.

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.

Revisional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in failed gastric banding and effects of exercise and frequent sweet-eating on its outcome

Objective:

To find out effectiveness of revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RLSG) in the patients who had laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and failed to reduce or regained the weight and effectiveness of sweet abstaining and exercise on postoperative weight loss.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study was conducted at AlMoosa Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from December 2011 to November 2016. The patients who failed to reduce, regained the weight or had complications after LAGB, were performed RLSG. They were followed-up at three, six, twelve and twenty-four months intervals. Their weight, percent excess weight loss (%EWL) and body mass index (BMI) at pre-RLSG were compared with post-RLSG. The data was recorded in SPSS 22 and analyzed.

Results:

Thirty-six patients with male/female ratio of 1:5 underwent RLSG. Twelve (33.3%) were frequent sweet-eaters and twenty-four (66.7%) were not. Fourteen (38.88%) did not have exercise, while twenty-two (61.11%) had daily regular exercise. Their mean pre-RLSG weight, percent excess weight loss (%EWL)and BMI were compared with post-RLSG at the period of three, six, twelve and twenty-four months. Their mean weight reduced from 111.69 kilograms to 96.94, 87.25, 79.56 and 76.11 kilograms respectively. Their mean of the percent excess weight loss (%EWL) reduced to 22.08, 45.75, 59.64 and 66.42 kilograms respectively. Their mean pre-RLSG BMI was 43.50 kg.m^-2, which reduced to the mean of 37.79, 34.02, 30.97 and 29.70 respectively. There were no post-operative complications in thirty (83.3%), mild like wound infection and seroma in four (11.1%) and bleeding in two (5.6%) patients. None of the patients had leakage. The patients who kept themselves abstained from sweet consumption and performed regular postoperative exercise had better results. They also had considerable reduction in appetite after RLSG.

Conclusion:

RLSG is an effective procedure after failed LAGB in terms of weight loss having minimal rate of complications. Moreover, abstaining from sweet consumption and continuing exercise postoperatively has better results.

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.

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 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band--a systematic review

The adjustable gastric band (L)AGB gained popularity as a weight loss procedure. However, long-term results are disappointing; many patients need revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The purpose of this study was to assess morbidity, mortality, and results of these two revisional procedures. Fifteen LRYGB studies with a total of 588 patients and eight LSG studies with 286 patients were included. The reason for revision was insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 62.2 and 63.9% in LRYGB and LSG patients. Short-term complications occurred in 8.5 and 15.7% and long-term complications in 8.9 and 2.5%. Reoperation was performed in 6.5 and 3.5%. Revision to LRYGB or LSG after (L)AGB is feasible and relatively safe. Complication rate is higher than in primary procedures.

Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force

BACKGROUND

Reoperative bariatric surgery has become a common practice in many bariatric surgery programs. There is currently little evidence-based guidance regarding specific indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery. A task force was convened to review the current evidence regarding reoperative bariatric surgery. The aim of the review was to identify procedure-specific indications and outcomes for reoperative procedures.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting indications for and outcomes after reoperative bariatric surgery. Specifically, operations to treat complications, failed weight loss, and weight regain were evaluated. Abstract and manuscript reviews were completed by the task force members to identify, grade, and categorize relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 819 articles were identified in the initial search. After review for inclusion criteria and data quality, 175 articles were included in the systematic review and analysis. The majority of published studies are single center retrospective reviews. The evidence supporting reoperative surgery for acute and chronic complications is described. The evidence regarding reoperative surgery for failed weight loss and weight regain generally demonstrates improved weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after reintervention. Procedure-specific outcomes are described. Complication rates are generally reported to be higher after reoperative surgery compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSION

The indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery are procedure-specific but the current evidence does support additional treatment for persistent obesity, co-morbid disease, and complications.

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

Background

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a high incidence of long-term complications and failures. The best procedure to handle these failures and the optimal number of stages in such cases is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the results of conversions of LAGB to either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Ygastric bypass (LRYGB) in failed LAGB using a single-stage approach.

