Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Revision Procedure after Restrictive Bariatric Surgery

How Good is Stratification and Prediction Model Analysis Between Primary and Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery? A Multi-center Study and Narrative Review

INTRODUCTIONS

Revision surgery because of weight recurrence is performed in 2.5-33% of primary vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and gastric band (GB) cases. These cases qualify for revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2008 to 2019. A stratification analysis and multivariate logistic regression for prediction modeling compared the possibility of sufficient % excess weight loss (%EWL) ≥ 50 or insufficient %EWL < 50 between three different RRYGB procedures, with primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB) as the control during 2 years of follow-up. A narrative review was conducted to test the presence of prediction models in the literature and their internal and external validity.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients underwent PRYGB, and 338 underwent RRYGB after VBG, LSG, and GB, and completed 2 years of follow-up. Overall, 32.2% of patients after RRYGB had a sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after 2 years, compared to 71.3% after PRYGB (p ≤ 0.001). The total %EWL after the revision surgeries for VBG, LSG, and GB was 68.5%, 74.2%, and 64.1%, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). After correcting for confounding factors, the baseline odds ratio (OR) or sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after PRYGB, LSG, VBG, and GB was 2.4, 1.45, 0.29, and 0.32, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Age was the only significant variable in the prediction model (p = 0.0016). It was impossible to develop a validated model after revision surgery because of the differences between stratification and the prediction model. The narrative review showed only 10.2% presence of validation in the prediction models, and 52.5% had external validation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 32.2% of all patients after revisional surgery had a sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after 2 years, compared to PRYGB. LSG had the best outcome in the revisional surgery group in the sufficient %EWL group and the best outcome in the insufficient %EWL group. The skewness between the prediction model and stratification resulted in a partially non-functional prediction model.

Comparison of 5-Year Follow-up Outcomes Between Primary and Revision Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypasses After Open Vertical Banded Gastroplasty: an Inverse Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) is associated with high weight regain; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is used as a revision procedure in patients with VBG experiencing weight regain. This study compared the 5-year follow-up outcomes of primary (PRYGB) and revision RYGB after VBG (RRYGB).

METHODS

Patients who underwent PRYGB or RRYGB after VBG from 2008 to 2016 were enrolled. Data on weight regain, weight loss (WL), food tolerance (FT), early and late complications, and resolution or improvement in associated medical conditions were analyzed.

RESULTS

PRYGB and RRYGB groups had 558 and 156 patients, respectively, after exclusion of the lost to follow-up patients. PRYGB group showed significantly lower mean body mass index (over the entire follow-up period), early complications, reintervention rates for late complications, and overall reintervention rates than that of the RRYGB group. On the other hand, FT scores, odds of late complications, and improvements (in the fifth year) in associated medical conditions were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RRYGB in patients with VBG who regained weight showed comparable safety and resolution of associated diseases to that of PRYGB over the 5-year follow-up period. The WL in the RRYGB group was acceptable despite being less than that of the PRYGB group. FT was better after RRYGB than that of PRYGB in the first year; however, both were comparable at the fifth year follow-up. Patients with VBG undergoing RYGB should receive attentive treatment and evaluation of associated factors.

Re-Do Surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Single Center Comparison between Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass

Introduction: According to the high rate of patients requiring a Re-Do surgery after a primary Sleeve Gastrectomy, due to failure on weight loss, this study proposes a comparison between RYGB and OAGB as a secondary intervention for morbidly obese patients. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent revisional surgery to convert SG to RYGB or OAGB at our institution from November 2011 to November 2019 was performed. Results: A subset of sixty-three patients with previous SG underwent revisional surgery due to failure of the primary intervention. The OAGB group (n = 17) had a mean BMI at the time of the sleeve of 62 kg/m2 and a mean BMI of 50.7 kg/m2, the length of the Omega was 139.35 cm. The RYGB (n = 46) group showed a mean BMI of 47 kg/m2 at the time of the sleeve and a BMI of 34.8 kg/m2 at the time of the revision. The RYGB was performed according to the 70/120 cm standard for all the patients. One patient also had a revision from secondary OAGB to RYGB due to persistent biliary reflux, in this case the biliary branch was settled at 150 cm and the alimentary at 50 cm. Conclusions: The outcomes in the OAGB group showed a 29%WL and a 47%EWL (out of a 17%WL and 28%EWL at the time of the sleeve), on the other side the RYGB group reached a 33%WL and 72%EWL (out of a 25%WL and a 54%EWL at the time of the sleeve). According to our data we assume that RYGB is more effective in terms of weight loss as a revisional surgery after sleeve

Revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after failed gastric banding: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is technically demanding and is usually associated with higher intraoperative and perioperative risks than primary procedures. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of patients who had gastric bypass procedures performed as a rescue procedure for failed gastric banding, with those who had a primary gastric bypass.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional gastric bypass for failed gastric band was matched in a 1:2 ratio with control patients who underwent a primary RYGB, based on gender, score, preoperative body mass index, and comorbidities. Data were retrospectively retrieved.

RESULTS

Thirty one (33.3%) patients underwent band removal and gastric bypass (group A) and 62 (66.6%) only primary gastric bypass (group B). Nonsignificant differences were seen in operative time, operative bleeding, or length of stay. Complications were more frequent in group A. Postoperative weight at 12-month follow-up was greater in group A, however, not statistically significant. Changes in weight, both absolute, and percentage were not different between groups. This observation was also true for BMI, in which no significant differences were seen. Overall, mean follow-up was 16 ± 3.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Gastric bypass can be performed as revisional bariatric surgery, with low complication rates and acceptable outcomes, though not with the same safety as a primary procedure. Gastric bypass is a satisfactory option for patients with a failed gastric band.

Endoscopic revision for weight regain after open vertical-banded gastroplasty

Video 1Technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a novel endoscopic approach to treating weight regain after open vertical-banded gastroplasty using an endoscopic suturing device.

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.

Enhanced Recovery After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a Retrospective Study of 321 Patients with Laparoscopic Conversion of Failed Gastric Banding or Failed Mason Gastroplasty to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

PURPOSE

With the rising incidence of failed bariatric procedures, the importance of revisional surgery has been increasing. These revisional procedures come with a higher risk of complications leading to longer hospital stays. We believe though that enhanced recovery after revisional bariatric surgery is possible and needs to be advocated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our laparoscopic conversions of failed gastric banding and failed Mason gastroplasty to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A total of 321 patients was included in the study, from February 2010 until December 2019. The primary endpoints were length of stay (LoS), in-hospital complication rate, and early readmission rate (< 30 days). Logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of several independent variables on complication and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were male and 267 female. The mean age was 44.2 years and mean BMI at the time of conversion was 37.9 kg/m². We converted 273 failed adjustable gastric bandings (85,0%) and 48 failed Mason gastroplasties (15.0%). The main reason for conversion was the recurrence of obesity. A mean LoS of 2.10 days was calculated. We had an overall in-hospital complication rate of 3.73% and the overall early readmission rate was 3.43%. The odds ratio for LoS on early readmission is 1.52 (p=0.0079; CI 95% [1.12-2.07]).

CONCLUSION

The above data imply that the implementation of advanced ERAS principles for revisional surgery in our center is safe and does not lead to a higher risk of early readmission.

Twelve-Year Experience with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as a Conversional Procedure for Vertical Banded Gastroplasty: Are We on the Right Track?

BACKGROUND

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) has high rates of long-term complications. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered optimal; however, there are limited data on the late results of these conversions. We aimed to analyze our single-center long-term outcomes of patients requiring conversional RYGB for a failed VBG.

METHODS

The records of patients who underwent RYGB as a conversional procedure after VBG from November 2004 to December 2016 were reviewed. Follow-up data were obtained by direct telephone calls with patients, electronic files, and general practitioner reports. Characteristics, indications of conversion, long-term (> 30 days) morbidities, weight records, obesity-related comorbidities, and overall patient satisfaction were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 305 VBG patients (82% female) underwent conversional RYGB during the study period. The mean pre-RYGB body mass index (BMI) was 35.6 (23-66) kg/m². Conversions were indicated in 61% of patients because of simultaneous VBG complications and weight regain. After a median follow-up of 74.3 (5-151) months, 225 (73.8%) patients agreed to participate. The mean BMI and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) were 28.6 (18-45) kg/m² and 17.4%, respectively. Nearly all conversion indications were addressed effectively. Surgical reintervention was mandatory in 28 of 225 patients (12.4%) due to complications. Approximately 85% of patients reported complete remission of obesity-related comorbidities, and four-fifths were fully satisfied.

