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

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.

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.

Nissen Sleeve as a Redo Surgery Post Gastric Banding for Non-responders to Weight Loss and Therapy-Resistant Reflux

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) would be the procedure of choice for non-responders of weight loss and patients with reflux symptoms (GERD). However, not every patient is a candidate for RYGB, and sometimes, the patient can insist only on alternatives other than malabsorption procedures, as was the case with our patient. We report a case with symptomatic GERD who underwent a successful Nissen sleeve gastrectomy after band removal. To our knowledge, this is the first case using Nissen sleeve as a redo surgery after a previous bariatric procedure.

Patient Outcomes and Rate of Intensive Care Unit Admissions Following Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 775 Patients

Background The last two decades have seen a significant rise in obesity and its adverse consequences across the globe. Bariatric surgery has emerged as a widely employed therapeutic approach for weight reduction and alleviating the risk of obesity-related chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. As bariatric procedures are gaining popularity, the complications associated with these procedures can not be ignored. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions following bariatric surgery and ICU-related mortality. Methodology This retrospective study conducted at King Hamad University Hospital, Bahrain evaluated the patient outcomes and the rate of ICU admissions following bariatric surgery between 2018 and 2022. Demographic data of the patients were extracted from electronic health records. The primary endpoint was ICU admission incidence and mortality, while secondary outcomes included risk factors, duration of ICU stay, and complications leading to ICU admission. Results Of the 775 patients included, 66.3% were female. The mean age of the patients was 35.92 ± 21.12 years. Over 91% of the patients had a body mass index above 30 kg/m2. The most common primary procedure was laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (75%), followed by gastric bypass (22.6%). In revision bariatric surgery, the majority (91.3%) had a conversion from sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass. Overall, 0.77% of patients were admitted to the ICU, with the majority being unplanned ICU admissions (0.52%). The average ICU stay was 21 days (1 to 54 days). The most common reason for ICU admission was sepsis, septic shock, and gastric leakage. Conclusions The results of this study show a relatively lower number of ICU admissions after bariatric surgery compared to previous studies.

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.

Uncommon Complication of a Biliary Leak After Adjustable Gastric Band Removal: A Case Report

In the context of adjustable gastric band (AGB) placements and the prevalent issue of weight regain with associated complications, revision surgery for gastric bands becomes imperative. Such revisions may encompass band removal or conversion to bariatric procedures, often accompanied by an escalated risk profile, potentially contributing to a 20% morbidity rate. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has gained prominence due to its technical simplicity, effectiveness in weight loss, and lower complication rates. Specific cases involving LSG post-AGB complications are associated with staple line disruptions and leaks. This case report describes a rare complication in a 59-year-old patient following AGB removal and subsequent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The complication emerged six hours after the surgery, with approximately 400 cc of bile material reported in the drainage. A laparoscopic reintervention was conducted, revealing bile leakage from the second Couinaud hepatic segment. Successful management of the leakage was achieved through simple hepatic suturing using non-absorbable monofilament. Within 24 hours, no further leakage occurred, and the patient was discharged without additional complications. Our case also demonstrates how complex it can be to switch between different medical procedures, and it emphasizes the need for careful planning and precise surgery in the evolving world of bariatric medicine. It is worth noting that there is a dearth of literature addressing this specific complication. Consequently, this study has the potential to provide valuable insights for surgeons who may encounter a similar scenario in their clinical practice.

One-stage versus two-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass as redo surgery of failed adjustable gastric banding

INTRODUCTION

The study focussed on whether a one-stage Roux-Y gastric bypass (OS-RYGB) or a two-stage RYGB (TS-RYGB) has a significant advantage in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

Data collection included patients who underwent OS-RYGB or TS-RYGB after AGB between 2005 and 2019 and whose outcomes were compared with those after primary RYGB (P-RYGB). Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality and operating time.

RESULTS

The study analysed data from patients who underwent OS-RYGB (N = 525), TS-RYGB (N = 382) and P-RYGB (N = 26,445). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were significantly lower for P-RYGB (p < 0.001). Total intraoperative and specific postoperative complication rates were significantly lower in TS-RYGB than in OS-RYGB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the total general postoperative complication rate was lower in OS-RYGB than in TS-RYGB (p < 0.001). The mean operating time differed significantly among the three groups (P-RYGB 96.5min, OS-RYGB 141.2min and TS-RYGB 190.9min; p < 0.001). The mortality rate was not significantly different between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the significant difference between the two groups in revision surgery and the slight difference with the results of primary RYGB, this study concludes that removal of a failed AGB is safe and feasible with either the OS- or TS-RYGB procedure. However, we cannot directly recommend either procedure in our study. Proper patient selection and surgeon experience are critical to avoid potential adverse effects.