Methods

All patients who underwent conversion from LAGB to either LRYGB or LSG between January 2005 and March 2012 were included in the study. Early and late complications were reviewed. The percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) between the two groups was compared at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months of follow-up.

Results

Fifty-nine patients, 11 men and 48 women, were included in the study. The most frequent indication was insufficient weight loss or weight regain (non-responders group), in 44 patients (75 per cent); 15 patients had a revision for complicated LAGB. The early complication rate in the non-responders group was 7 per cent (3 of 44 patients), compared with 13 per cent (2 of 15) in the complicated LAGB group. Mean(s.d.) %EWL in the non-responders group was 55(22) per cent in patients converted to LRYGB and 28(25) in those converted to LSG (P = 0·001).

Conclusion

LRYGB and LSG are both safe and feasible options for failed or complicated LAGB. In the non-responders group, %EWL was superior for conversion to LRYGB. The surgical morbidity rate was highest in patients having revision for band complications.

The economic impact of weight regain

Background. Obesity is well known for being associated with significant economic repercussions. Bariatric surgery is the only evidence-based solution to this problem as well as a cost-effective method of addressing the concern. Numerous authors have calculated the cost effectiveness and cost savings of bariatric surgery; however, to date the economic impact of weight regain as a component of overall cost has not been addressed. Methods. The literature search was conducted to elucidate the direct costs of obesity and primary bariatric surgery, the rate of weight recidivism and surgical revision, and any costs therein. Results. The quoted cost of obesity in Canada was $2.0 billion-$6.7 billion in 2013 CAD. The median percentage of bariatric procedures that fail due to weight gain or insufficient weight loss is 20% (average: 21.1% ± 10.1%, range: 5.2-39, n = 10). Revision of primary surgeries on average ranges from 2.5% to 18.4%, and depending on the procedure accounts for an additional cost between $14,000 and $50,000 USD per patient. Discussion. There was a significant deficit of the literature pertaining to the cost of revision surgery as compared with primary bariatric surgery. As such, the cycle of weight recidivism and bariatric revisions has not as of yet been introduced into any previous cost analysis of bariatric surgery.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional procedure for failed laparoscopic gastric banding with a "2-step approach": a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been proposed as an alternative revisional procedure for failed/complicated gastric banding. This is a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of revisional LSG after band removal for insufficient weight loss and/or band-related complications, using a 2-step approach. The outcomes were compared with a control group of primary LSG. The study was conducted at a university hospital (Sapienza University of Rome-Polo Pontino, Icot, Latina, Italy) and 2 community general hospitals (Hospital Andosilla Civita Castellana, Viterbo, Italy and Hospital Villa D'Agri, Potenza, Italy).

METHODS

A total of 76 revisional LSG procedures was recorded; a control group of 279 LSG patients was selected. The primary endpoint was to compare the perioperative complication rate between the revisional versus the control group. Secondary endpoints were operative time, conversion rate, postoperative length of stay and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

The indications for band removal were inadequate weight loss (47 patients), slippage (10 patients), erosion (7 patients), and pouch dilation (12 patients). All procedures were completed laparoscopically. The median operative time was 78 minutes for the revision LSG and 65 minutes for the control LSG (P<.05). In the revision group, the overall complication rate was 17.1%, and the median postoperative length of stay was 4 days; in the control group, the overall complication rate was 10.7%, and the median postoperative length of stay was 3. No complications requiring reoperation or readmission occurred in the revision group. In the control group, there were 5 cases of major complications. All the patients completed the follow-up. A total of 56 patients in the revision group and 184 patients in the control group were followed-up for at least 24 months. The %EWL at 6, 12, and 24 months was 46.5%, 66.4%, and 78.5%, respectively, in the revision group, and 49.8%, 78.2%, and 78%, respectively, in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Results confirmed that LSG, performed in 2 steps, is an effective revision procedure for failed or complicated laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with good perioperative outcomes and 2-year weight loss.

Revisional surgery after failed adjustable gastric banding: institutional experience with 90 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery may be required in a high percentage of patients (up to 30 %) after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We report our institutional experience with revisional surgery.