CONCLUSION

RYGB resolves VBG complications, improves quality of life, and results in prolonged stable weight loss. It has a key role in the management of obesity-related comorbidities and in expert hands is the preferred conversional procedure for patients with failed VBG.

Conversion of both Versions of Vertical Banded Gastroplasty to Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Analysis of Short-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Conversional bariatric surgery has relatively high rates of complications. We aimed to analyze our single-center experience with patients requiring conversional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) following a failed primary open or laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty (OVBG or LVBG, respectively).

METHODS

The records of patients who underwent LRYGB as a conversional procedure after VBG between November 2004 and December 2017 were reviewed. Characteristics, body mass index (BMI), operation time, intraoperative problems, length of hospitalization, and early (< 30 days) morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or frequency.

RESULTS

A total of 329 patients (81.76% females) who underwent conversional RYGB were included. For the LVBG group (224 patients) and OVBG group (105 patients), respectively, BMI was 34.15 ± 6.38 and 37.79 ± 6.31 kg/m2 (p < 0.05), the operation time was 96.00 ± 31.40 and 123.15 ± 40.26 min (p < 0.05), hospitalization duration was 2.96 ± 1.13 and 3.20 ± 1.20 days (p = 0.08), the early complication rate was 7.14 and 11.43% (p = 0.19), and the reoperation rate was 2.23 and 2.86% (p = 0.73). There were no major intraoperative problems. Three patients with OVBG were converted to open RYGB (2.86%). There was no mortality.

CONCLUSION

The conversion of OVBG and LVBG to laparoscopic RYGB is technically feasible and provides comparably low early morbidity rates and length of hospitalization. However, compared to LVBG, conversional laparoscopic RYGB following OVBG is technically more challenging and time-consuming, with a slightly higher risk of conversion to open surgery. We support the use of such conversional bariatric surgery in specialized, high-volume bariatric centers.

Safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in Mexico: A detailed analysis of 500 surgeries performed at a high-volume center

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Bariatric surgery is the best method for treating obesity and its comorbidities. Our aim was to provide a detailed analysis of the perioperative outcomes in Mexican patients that underwent surgery at a high-volume hospital center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on all the patients that underwent bariatric surgery at a single hospital center within a time frame of 4 and one-half years. Demographics, the perioperative variables, complications (early and late), weight loss, failure, and type 2 diabetes mellitus remission were all analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients were included in the study, 83.2% of whom were women. Mean patient age was 38.8 years and BMI was 44.1kg/m². The most common comorbidities were high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery was performed in 85.8% of the patients, sleeve gastrectomy in 13%, and revision surgeries in 1%. There were 9.8% early complications and 12.2% late ones, with no deaths. Overall weight loss as the excess weight loss percentage at 12 and 24 months was 76.9 and 77.6%. The greatest weight loss at 12 months was seen in the patients that underwent laparoscopic gastric bypass. A total of 11.4% of the patients had treatment failure. In the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, 68.7% presented with complete disease remission and 9.3% with partial remission. There was improvement in 21.8% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience at a high-volume hospital center, bariatric surgery is safe and effective, based on the low number of adverse effects and consequent weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus control. Long-term studies with a larger number of patients are needed to determine the final impact of those procedures.

Revision of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Weight Regain: a Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Weight regain has led to an increase in revision of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgeries. There is no standardized approach to revisional surgery after failed RYGB. We performed an exhaustive literature search to elucidate surgical revision options. Our objective was to evaluate outcomes and complications of various methods of revision after RYGB to identify the option with the best outcomes for failed primary RYGB.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted using the following search tools and databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Cochrane Review Database, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine to identify all relevant studies describing revision after failed RYGB. Inclusion criteria comprised of revisional surgery for weight gain after RYGB.