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.

An Overview of Treatment Modalities and Management Aspects for Obesity

Background:

Obesity is a prominent disorder that has a drastic effect on lots of individuals. It is a consequence of non-equilibrium in the energy expenditure and intake of energy, while other etiological factors can be genetic, epigenetic, and physiological.

Objective:

The aim is to explore the multiple aspects reported for its management based on controlled metabolic approaches as well as surgical approaches.

Results:

It has been reviewed that medical interventions for obesity are lifestyle-altering interventions that include appropriate diet and exercise. Furthermore, pharmacotherapy is also proving to be efficient for the management of obesity. Drugs allowed by the competent authority of the US are for long-term such as orlistat and phentermine for the short-term obesity treatment. Surgical approaches involve restrictive, malabsorptive as well as mixed bariatric procedures and these procedures show evidence to alleviate obesity and its comorbidities.

Conclusion:

This review explored various treatment options for obesity.

Comparison of early post-operative complications in primary and revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and duodenal switch MBSAQIP-reported cases from 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most performed bariatric surgery, though gastric bypass (GB) and duodenal switch (DS) remain common, especially as conversion/revision (C/R) procedures. This analysis compared early postoperative outcomes of primary and C/R laparoscopic SG to DS and GB; and primary procedures of each vs C/R counterparts.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) dataset was queried for SG, GB, and DS cases from 2015 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression calculated crude and adjusted odds ratios for surgical site infection (SSI), reoperation, and readmission at 30 days in two initial comparisons: (1) primary SG vs DS or GB and (2) C/R SG vs DS or GB. A secondary analysis compared primary GS, GB, or DS with C/R counterparts. Models were adjusted for confounding demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 755,968 primary cases, most were SG (72.8%), followed by GB (26.3%), then DS (0.9%). Compared to SG, GB and DS demonstrated higher odds of SSI (aOR 3.02 [2.84, 3.2]), readmission (aOR 1.97 [1.92, 2.03]), and reoperation (aOR 2.74 [2.62, 2.86]), respectively. Of 68,716 C/R cases, SG was most common (43.2%), followed by GB (37.5%), then DS (19.2%). C/R GB and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (aOR 2.28 [1.98, 2.62]), readmission (aOR 2.10 [1.94, 2.27]), and reoperation (aOR 2.3 [2.04, 2.59]) vs SG, respectively. C/R SG and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 2.09 [1.66, 2.63]; 1.63 [1.24, 2.14), readmission (OR 1.13 [1.02, 1.26]), and reoperation (OR 1.27 [1.06, 1.52]; 1.58 [1.24, 2.0]), vs primary procedures. C/R DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 1.23 [1.66, 2.63]).

CONCLUSIONS

Early complications are comparable between GB and DS, and greater than SG. In C/R procedures, GB and DS demonstrate greater risk than SG. Overall, C/R procedures demonstrate greater risk of most, but not all, early postoperative complications.

Propensity score matching analysis comparing outcomes between primary and revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after adjustable gastric banding: a retrospective record-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) after Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is widely adopted, but its safety is still debated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare outcomes between primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB and RRYGB after LAGB.

METHOD

A retrospective record-based cohort study of patients who underwent PRYGB and RRYGB for failed LAGB and completed at least 2 years of follow-up from 2008 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of patients with RRYGB and PRYGB interventions by adjusting for baseline covariates including age and sex.