METHODS

From January 1996 to November 2011, 90 patients underwent revisional surgery after failed LAGB. Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were proposed. In the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal dysmotility, hiatal hernia, or diabetes, RYGB was preferentially proposed.

RESULTS

In two cases, revisional surgery was aborted due to local severe adhesions. Eighty-eight patients (74 females; mean age 42.79 ± 10.03 years; mean BMI 44.73 ± 6.19 kg/m(2)) successfully underwent revisional SG (n = 48) or RYGB (n = 40). One-stage surgery was performed in 29 cases. Follow-up rate was 78.2 % (n = 61) and 40.9 % (n = 36) at 12 and 24 months respectively. One major complication after SG (staple-line leakage) was observed. Overall postoperative excess weight loss (%EWL) was 31.24, 40.92, 52.41, and 51.68 % at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up respectively. There was a statistically significant higher %EWL at 1 year in patients <50 years old (55.9 vs. 41.5 % in patients >50 years old; p = 0.01), of female gender (55.22 vs. 40.73 % in male; p = 0.04), and in patients in which the AGB was in place for <5 years (57.09 vs. 47.43 % if >5 years p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional surgery is safe and effective. Patients <50 years, of female gender, and with the AGB in place for <5 years had better %EWL after revisional surgery.

Revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative morbidity is determined by type of procedure

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric procedures are on the rise. The higher complexity of these procedures has been reported to lead to increased risk of complications. The objective of our study was to compare the perioperative risk profile of revisional bariatric surgery with primary bariatric surgery in our experience.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery by three fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons from June 2005 to January 2013 at a center of excellence was reviewed. Patient demographics, type of initial and revisional operation, number of prior gastric surgeries, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were recorded. These outcomes were compared between revisional and primary procedures by the Mann-Whitney or Chi square tests.

RESULTS

Of 1,556 patients undergoing bariatric surgery, 102 patients (6.5%) underwent revisional procedures during the study period. Indications for revisions included inadequate weight loss in 67, failed fundoplications with recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease in 29, and other in 6 cases. Revisional bariatric procedures belonged into four categories: band to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 23), band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 25), fundoplication to bypass (n = 29), and other (n = 25). Revisional procedures were associated with higher rates of readmissions and overall morbidity but no differences in leak rates and mortality compared with primary procedures. Band revisions had similar length of stay with primary procedures and had fewer complications compared with other revisions. Patients undergoing fundoplication to bypass revisions were older, had a higher number of prior gastric procedures, and the highest morbidity (40%) and reoperation (20%) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands, many revisional bariatric procedures can be accomplished safely, with excellent perioperative outcomes that are similar to primary procedures. As the complexity of the revisional procedure and number of prior surgeries increases, however, so does the perioperative morbidity, with fundoplication revisions to gastric bypass representing the highest risk group.

Sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass as revisional bariatric procedures: retrospective evaluation of outcomes

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of patients require revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Studies that compared the outcomes of revisional sleeve gastrectomy (r-SG) and revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (r-RYGB) after failed LAGB are scarce in the literature. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in outcomes between r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2012, patients who underwent laparoscopic r-SG and r-RYGB after failed LAGB were retrospectively compared and analyzed. Data included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate, percentage excess weight loss (%EWL), and morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 693 bariatric procedures, 42 r-SG and 53 r-RYGB were performed. The median preoperative weight (107.7 and 117.7 kg, respectively, p = 0.02) and body mass index (BMI) (38.5 vs. 43.2 kg/m(2), respectively, p = 0.01) were statistically significantly lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB. The mean operative time and median hospital stay were significantly shorter in r-SG than in r-RYGB (108.4 vs. 161.2 min, p < 0.01) (2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.02), respectively. One patient underwent conversion to open surgery after r-RYGB (p = 0.5). The reoperation rate was lower in r-SG than in r-RYGB (0.0 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5). There was one postoperative leak in the r-RYGB, and the overall complication rate was significantly lower in r-SG patients than in r-RYGB patients (7.1 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was significantly shorter in the r-SG group (9.8 vs. 29.3 months, p < 0.01). However, the mean postoperative BMI was not different at 1 year (32.3 vs. 34.7, p = 0.29) as well as mean %EWL was (47.4 vs. 45.6 %, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Both r-SG and r-RYGB are safe procedures with similar outcomes in terms of %EWL. As a result of the long-term potential nutritional complication of r-RYGB, r-SG may be a better option in this group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed.