RESULTS

Of the 1200 articles found, only 799 were selected for our study. Of the 799, 24 studies, with a total of 866 patients, were included for a systematic review. Of the 24 studies, 5 were conversion to Distal Roux-en-y gastric bypass (DRYGB), 5 were revision of gastric pouch and anastomosis, 6 were revision with gastric band, 2 were revision to biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS), and 6 were revision to endoluminal procedures (i.e., stomaphyx). Mean percent excess body mass index loss (%EBMIL) after revision up to 1 and 3-year follow-up for BPD/DS was 63.7 and 76 %, DRYGB was 54 and 52.2 %, gastric banding revision 47.6 and 47.3 %, gastric pouch/anastomosis revision 43.3 and 14 %, and endoluminal procedures at 32.1 %, respectively. Gastric pouch/anastomosis revision resulted in the lowest major complication rate at 3.5 % and DRYGB with the highest at 11.9 % when compared to the other revisional procedures. The mortality rate was 0.6 % which only occurred in the DRYGB group.

CONCLUSION

All 866 patients in the 24 studies reported significant early initial weight loss after revision for failed RYGB. However, of the five surgical revision options considered, BPD/DS, DRYGB, and gastric banding resulted in sustained weight loss, with acceptable complication rate.

Management of Complications and Outcomes After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: 3-Year Experience at a Bariatric Center of Excellence

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is increasingly common. A tailored decision-making process is advocated. In this retrospective study, we reviewed the RBS experience of a single center, analyzing perioperative complications to provide insight into management options and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Records from November 2011 to March 2015 were reviewed from prospectively maintained database. Six hundred eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures; of these, 81 (13.1 %) underwent RBS. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months (n = 77) were evaluated. Fifty-nine underwent revised laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and 18 underwent revised Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Indications for RBS were inadequate weight loss or weight regain in 42 cases (54.5 %) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), procedure-related complications, or technical failure in 35 cases (45.5 %).

RESULTS

There were no deaths or conversions to open surgery. After a mean follow-up of 22 months, body mass index (BMI) decreased from 40.9 ± 6.7 to 31.9 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), mean % excess weight loss (%EWL) was 58 ± 24.3 %, and 55.3 % of patients had resolution of comorbidities. Eight major complications (10.4 %) occurred: five leaks and three intra-abdominal hematomas. Non-surgical management succeeded in 50 % of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that RBS is challenging; a complication rate of 10 % is expected. Major surgery can be avoided when devoted endoscopists and radiologists are available. Intensive follow-up after complications allows early diagnosis and treatment of unfavorable sequelae. RBS induced a mean %EWL of 58 % at 2 years and resolution of comorbidities in 50 % of cases. However, the durability of these effects remains questionable.

Revisional bariatric surgery for unsuccessful weight loss and complications

BACKGROUND

There are growing numbers of patients who require revisional bariatric surgery due to the undesirable results of their primary procedures. The aim of this study was to review our experience with bariatric patients undergoing revisional surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis to review the indications for revisional bariatric procedures and assess their postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

From 04/04 to 01/11, 2,918 patients underwent bariatric surgery at our institution. A total of 154 patients (5.3%) of these cases were coded as revisional procedures. The mean age at revision was 49.1 ± 11.3 and the mean BMI was 44.0 ± 13.7 kg/m2. Revisional surgery was performed laparoscopically in 121 patients (78.6%). Laparoscopic revisions had less blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer complications compared to open revisions. Two groups (A and B) were defined by the indication for revision: patients with unsuccessful weight loss (group A, n = 106) and patients with complications of their primary procedures (group B, n = 48). In group A, 74.5% of the patients were revised to a bypass procedure and 25.5% to a restrictive procedure. Mean excess weight loss was 53.7 ± 29.3% after revision of primary restrictive procedures and 37.6 ± 35.1% after revision of bypass procedures at >1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). In group B, the complications prompting revision were effectively treated by revisional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional bariatric surgery effectively treated the undesirable results from primary bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic revisional surgery can be performed after both failed open and laparoscopic bariatric procedures without a prohibitive complication rate. Carefully selected patients undergoing revision for weight regain have satisfactory additional weight loss.