RESULTS

Patients with PRYGB (n = 558) and RRYGB (n = 156) were included. PSM identified 98 patients for RRYGB and 98 patients for PRYGB. Both cohorts exhibited significant reductions in BMI compared to baseline values (p < 0.001), but reductions were significantly higher in PRYGB compared to those in RRGYB at 6 months (- 10.55 ± 8.54 vs. - 8.38 ± 5.07; p = 0.032), 1-year (- 21.50 ± 8.19 vs. 16.14 ± 6.93; p < 0.001), and 2 years (- 24.02 ± 7.85 vs. - 18.93 ± 6.80; p < 0.001), respectively. A significant improvement in food tolerance from the 1st to the 2nd year was seen after RYGB (p < 0.001). The rates of early and late complications were similar in both cohorts (p = 0.537, p = 1.00). Overall re-intervention rates were 5.1 and 3.1% for RRYGB and PRYGB p = 0.721). Both cohorts exhibited significant improvement in comorbidities after 2 years (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage RRYGB for failed LAGB is safe and effective with comparable rates of complications, re-interventions, and resolution of associated comorbid conditions compared to PRYGB.

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.

Feasibility and Short-Term Outcomes of One-Step and Two-Step Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revision Procedures for Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding Compared With Those After Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy

Background: The practice of bariatric surgery was studied using the German Bariatric Surgery Registry (GBSR). The focus of the study was to evaluate whether revision surgery One-Step (OS) or Two-Step (TS) sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has a large benefit in terms of perioperative risk in patients after failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (AGB). Methods: The data collection includes patients who underwent One-Step SG (OS-SG) or Two-Step SG (TS-SG) as revision surgery after AGB and primary SG (P-SG) between 2005 and 2019. Outcome criteria were perioperative complications, comorbidities, 30-day mortality, and operating time. Results: The study analyzed data from 27,346 patients after P-SG, 320 after OS-SG, and 168 after TS-SG. Regarding the intraoperative complication, there was a significant difference in favor of P-SG and TS-SG compared to OS-SG (p < 0.001). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly higher in the OS-SG (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in occurrence of staple line stenosis in favor of TS-SG (p = 0.005) and the occurrence of sepsis (p = 0.008). The mean operating time was statistically longer in the TS-SG group than in the OS-SG group (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.727). Conclusion: In general, our study shows that converting a gastric band to a SG is safe and feasible. However, lower complications were obtained with TS-SG compared to OS-SG. Despite acceptable complication and mortality rates of both procedures, we cannot recommend any surgical method as a standard procedure. Proper patient selection is crucial to avoid possible adverse effects.

Safety and effectiveness of 1-stage conversion of adjustable gastric band-to-sleeve gastrectomy: a single-institution case-control study

BACKGROUND

Patients are increasingly referred for conversion of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The safety of a 1- versus 2-stage approach to this revision is debated.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the safety and efficacy of 1-stage conversion of LAGB to SG at our institution.

SETTING

University hospital.

METHODS

An institutional database was used to retrospectively identify patients who underwent single-stage LAGB-to-SG conversion between 2010 and 2018. Patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, and body mass index with primary SG patients during this same period. Primary endpoints were operative time, complication rate, length of hospital say, and weight loss 12 months from surgery.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and twenty-nine patients undergoing conversion of LAGB to SG were identified. Median postoperative length of hospital stay was 2 days. Two patients (.8%) developed surgical site infection. One patient (.4%) developed a postoperative myocardial infarction. There were 4 total readmissions (1.7%) and 1 reoperation within 30 days (.4%). There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day complication rates between groups. Weight loss at 12 months was significantly different: Median body mass index loss for conversion patients was 5.1 kg/m² compared with 8.85 kg/m² for patients in the primary SG group (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage conversion of LAGB to SG is safe and effective. Patients may not experience the same extent of weight loss as those with primary SG. Our findings represent the largest single-institutional experience to date and support a 1-stage approach whenever feasible.

One anastomosis gastric bypass vs. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive bariatric surgery

Background

Failure occurs in up to 60% of the patients that were treated with primary restrictive bariatric operations such as Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB), or restrictive/metabolic operations like Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). Insufficient weight loss and weight regain are the most commonly reported reasons of failure. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) as a revisional procedure in terms of weight loss, procedure time, complication rate and morbidity.

Methods

491 patients operated on between 2012 and 2017 for failed restrictive surgery were included in this study (OAGB (n=185) or RYGB (n=306)). Failure was defined as total weight loss (TWL) less than 25%, excess weight loss (EWL) less than 50% and/or a remaining body mass index (BMI) larger than 40 kg/m2 at two years of follow up. Primary outcome measures were %TWL and % excess BMI loss (EBMIL) at 12, 24 and 36 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, reduction of comorbidity, early and late complication rate, and mortality.

