Long-term follow-up evaluation of revisional gastric bypass after failed adjustable gastric banding

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.

Primary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Results in Greater Weight Loss at 15-Year Follow-Up Compared with Secondary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass After Failure of Gastric Band or Mason McLean Vertical Gastroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to compare the outcomes of patients treated with secondary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) with those of patients having primary RYGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing secondary RYGB after AGB or VBG between 1997 and 2004 with a minimal follow-up of 15 years were matched using a propensity score (according to gender, age, BMI, duration of follow-up) with comparable patients who underwent primary RYGB.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 16.50 years in the secondary RYGB group (N = 32) versus 16.33 years in the primary RYGB group (N = 32). Early postoperative complications rate was 6.25% in the secondary RYGBs versus 9.38% in the primary RYGBs (P = 1). Late postoperative complications and additional surgical procedures were 56.25% and 37.5% in the secondary and primary RYGB group, respectively (P = 0.21). Long-term (at 16-20 years) %TWL and %EWL were significantly lower (P < 0.01 and P = 0.013, respectively) after secondary RYGB (%TWL = 7.56%; %EWL = 17.15%) than after primary RYGB (%TWL = 24.51%; %EWL = 55.61%). Remission of obesity-related comorbidities was comparable (P > 0.05). Gastroesophageal reflux was more frequent after secondary RGYB-43.75% versus 25%, P < 0.05. Quality of life-Morehead-Ardelt II score (0.02 in secondary RYGB versus 0.69 in primary RYGB, P = 0.13), general self-assessment of health status and weight satisfaction were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Secondary RYGB after AGB or VBG is less efficient at weight loss, GERD remission and energy expenditure at 15 years after conversion. However, it is as effective for improvement/resolution of obesity-related comorbidities and is associated with similar QoL scores.

Association of Bariatric Surgery With Risk of Fracture in Patients With Severe Obesity

IMPORTANCE

Given the complex relationship between body mass index, body composition, and bone density and the correlative nature of the studies that have established the prevailing notion that higher body mass indices may be protective against osteopenia and osteoporosis and, therefore, fracture, the absolute risk of fracture in patients with severe obesity who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with those who do not undergo bariatric surgery is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rates of fractures associated with obesity and compare rates between those who do not undergo bariatric surgery, those who undergo RYGB, and those who undergo SG.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study of Medicare Standard Analytic Files derived from Medicare parts A and B records from January 2004 to December 2014, patients classified as eligible for bariatric surgery using the US Centers of Medicare & Medicaid criteria who either did not undergo bariatric surgery or underwent RYGB or SG were exactly matched in a 1:1 fashion based on their age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, hypertension, smoking status, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and obstructive sleep apnea status. Data were analyzed from November to December 2019.

EXPOSURES

RYGB or SG.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome measured in this study was the odds of fracture overall based on exposure to bariatric surgery. Secondary outcomes included the odds of type of fracture (humerus, radius or ulna, pelvis, hip, vertebrae, and total fractures) based on exposure to bariatric surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 49 113 patients were included and were equally made up of 16 371 bariatric surgery-eligible patients who did not undergo weight loss surgery, 16 371 patients who had undergone RYGB, and 16 371 patients who had undergone SG. Each group consisted of an equal number of 4109 men (25.1%) and 12 262 women (74.9%) and had an equal distribution of ages, with 11 780 patients (72.0%) 64 years or younger, 4230 (25.8%) aged 65 to 69 years, 346 (2.1%) aged 70 to 74 years, and 15 (0.1%) aged 75 to 79 years. Patients undergoing RYGB were found to have no significant difference in odds of fractures compared with bariatric surgery-eligible patients who did not undergo surgery. Patients undergoing undergone SG were found to have decreased odds of fractures of the humerus (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73), radius or ulna (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58), hip (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.74), pelvis (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.64), vertebrae (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.74), or fractures in general (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.62). Compared with patients undergoing SG, patients undergoing RYGB had a significantly greater risk of total fractures (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.06) and humeral fractures (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.24-2.07).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk of fracture in bariatric surgery-eligible patients. Sleeve gastrectomy might be the best option for weight loss in patients in which fractures could be a concern, as RYGB may be associated with an increased fracture risk compared with SG.