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

Revisional surgery after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has emerged as one of the most commonly performed bariatric procedures worldwide. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30 % of cases. Several revisional strategies have been proposed, but there is no consensus regarding the best surgical option. This systematic review was designed to determine which revisional surgery (laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch) is best suited to enhance weight loss following failed LAGB due to complications or inadequate weight loss.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Clinical Trials were searched using the most comprehensive timeline for each database. A total of 24 relevant articles were identified. Two investigators independently extracted data, and differences were resolved by consensus. The weighted means were calculated for weight loss measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 106, 514, and 71 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion and duodenal switch (BPDDS), respectively. Before revisional surgery, the weighted mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.8 (6.9), 43.3 (8.1), and 41.3 (7.2) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The majority of data was reported at 12-24 months follow-up. The mean BMI within this interval was 28 (10.5), 32.2 (6.4), and 33 (5.7) kg/m(2) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. In addition, the mean excess weight loss (EWL) was 22 % (2.8), 57.8 % (11.7), 47.1 % (14) for the LSG, LRYGB, and BPDDS groups, respectively. The EWL reached 78.4 % (35) in the BPPDS group after 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Failed LAGB is best managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure. Stable weight loss occurs with salvage LRYGB. Although results for revisional BPPDS appear promising, additional research, with higher methodological quality, is needed.

Effect of primary versus revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: inferior weight loss of revisional surgery after gastric banding

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is a popular and effective restrictive bariatric procedure. However, with longer follow-up, it has become clear that a considerable number of patients require revisional surgery, of which Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed procedure. Studies that compared the outcomes of primary RYGB and revisional RYGB have not been conclusive. Our objective was to determine whether significant differences exist in the 1-year outcomes between primary RYGB (prim-RYGB) and revisional RYGB after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (rev-RYGB) at a major training hospital in The Netherlands.

METHODS

All prim-RYGB and rev-RYGB procedures performed from 2007 to 2009 were analyzed. Data were collected regarding weight loss, hospitalization, operative time, postoperative complications, and co-morbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 292 RYGB procedures were performed: 66 rev-RYGB and 226 prim-RYGB procedures. The operative time was significantly shorter in the prim-RYGB group (136.6±37.5 versus 167.5±40.6 min; P<.0001). No significant differences were found in hospitalization time (4.4±1.7 versus 4.9±2.4 d; P= .063) or complication rate (14.7% versus 15.2%; P=.962). No deaths occurred in either group. The number of patients with resolved diabetes and hypertension did not differ between the 2 groups (50.1% versus 23.1%; P=.116; and 40.7% versus 25.0%; P=.384, respectively). Weight loss was significantly greater in the prim-RYGB group in terms of excess weight loss (71.6%±20.8% versus 48.4%±26.8%; P<.0001), body mass index reduction (13.0±3.8 versus 10.2±5.6 kg/m(2); P<.0001), absolute weight loss (37.4±11.5 versus 29.3±17.2 kg; P=.001), and percentage of weight loss (29.7%±8% versus 21.7%±11.5%; P<.0001).

CONCLUSION

rev-RYGB is a safe procedure with outcomes similar to those of prim-RYGB in terms of complication rate, hospitalization time, and effect on co-morbidity. Weight loss, however, was significantly less after rev-RYGB than after prim-RYGB.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are the most common bariatric procedures performed in the past decade, little is known about their long-term (>5 years) outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective outcome study investigated 148 consecutive patients from a single practice who underwent LAGB from November 2000 to March 2002. The group was matched with 175 consecutive patients who underwent LRYGB from June 2000 to March 2005. Follow-up data for 5 years or longer was available for 127 LAGB patients (86%) and 105 LRYGB patients (60%).