Results

%TWL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 24.1±9.8 vs. 21.9±9.7, p = 0.023) and 24 months (mean 23.9±11.7 vs. 20.5±11.2, p = 0.023) of follow-up. %EBMIL was significantly larger in the OAGB group at 12 months (mean 69.0±44.6 vs. 60.0±30.1, p = 0.014) and 24 months (mean 68.6±51.6 vs. 56.4±35.4, p = 0.025) of follow-up. Intra-abdominal complications (leakage, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess and perforation) occurred less frequently after revisional OAGB (1.1% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.025). Surgical intervention for biliary reflux (5.4% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) was more prevalent in the OAGB group. Surgical intervention for internal herniation (0.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002) was more prevalent in the RYGB group.

Conclusions

This study suggests that OAGB is superior to RYGB as a remedy for insufficient weight loss and weight regain after failed restrictive surgery with more weight loss and a lower early complication rate. To substantiate these findings, further research from prospective randomized controlled trials is needed.

Efficacy and safety of bariatric revisions in patients older than 65 years old

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery in advanced age patients (>65-years-old) has been proven safe and effective. Revisional bariatric surgery is infrequently required for cases of refractory obesity. However, there is a paucity of data regarding revisional surgery for the elderly. We hypothesize that revisional bariatric surgery is viable and safe in elderly patients.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all bariatric revisions performed at two high-volume bariatric centers of excellence between 2011 and 2018. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between patients >65 and those <65-years-old.

RESULTS

145 bariatric revisions were performed for weight loss. 10% (N = 15) were >65 years old. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups There was a longer median length of stay in the younger cohort (2 vs 1 day, p = 0.001). Percent excess weight loss was similar at 12-months, as was resolution of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Bariatric revisions in elderly patients appears to be safe and effective. Revisional surgery in this population was not shown to have increased morbidity or mortality with similar excess body weight loss when compared to a younger cohort.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared.

RESULTS

Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Reoperations for Long-Term Complications Following Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: Analysis of Incidence and Causality

Background: Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) gained popularity in the early 2000s as a purely restrictive procedure with modest weight loss. The potential for complications requiring reoperation has since become evident. A retrospective review was performed to determine the incidence of long-term complications and predictive factors requiring surgical reintervention after LAGB.

Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and a retrospective review of 200 consecutive patients undergoing LAGB over a period of six years was conducted at a single institution with American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence designation. Data were collected on patient characteristics, comorbid conditions and complications requiring reintervention. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results: Of the 200 patients, 176 (90.7%) were female with an average age of 53.6 years and preoperative body mass index (BMI) of 44.2 kg/m². The average follow-up was 46 months. Complications occurred in 55 (28.4%) patients with band slippage/prolapse as the most common need for reoperation. Younger age, lack of comorbidities and diet/exercise compliance were associated with reintervention.

Conclusions: LAGB has a high rate of reoperation secondary to complications associated with younger age. Alternative bariatric procedures may be more appropriate in these patients who have fewer comorbid conditions and are motivated to improve his or her health.

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.

Revisional Gastric Bypass After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding-One-Stage or Two-Stage Procedure?

BACKGROUND

Revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-LRYGB) is the preferred procedure after failed adjustable gastric banding. Little is known about whether a one-stage procedure (one surgery for band removal and R-LRYGB) or a two-stage procedure (first band removal and later R-LRYGB) is superior. Aim of this study is to compare early- and long-term results of both methods at our institution.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 165 (m 26/f 139) consecutive patients (98 one-stage, 67 two-stage) with R-LRYGB. Mean follow-up time was 50.1 ± 38.8 months. Indications for one-stage vs. two-stage procedures, operating time, peri- and postoperative complications, morbidity, mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. Data are reported as total numbers (%) and mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

Mean age at R-LRYGB was 43.9 ± 10.7 vs. 44.3 ± 10.7 years with a BMI of 37.1 ± 6.8 vs. 39.8 ± 7.1 (one-stage vs. two-stage). In the one-stage group, the main indication for revisional surgery was weight regain (57.1%), followed by dilatation of the esophagus or pouch (37.7%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (36.7%), whereas in the two-stage group, it was band erosion (52.2%) and dilatation of the esophagus or pouch (17.9%) and GERD (11.9%). There was no significant difference in operative time (208.5 ± 61.2 vs. 206.3 ± 73.5 min), LOS (8.6 ± 3.4 vs. 9.3 ± 5.7 days) or mortality (0% overall). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa) occurred similarly often in both groups: 15.3% vs. 16.9% (one-stage vs. two-stage).