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.

A Specifically Designed Stent for Anastomotic Leaks after Bariatric Surgery: Experiences in a Tertiary Referral Hospital

BACKGROUND

The management of anastomotic leakage after either laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LGBP) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) remains a burden. Various options are available for the treatment of these leaks. A newer and less invasive option for the treatment of leaks is the use of endoluminal stents. The main drawback for this treatment is stent migration. The current study describes the outcome of a new, specifically designed stent for the treatment of anastomotic leaks after bariatric surgery.

METHODS

For this retrospective observational study, the medical charts of patients undergoing bariatric surgery between October 1, 2010 and July 1, 2013 were reviewed. All patients with anastomotic leakage, treated with the bariatric Hanarostent, were included.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were included out of a total of 1702 bariatric patients in the described period. Seven had a leakage after LSG, five after LGBP. An average of 2.4 endoscopic procedures and 1.25 stents were used per patient. Successful treatment was seen in nine out of 12 patients (75 %). Most common complication was dislocation or migration of the stent, occurring in eight patients (66.7 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The ECBB Hanarostent®, which was specifically designed for post bariatric leakages, shows equal but not favorable success rates in this small series compared to previous reports on other types of stenting techniques. Despite the stent design, the complication rate is not reduced and the main future goal should be to target the high stent migration rate.

Re-operations after Secondary Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review

This paper reviews reoperations rates for short- and long-term complications following secondary bariatric procedures and need for further bariatric surgery. The search revealed 28 papers (1317 secondary cases) following at least 75 % of patients for 12 months or more. For adjustable gastric banding (AGB), rebanding had higher re-revisional rates than conversions into other procedures. Conversion of AGB to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had the highest number of short- (10.7 %) and long-term (22.0 %) complications. We estimated 194 additional reoperations per 1000 patients having a secondary procedure, 8.8 % needing tertiary surgery. Despite being poorly reported, risks of reoperations for long-term complications and tertiary bariatric surgery are higher than usually reported risks of short-term complications and should be taken into account when choosing a secondary bariatric procedure and for economic evaluations.

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.

Conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe as a single-step procedure

BACKGROUND

Several different procedures have been proposed as a revisional procedure for treatment of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been advocated as the procedure of choice for revision. In this study, we compare the single- and two-step approaches for the revision of failed LAGB to LRYGB.

METHOD

All patients who underwent bariatric surgery were included in a prospective database. For the purpose of this study, patients who underwent revisional surgery from LAGB to LRYGB were selected. Records for individual patients were completed by data review. Complication rates and weight development were recorded until 2 years postoperatively. Data were compared between both procedures and with complications rates reported in literature.

RESULTS

Revisional gastric bypass surgery was performed in 257 patients. This was done as a planned single-step procedure in 220 (86 %) patients without indications for acute band removal and in 32 patients as a planned 2 step procedure. Five patients were planned as a single-step procedure but were intraoperatively converted to a 2-step procedure based on poor pouch tissue quality. No postoperative mortality occurred in both groups. No differences in early major morbidity and stricture formation were seen between the two groups. Gastric ulceration was more frequently observed after 2-steps procedure (8.5 vs. 1.7 %, p < 0.05). In comparison with data reported in literature, the single-step procedure had similar to lower complication rates. Percentage excess weight loss two years after revisional gastric bypass procedure was, respectively, 53 versus 67 % (p = 0.147) for single- and two-step procedure.

CONCLUSION

In patients without indications for acute band removal, the planned conversion of gastric banding to Roux-Y gastric bypass can be safely done in a single-step procedure without increase in morbidity and no difference in postoperative weight loss.