Robotically assisted revision of bariatric surgeries is safe and effective to achieve further weight loss

BACKGROUND

As more bariatric operations are being performed in the USA every year, the number of revisions has increased. These operations are challenging and have a higher morbidity than the initial operation. We have reviewed our series of robotically assisted revisions.

METHODS

At the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, we reviewed robotic revision cases from 2004 through 2011 and found 99 bariatric revisions using robotic assistance. Selected endpoints included body mass index (BMI) at follow-up, percent excess weight loss (%EWL), complications, intubation time, operative time, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The average BMI at the time of revision was 44.8 kg/m(2) and fell to 29 kg/m(2) after 3 years. BMI was significantly lower at all time intervals (3, 12, 24, and 36 months) compared to initial BMI (p < 0.001). The %EWL was also significant at 1, 3, 12, 24, and 36 months post-revision (p < 0.001). There was a 24 % (13/55) 90-day readmission rate. The overall complication rate was 17 %, with each individual complication rate between 2 and 4 %. There were no deaths. The average operative time was 204 min, and the average length of hospital stay was 2.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Revising previous bariatric operations to gastric bypass is difficult and time consuming. Although robotically assisted revision can be done safely and can result in effective further weight loss, the high postoperative complication rate is an issue that warrants further attention.

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.

Revisional versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been a widely performed bariatric procedure. Unfortunately, revisional surgery is required in 20-30% of cases. Data comparing revisional and primary gastric bypass procedures are scarce. This study compared revisional malabsorptive laparoscopic very very long limb (VVLL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with primary VVLL RYGB and tested the hypothesis that one-stage revisional laparoscopic VVLL RYGB is an effective procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

In this study, 48 revisional VVLL RYGBs were matched one-to-one with 48 primary VVLL RYGBs. The outcome measures were operating time, conversion to open surgery, excess weight loss (EWL), and early and late morbidity.

RESULTS

Surgical and medical morbidities did not differ significantly. No conversions occurred. The revisional group showed an EWL of 41.8% after 12 months of follow-up evaluation and 45.1% after 24 months based on the pre-revisional weight. The total EWL based on the weight before the LAGB was calculated to be 54.3% after 12 months and 57.2% after 24 months. The EWL in the primary RYGB group was significantly higher for both types of calculation: 41.8%/54.3% versus 64.1 % (p < 0.001 and <0.01) after 12 months and 45.1%/57.2% versus 70.4% (p < 0.001 and <0.002) after 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional laproscopic VVLL RYGB can be performed as a one-stage procedure by experienced bariatric surgeons but shows less effective EWL than primary RYGB procedures.

Revisional surgery for failed vertical-banded gastroplasty

Vertical-banded gastroplasty (VBG) was once a common bariatric procedure. It has fallen out of favor due to the emergence of the adjustable gastric band and late complications including band erosion and stenosis. Options for revision include conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or VBG reversal via gastrogastrostomy. Patients undergoing revision of a previous VBG were identified. VBG reversal was performed laparoscopically. Conversion to RYGB was performed by both laparotomy and laparoscopy. Perioperative outcomes and long-term weight loss were evaluated. A total of 34 patients with a previous open VBG underwent revision over a nearly 8-year period (January 2003 to September 2010). Conversion to RYGB was performed in 25 (four laparoscopically) and VBG reversal in nine patients. Mean age for all patients was 56.3 years (range 36-70), and VBG had been performed 23 years previously (range 16-30). Patients to undergo VBG reversal were more likely to be male and less likely to be morbidly obese at the time of revision. Operative time and length of stay were shorter for laparoscopic procedures. Complication rates did not differ based on technique or procedure. Patients with a previous VBG may present with complications and obesity decades after the primary procedure. Revisional surgery can be accomplished laparoscopically. Following VBG reversal, most patients gain weight and many become morbidly obese again. Conversion to RYGB is associated with weight loss and resolution of morbid obesity in most patients. When feasible, laparoscopic conversion to RYGB may offer the best outcomes.

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.