RESULTS

After an initial 4 years of progressive weight loss, body mass index (BMI) loss stabilized at 5-7 years at approximately 15 kg/m(2) for the LRYGB patients and at about 9 kg/m(2) for the LAGB patients with band in place (P < 0.01). At 7 years, the excess weight loss (EWL) was 58.6% for LRYGB and 46.3% for LAGB with band in place (P < 0.01). By 7 years, 19 LAGB patients (15%) had had their bands removed, bringing the failure rate for LAGB (including patients with less than 25% EWL) to 48.3% versus 10.7% for LRYGB (P < 0.01). By 10 years, 29 (22.8%) of the bands had been removed, bringing the total LAGB failure rate to 51.1%. In 10 years, 67 LAGB (52.8%) and 43 LRYGB (41%) adverse events had occurred. However, over time, the LRYGB group experienced 9 (8.6%) serious, potentially life-threatening complications, whereas the LAGB group had none (P < 0.001). One procedure-related death occurred in the LRYGB group.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the long term, LRYGB had an approximate reduction of 15 kg/m(2) BMI and 60% EWL, a significantly better outcome than LAGB patients experienced with band intact. The main issue with LAGB was its 50% failure rate in the long term, as defined by poor weight loss and percentage of band removal. Nevertheless, LAGB had a remarkably safe course, and it may therefore be considered for motivated and informed patients.

Conversion from band to bypass in two steps reduces the risk for anastomotic strictures

BACKGROUND

Morbidity after converting failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is three- to fivefold higher than after primary LRYGB. Allowing a time interval between band removal and actual gastric bypass might reduce local inflammation and reduce morbidity.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective single-center study of patients who needed conversion to LRYGB because of failed LAGB. Outcomes after conversion of LAGB to LRYGB in one or two steps were compared.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and June 2010, 23 patients had a conversion in one step (group A) while, in 14 patients, the conversion was carried out at least 2 months after band removal (group B). The mean duration of surgery in group A was 150 ± 39 min while it took 181 ± 39 min to complete both steps in group B (p=0.02). Length of stay in group A was 3 (3-8) days, but was 5 (4-8) days for the two steps in group B (p=0.004). During a follow-up of 6-23 months, one pulmonary embolism, one epigastric artery bleeding, and three anastomotic strictures occurred in group A, while no complications were observed in group B. The BMI dropped from 41.4 ± 6.7 to 28.7 ± 10.8 kg/m(2) in group A and from 43.8 ± 5.8 to 35.3 ± 7.55 kg/m(2) in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Operating time and hospital stay are increased when conversion is performed in two steps, but, in this small series, this strategy decreased morbidity and more specifically the rate of anastomotic strictures.

Revision laparoscopic gastric bypass: an effective approach following failure of primary bariatric procedures

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach plays an important role in the primary surgical management of morbid obesity. This study evaluated the potential role of the laparoscopic approach to revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in the management of selected patients who fail to lose adequate weight or regain weight after primary bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Revision LRYGB was carried out to remedy early or delayed failure of primary bariatric procedures. Patients who underwent laparoscopic revision surgery to re-establish a functioning gastric band were not included in this report. The results are presented as mean (SD).

RESULTS

Between April 2002 and March 2009, 21 patients underwent 21 laparoscopic revision procedures. The initial bariatric operations were laparoscopic gastric band (n = 10), open vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 6), open Magenstrasse and Mill (n = 2), open gastric bypass with pouch dilatation (n = 2), and open gastric band (n = 1). All revision procedures were completed laparoscopically and included conversion to LRYGB (n = 19), and others (n = 2). The postoperative hospital stay was 2.0 (1.3) days. The anastomotic leak, morbidity, and mortality rates were 0%, 4.8%, and 0% respectively. At a follow-up of 12.9 (7.9) months, the prerevision body mass index has decreased significantly from 43.9 (7.4) to 32.7 (6.6) kg/m(2) (p < 0.001) with a percentage excess weight loss of 61.1 (21.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach to revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe and effective even in patients with previous open bariatric surgery and is associated with rapid recovery and short hospital stay.

