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

A Comparison of One- and Two-Stage Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding Using the BAROS Score

INTRODUCTION

Revision of a failed band can be done by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). It can be performed synchronously with band removal or during two separate procedures.

AIM

Comparing single- and two-staged LSG following a failed LAGB in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes, with an emphasis on postoperative quality of life.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study comparing revisional LSG's safety and efficacy after failed LAGB removal. Data included patients' medical files, as telephone interviews. We compared demographics, weight loss, complications, long-term outcomes, and quality-of-life measures, including the Bariatric Analysis and Reporting Outcome System (BAROS).

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were enrolled, of which 68 (73.1%) underwent a single-stage revisional LSG. Of these, 40 were males (35.1%) with a mean age of 44.9 years (± 12.9). The two-staged group were older. The reasons for band removal differed between the groups: whereas in the two-stage surgery, the common causes were slippage (29.2%) or band intolerance (25%); in the single-stage group, it was weight gain (51%). There were no differences in short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

In selected cases, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a revision of failed gastric banding in one stage is as safe as a two-stage procedure in terms of short- and mid-term complications, weight loss, and quality of life. We believe that there is little benefit in performing elective surgery in two stages unless there are clinical indications. Exceptions for two-stage revision should include cases of band erosion and acute slippage with patient preference for band removal.

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.

Management of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band erosion

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was a popular procedure in the USA and Europe in the past decade. However, its use has currently declined. Band erosion (BE) is a rare complication after LAGB with a reported incidence rate of 1.46 %. Controversies exist regarding the management, approach and timing for the band removal. The aim of this study is to describe the rate, clinical presentation and perioperative outcomes of BEs at our institution and provide overall recommendations regarding the diagnosis and management of BE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a single-center, retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Data were collected from all consecutive patients who underwent a LAGB and band revisional surgeries at the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System from December 2008 to September 2015. We identified patients who underwent gastric band removal due to a BE and analyzed their outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 576 LAGBs were performed at our institution. Nine patients underwent surgery for BE at our hospital. The average time between the primary surgery and the removal of the band was 68.5 (42.9) months. Abdominal pain, nausea and/or vomiting were the most frequently mentioned symptoms. In all patients, a minimally invasive approach was used to remove the band. The mean length of hospitalization was 2.6 (1.1) days. The only complication was a pneumonia (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

BE is one of the most severe complications of LAGB. The minimally invasive approach provided us with the opportunity to repair the fistula, and it was associated with a prompt recovery with very little morbidity. In general, it is recommended that the band be removed at the time of the diagnosis of the BE. Endoscopic band removal can be utilized with patients who have a more advanced BE and migration into the gastric lumen.