Indications, safety, and feasibility of conversion of failed bariatric surgery to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a retrospective comparative study with primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is considered the "gold standard" revision procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of primary laparoscopic RYGB (pLRYGB) to revisional open or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (rRYGB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent pLRYGB or rRYGB from January 2003 to December 2009 has been performed. Demographics, indications for revision, and complications have been reviewed. The rRYGB and pLRYGB patients have been compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients underwent rRYGB, and 652 patients underwent pLRYGB. Mean follow-up was 35 and 45 months, respectively. Fifty-six rRYGB procedures were performed laparoscopically. The primary operations had consisted of laparoscopic gastric banding (n = 28), laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 19), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (n = 6), laparoscopic RYGB (n = 3), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (n = 16). Indications included weight regain (n = 29), malabsorption (n = 16), gastrogastric fistula (n = 5), band-associated problems (n = 3), and refractory stomal ulceration (n = 1). There was no significant difference in early or late postoperative complications when comparing rRYGB to pLRYGBP patients (11.1% vs. 5.52%, P = 0.069 and 19.4% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.465 respectively). Five rRYGB patients (7.04%) required reintervention (3 internal hernias, 1 ventral hernia, 1 laparoscopic exploration) compared with 101 pLRYGB patients (15.71%; P = 0.051). None of the patients died. Mean hospital stay was not significantly longer in the rRYGB group (5.38 vs. 4.95 days, P = 0.058).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality of rRYGB were not significantly higher compared with pLRYGB. Furthermore, we believe that this type of revisional bariatric surgery should be performed in high-volume bariatric centers.

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.

Endolumenal revision obesity surgery results in weight loss and closure of gastric-gastric fistula

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20-50% of patients regain weight 3-5 years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. Gastric-gastric fistulas and dilation of the gastrojejunostomy and gastric pouch have been reported in these patients. Traditional revision surgery after RYGB has greater morbidity and mortality compared with the index bariatric procedure. We studied our initial results with revision of obesity surgery using an endoscopic platform in a community hospital setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who had undergone this endoscopic revisional procedure secondary to significant weight regain with or without gastric-gastric fistula. All patients underwent revision of the gastrojejunostomy and/or closure of the gastric-gastric fistula using this minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

A total of 37 consecutive patients (36 women) with a mean age of 45 years and mean weight regain of 15.1 ± 10.0 kg were included in the present study. The mean interval between RYGB and revision was 5.2 years (range 1-11). The mean preoperative and postoperative stomal size was 21.5 and 10 mm, respectively. Anchors were successfully placed in all patients. The mean follow-up period was 4.69 months (range 2-10). The mean percentage of excess body weight loss was 23.5% ± 66.4%. No immediate complications developed. Two patients underwent endoscopic dilation of the stoma because of persistent meal intolerance. Three gastric-gastric fistulas were successfully closed.

CONCLUSION

Revision of gastrojejunostomy after RYGB can be safely undertaken using this endoscopic platform. The short-term follow-up results showed clinically significant weight loss. Long-term follow-up is needed. Closure of gastric-gastric fistulas can also be achieved using this procedure.

Incisionless revision of post-Roux-en-Y bypass stomal and pouch dilation: multicenter registry results

BACKGROUND

Surgical revision for weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been tempered by the high complication rates associated with standard approaches. Endoluminal revision of stoma and pouch dilation should intuitively confer a better risk profile. However, questions of clinical safety, durability, and weight loss need to be answered. We report our multicenter intraoperative experience and postoperative follow-up to date using the Incisionless Operating Platform for this patient subset.

METHODS

The patients who had regained significant weight >or=2 years after RYGB after losing >or=50% of excess body weight after RYGB were endoscopically screened for stomal and/or pouch dilation. Qualified patients underwent incisionless revision using the Incisionless Operating Platform to reduce the stoma and pouch size by placing anchors to create tissue plications. Data on the safety, intraoperative performance, postoperative weight loss, and anchor durability were recorded to date as a part of 2 years of postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 116 consecutive patients were prospectively studied. Anchors were successfully placed in 112 (97%) of 116 patients, with an average intraoperative stoma diameter and pouch length reduction of 50% and 44%, respectively. The operating room time averaged 87 minutes. No significant complications occurred. At 6 months after the procedure (n = 96), an average of 32% of weight regain that had occurred after RYGB had been lost. The percentage of excess weight loss averaged 18%. The 12-month esophagogastroduodenoscopy results confirmed the presence of the anchors and durable tissue folds.