CONCLUSION

Both approaches achieve good results. However, the one-stage R-LRYGB is the preferable procedure because it reduces costs and LOS by doing without an additional surgical procedure.

A Retrospective Comparative Study of Primary Versus Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Long-Term Results

AIMS

To compare the perioperative parameters and excess weight loss between patients operated by laporoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), as a primary operation or a revisional, for insufficient weight loss after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) or adjustable gastric banding (AGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a LRYGB was performed for the period 2004-2011. Demographics, preoperative body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, operation time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, hospitalization period, and % of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL) were investigated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-two laparoscopic gastric bypass operations were performed, 245 were primary, and 97 revisional. Median follow-up was 30 months (range 0-108 months). Mean BMI (kg/m²) before bypass was 45.2 for primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (pLRYGB) and 41.1 for revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rLRYGB). Median operative time and length of stay were longer for rLRYGB 157.5 versus 235 min (p < 0.001) and 6 versus 6.5 days (p = 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy was performed in eight patients, 0.4% of primary and 7.2% of revisional. Morbidity rate was 6.5% in pLRYGB versus 10% in rLRYGB (NS). There was one death in the primary group. Percentage of EBMIL was significantly lower in the revisional group at 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional and primary gastric bypass have no statistical differences in terms of morbidity. The % of excess BMI loss is lower after revisional gastric bypass during the first 2 years of follow-up. The trend of weight loss or weight regain was similar in both groups.

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.

Revisional Gastric Bypass for Failed Restrictive Procedures: Comparison of Single-Anastomosis (Mini-) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

BACKGROUND

Ten to 50% of patients who received restrictive bariatric operations may require reoperation for unsatisfactory weight loss or weight regain. Failed restrictive procedures are usually managed with conversion to another bariatric procedure with a favor of conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass. Our aim is to evaluate two different bypass techniques, laparoscopic RY gastric bypass (RYGB) versus single-anastomosis (mini-) gastric bypass (SAGB) as a revision option (R-RYGB and R-SAGB) for failed restrictive bariatric operations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From May 2001 to December 2015, a total of 116 patients with failed restrictive bariatric operations underwent laparoscopic revisional bypass surgery (81 R-SAGB and 35 R-RYGB). Among them, 81 were failed after vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and 35 were after adjustable gastric band (AGB). The demographic data, surgical parameters, and outcomes were studied.

RESULTS

The average age at revision surgery was 35.7 years (range 22-56), and the average body mass index (BMI) before reoperation was 37.2 kg/m² (29.0-51.8). Revision surgery was performed after 58.8 months from the primary surgery on average (14-180 months). The main reasons for the revisions were weight regain (50.9%), inadequate weight loss (31%), and intolerance (18.1%). All of the procedures were completed laparoscopically as one-stage procedure. R-RYGB had significantly longer operative times than R-SAGB. Major complication occurred in 12 (10%) patients without significant difference between R-SAGB group and R-RYGB group. At 1 year follow-up, weight loss was better in R-SAGB than R-RYGB (76.8 vs. 32.9% EWL; p = 0.001). At 5 year follow-up, a significantly lower hemoglobin level was found in R-SAGB group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Both SAGB and RYGB are acceptable options for revising a restrictive type of bariatric procedures with equal safety profile. R-SAGB was shown to be a simpler procedure with better weight reduction than R-RYGB but anemia is a considerable complication at long-term follow-up.

Long-term results of the patients who were applied laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

Objectives

The most effective treatment step in morbid obesity is surgical treatment. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the long-term follow-up results and success rates in laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

Material and Methods

The change in body mass index, percentage of excess weight loss, comorbidities, and resulting complications were investigated in 220 patients who were morbidly obese and applied laparoscopic adjustable gastric band between April 2006 and February 2012, throughout the 6-year follow-up period. Forty-six patients who did not show up for their routine follow-ups were excluded from the study.

Results

In the present study, band removal percentage was 35.63%. The percentage of excess weight loss in patients who were followed up without removal of the band was 46.03%. Complications were observed in 46.5% of the patients. The most frequently observed complication among the major complications was band intolerance, which is also the most common cause of band removal. Band removal was considered as a failure in laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operations, and patients were referred to other surgical methods.