Two stages conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass. A study of one hundred patients

INTRODUCTION

Conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) appears to be the treatment of choice after failed LAGB. To reduce the risk of postoperative complications, some surgeons routinely adopt a two-stage strategy. The purpose of this study was to analyze our institution's experience with the two-stage procedure for LAGB conversion to LRYGB MATERIALS AND METHODS: The bariatric database of our institution was reviewed to identify patients who had undergone conversion of LAGB to LRYGB from November 2007 to June 2012.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included. Of these, 62 (62%) required conversion to LRYGB for inadequate weight loss or weight regain and 38 for band-related complications. All the procedures were performed in two stages and laparoscopically. The average time between band removal and LRYGB was 17.3 months. The mean follow-up after LRYGB was 31 ± 18.7 months. The mean BMI prior to LRYGB conversion was 45.3 ± 5.2. Early complications occurred in 15 patients (15%), while late complications occurred in only 3 patients (3%). The average %EWL at 24 months and 48 months after conversion was 70.1 and 69.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although a two-stage conversion strategy increases the number of operations and hospital stay without decreasing the rate of early complications compared to one-stage conversion; it has shown to be associated with low rates of GJA stenosis and excellent %EWL.

Five-year weight loss in primary gastric bypass and revisional gastric bypass for failed adjustable gastric banding: results of a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Despite their now frequent use, the long-term results for adjustable gastric bands are variable and often less than gastric bypass. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) provides good early results and seems to be the revisional procedure of choice. Nevertheless, the long-term outcomes following revisional LRYGB (rLRYGB) for failed adjustable gastric banding have not been compared with those for primary LRYGB (pLRYGB).

METHODS

The objective was to compare weight loss and changes in obesity related co-morbidities 5 years after pLRYGB and rLRYGB for failed adjustable gastric banding. The prospective database of a single surgery university center (Paris, France) was queried for clinical and other relevant data. From January 2004 to September 2008, 58 and 272 patients have undergone rLRYGB and pLRYGB, respectively. Rate of lost to follow-up was 13.3%. We matched 45 patients undergoing rLRYGB (case group) with 45 undergoing pLRYGB (control group) for age, sex, and initial body mass index (BMI).

RESULTS

Case and control groups did not differ for initial BMI (46.9±7.2 versus 46.9±7.5 kg/m²; P=.99), age (43.4±9.4 versus 43.6±9.8y; P=.91), or sex ratio (91.1% female, P=.99). The rates of coexisting conditions in the 2 groups were similar. At 5 years, weight loss (kg) (39.9±16.4 versus 31.4±15.8; P=.02), percentage of weight loss (%) (30.8±9.8 versus 24.8±11.5; P=.03), and percentage of excess weight loss (%) (68.4±20.6 versus 55.7±26.3; P=.007) were higher for pLRYGB than rLRYGB. Rates of remission and improvement of coexisting conditions were similar.

CONCLUSION

After 5 years of follow-up, pLRYGB provides greater weight loss than rLRYGB with similar rates of improvement and remission of coexisting conditions. Patients and surgeons should be aware of such results before primary and revisional bariatric surgery.

High failure rate of the laparoscopic-adjustable gastric band as a primary bariatric procedure

BACKGROUND

Determinants of success of a bariatric procedure are many but paramount is the ability to durably produce significant and reliable weight loss. We sought to determine the primary success of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) by defining failure as clinical weight loss failure with an intact band (excess weight loss [EWL]<20%) or band removal (terminal removal or conversion to a secondary bariatric procedure).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent an LAGB as a primary bariatric procedure between January 2003 and December 2007. Data collected included body mass index (BMI), weight, postoperative follow-up length, EWL, and adjustment number, as well as complications of the LAGB.

RESULTS

Sixteen of 120 patients had the band removed. Nine were terminally removed for unmanageable symptoms, and 7 were converted to an alternative bariatric procedure. The average follow-up for the 104 patients with an intact band was 4.8 years. The average EWL for successful intact bands was 44.9±19.4%; however, an additional 35.6% of patients had an EWL<20%. Patients with an EWL<20% had a significantly higher preoperative BMI and fewer band adjustments. In total, 44% of patients had band failure because of clinical weight loss failure (31%) or eventual band removal (13%).

CONCLUSION

This study finds that the LAGB failed as a primary bariatric procedure for 44% of patients because of either inadequate weight loss or adequate weight loss with unmanageable symptoms. This suggests that the LAGB should be abandoned as a primary bariatric procedure for the majority of morbidly obese patients because of its high failure rate.