Revisional bariatric surgery for failed gastric banding in Asia: a review of choice of revisional procedure, surgical technique and postoperative complication rates

INTRODUCTION

In Asia, long-term weight loss results of gastric banding have been unsatisfactory. Bands are associated with higher complication rates, which result in a high reoperation rate. The aim of this paper is to discuss the choice of revisional procedure, operative technique and evaluate the postoperative complication rates.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and January 2010, we operated on 41 patients who were included retrospectively in this series. The most common reason for band removal was failure to lose adequate weight. Of those patients, 40 underwent band removal and conversion to a revisional bariatric surgery concomitantly; one patient's procedure was deferred to a later date. LSG was performed in 26 and LRYGB in 15. The highlights of the operative technique were meticulous dissection, complete removal of the pseudocapsule, choosing the right stapler cartridge, oversewing and inverting the entire staple line, and complete dissection of the left crus and pars flaccid.

RESULT

The median duration of surgery was 85 min (range, 55-180 min). There was no conversion to open surgery. The median stay in the hospital was 4 d (range, 2-7 d). There were no leaks or any other major complications in the postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant revisional procedure after removal of gastric band is safe and feasible. The operative technique followed at our center has had an extremely low postoperative morbidity rate and a 0% leak rate.

Band revision versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion as salvage operation after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

BACKGROUND

With the increasing popularity of laparoscopic adjustable banding (LAGB), reoperations to treat band complications have become increasingly more common. Few studies, however, have documented the outcomes of such revisional procedures. The purpose of the present study was to compare the different reoperative approaches after LAGB placement. The present study was conducted at a tertiary referral academic medical center in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed our bariatric database to identify patients who had undergone LAGB from 2004 to 2007 and had undergone either revision of their original band or conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 47 (71.2%) had undergone revision and 19 (28.8%) conversion. The patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups. The interval to revision or conversion was 22 and 28 months, respectively. Band slippage was the most common surgical indication in the revision group, and inadequate weight loss was the most common in the conversion group. Although patients in the revision group had experienced good weight loss before their reoperation, the conversion group had not. However, the conversion group experienced good weight loss after their reoperation, with an average excess body weight loss of 48%.

CONCLUSION

Patients who have experienced successful weight loss with LAGB and experience band complications will have satisfactory outcomes with band revision, maintaining their excess body weight loss. These data suggest that patients with inadequate weight loss after LAGB can do well after conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Safety and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revisional approach for failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in the treatment of morbid obesity

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been used as a first step of a two-stage approach in bariatric surgery for high-risk patients. Recently, LSG is being utilized as a primary and final procedure for morbid obesity with acceptable short-term results. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of LSG as a revisional procedure for patients with unsatisfactory outcomes after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Data were reviewed for all patients undergoing revision from LAGB to LSG during the period May 2005 and May 2009. Data collected included demographics, indication for revision, operative time, length of stay, postoperative complications, and degree of weight reduction. Fifteen patients (three males and 12 females) had revisional surgery converting a LAGB to a LSG. The indication in four patients (26.66%) was weight regains and in five patients (33.33%) was poor weight loss; four patients (26.66%) had a band slippage and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux, and one patient (6.66%) had poor weight loss, band slippage, and reflux. In one patient (6.66%), the indication was slippage and duodenal fistula. One-step revision procedure was done in 13 patients (86.66%), while two-step procedure was done in two patients (13.33%). Mean preoperative weight and BMI were 233.02 (181.4-300) lb and 38.66 (29.7-49.3) kg/m2, respectively. Mean weight loss at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively was 20.7, 48.3, 57.2, 60.1, and 13.5 lb, respectively. Mean % excess BMI loss was 28.9%, 64.2%, 65.3%, 65.7%, and 22.25% at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. There was one major complication (staple line leak) and one postoperative acute gastric outlet obstruction. We had no mortality. Thirteen patients were followed up postoperatively. The number decreased as follow-up time progressed. LSG could provide short-term weight loss after previously failed LABG, but prone to more complications compared to an initial LSG without a prior bariatric procedure.