Conclusion

When improved patient compliance and careful and close patient follow-up are provided in the early stages of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band application, it may be possible to reach percentage of excess weight loss results that would be the nearest to those achieved by gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy methods. However, high complication rates and necessity to perform other bariatric surgical procedures in the majority of the patients in the long-term follow-up suggest that the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band operation is not the first choice in bariatric surgery.

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.

Utilization of Public System for Gastric Bands Placed by Private Providers: a 4-Year Population-Based Analysis in Ontario, Canada

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) placement remains a common bariatric procedure. While LAGB procedure is performed within private clinics in most Canadian provinces, public health care is often utilized for LAGB-related reoperations. We identified 642 gastric band removal procedures performed in Ontario from 2011 to 2014 using population-level administrative data. The number of procedures performed increased annually from 101 in 2011 to 220 in 2014. Notably, 54.7% of the patients required laparotomy, and 17.6% of patients underwent a subsequent bariatric surgery. Our findings demonstrated that LAGB placement in private clinics resulted in a large number of band removal procedures performed within the public system. This represents a significant public health concern that may result in significant health care utilization and patient morbidity.

Conversional Weight Loss Surgery: an Australian Experience of Converting Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Bands to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, capable of producing more than 50% excess weight loss at 10-year follow-up (James Clin Dermatol 1; 22:276-80; O'Brien Br J Surg 2; 102:611-17; Buchwald et al. Metab Syndr 3; 347-56). The success of bariatric surgery extends far beyond weight loss, with up to 80-90% of patients having improvement or resolution of many of their weight-related co-morbidities including type II diabetes mellitus and hypertension (Puzziferri et al. JAMA 4; 312:934-42; Buchwald et al. Am J Med 5; 122:248-56). However, there is a paucity of data regarding conversional bariatric surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the efficacy, safety and feasibility of conversional surgery.

SETTING

This study represents the largest Australasian series focusing on conversional bariatric surgery. The study was conducted in the Norwest Private Hospital and Hospital for Specialist Surgery (HSS), both private Hospitals in Sydney, Australia.

METHODS

Data was collected prospectively at regular intervals for more than 12 months from 1 January 2012 to 1st November 2015 for all patients requiring a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as secondary procedure after prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). Excess weight loss (EWL), percentage total body weight loss (TWL) and excess BMI loss (EBMIL) as well as any complications were recorded.

RESULTS

There were low rates of morbidity (1.1%) and no mortality at 12-month follow-up. Satisfactory EWL of 60% (95% CI: 56.6-63.4%), EBMIL of 60.1% (95% CI: 48.8-71.4%) and 16% TWL was achieved at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We therefore conclude that sleeve gastrectomy is a safe and valid option for conversional bariatric surgery following LAGB.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Outcomes of a case-matched comparison of primary versus revisional surgery

Introduction:

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy are popular bariatric procedures. Certain complications may necessitate revision. Adverse outcomes are reported after revisional bariatric surgery. We compared patients undergoing revisional versus primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB).

Materials and Methods

This was retrospective comparative 1:1 case-matched analysis of revisional LRYGB Group A versus primary LRYGB (pLRYGB/Group B). Matching was based on body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities. BMI decrease at 6 and 12 months post-surgery, comorbidity resolution, operative time, morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared. Total decrease in BMI, i.e., change from before initial bariatric procedure to 12 months after revision for Group A was also compared.

Results:

Median BMI (inter-quartile range) for Group A decreased to 44.74 (7.09) and 41.49 (6.26) at 6 and 12 months, respectively, for Group B corresponding figures were 38.74 (6.9) and 33.79 (6.64) (P = 0.001 and P = 0.0001, respectively). Total decrease in BMI (Group A) was 9.8, whereas BMI decrease at 12 months for Group B was 15.2 (P = 0.23). Hypertension resolved in 63% (Group A), 70% (Group B) (P = 0.6). Diabetes resolution was 80% (Group A), 63% (Group B) (P = 0.8). Operative time for Groups A, B was 151 ± 17, 137 ± 11 min, respectively (P = 0.004). There was no difference in morbidity and LOS.

Conclusion:

Comorbidity resolution after revisional and pLRYGB are similar. Less weight loss is achieved after revision than after pLRYGB, but total weight loss is comparable. Revisional surgery is safe when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centres.

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.