CONCLUSIONS

Incisionless revision of stoma and pouch dilation using the Incisionless Operating Platform can be performed safely. The data to date have demonstrated mild-to-moderate weight loss, and the early 12-month endoscopic images have confirmed anchor durability. Patients were actively followed up to document the long-term durability of this intervention in the entire patient subset.

Reasons and outcomes of laparoscopic revisional surgery after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is a purely restrictive procedure that has been proved to be an effective tool in achieving weight loss. The low operative morbidity and reversibility are often seen as advantages of this procedure compared with other bariatric approaches. We have attempted to define the reasons for revisional surgery after LAGB and the outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed from February 2001 to October 2008 at a center of excellence after institutional review board approval. The patients who had undergone revisional surgery after primary LAGB were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 343 patients who had undergone primary LAGB, 60 subsequently underwent a revisional procedure. In addition, 28 revisional procedures were performed on patients who had undergone primary LAGB at an outside institution. These procedures included 39 (44.3%) band removals alone, 12 (13.6%) band removals with conversion to sleeve gastrectomy, 13 (14.8%) band removals with conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 9 (10.2%) band repositioning, and 2 (2.3%) band replacements. In addition, 13 (14.8%) port-related procedures (3 relocations, 6 reconnections, and 4 replacements/removals) were performed.

CONCLUSION

Although reversible and efficacious, LAGB appears to have a high incidence of complications requiring revisional surgery and/or band removal. The results of our study have shown that laparoscopic revisional surgery after primary LAGB is safe and can be performed with minimal morbidity.

Laparoscopic conversion of adjustable gastric banding and vertical banded gastroplasty to duodenal switch

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective consecutive study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the conversion of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and open vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) into duodenal switch (DS) by laparoscopy.

METHODS

From November 2003 to February 2007, laparoscopic conversion into DS was performed in 1-step in 43 patients, 31 after LAGB and 12 after VBG. The reason for conversion was weight loss issues, such as insufficient excess weight loss (EWL) or weight regain. The mean interval from LAGB and VBG to conversion to the DS was 42.7 +/- 28.7 months and 172.2 +/- 86.9 months, respectively. The mean %EWL at conversion was 8.3% +/- 19.3% after LAGB and 20.8% +/- 30% after VBG.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 205.8 +/- 44.8 minutes for LAGB and 210.9 +/- 53.7 minutes for VBG. No conversions to open surgery occurred. One patient in the LAGB group died on the third postoperative day of sudden death syndrome, as shown by the postmortem examination. Major complications occurred in 6.4% of patients with LAGB (1 hemoperitoneum and 1 ileoileostomy leak) and in 50% with VBG (1 sleeve gastrectomy leak with subsequent duodenoileostomy leak, 3 duodenoileostomy leaks, 1 pancreatitis, and 1 respiratory insufficiency). The mean hospital stay was 5.5 +/- 5 days for the LAGB group and 34.5 +/- 50.3 days for the VBG group. After a mean follow-up of 28 +/- 15.7 months for LAGB to DS and 43.5 +/- 6 months for VBG to DS, reoperations for late complications were required in 6 patients (20.6%) in the LAGB to DS group and in 5 patients (62.5%) in the VBG to DS group. Three patients (25%) died within 8 months after conversion of VBG. The 29 surviving patients (LAGB to DS) showed a mean %EWL and percentage of excess body mass index loss of (%EBMIL) 78.4% +/- 24.9% and 77.8% +/- 23.7%, respectively. The 8 surviving patients (VBG to DS) had a mean %EWL and %EBMIL of 85.1% +/- 20% and 85.8% +/- 18.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

According to these results, laparoscopic conversion of LAGB to DS seems feasible and effective, despite the 1 death. However, in our hands, laparoscopic conversion of VBG to DS had an unacceptable rate of complications and deaths.