Revisional bariatric surgery

Weight loss and clinical outcomes following primary versus secondary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multi-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgeries are increasing for weight recurrence and return of co-morbidities. Herein, we compare weight loss and clinical outcomes following primary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (P-RYGB), adjustable gastric banding to RYGB (B-RYGB), and sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB (S-RYGB) to determine if primary versus secondary RYGB offer comparable benefits.

METHODS

Participating institutions' EMRs and MBSAQIP databases were used to identify adult patients who underwent P-/B-/S-RYGB from 2013 to 2019 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Weight loss and clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years. Our multivariable model controlled for year, institution, patient and procedure characteristics, and excess body weight (EBW).

RESULTS

768 patients underwent RYGB: P-RYGB n = 581 [75.7%]; B-RYGB n = 106 [13.7%]; S-RYGB n = 81 [10.5%]. The number of secondary RYGB procedures increased in recent years. The most common indications for B-RYGB and S-RYGB were weight recurrence/nonresponse (59.8%) and GERD (65.4%), respectively. Mean time from index operation to B-RYGB or S-RYGB was 8.9 and 3.9 years, respectively. After adjusting for EBW, 1 year %TWL (total weight loss) and %EWL (excess weight loss) were greater after P-RYGB (30.4%, 56.7%) versus B-RYGB (26.2%, 49.4%) or S-RYGB (15.6%, 37%). Overall comorbidity resolution was comparable. Secondary RYGB patients had a longer adjusted mean length of stay (OR 1.17, p = 0.071) and a higher risk of pre-discharge complications or 30-day reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Primary RYGB offers superior short-term weight loss outcomes compared to secondary RYGB, with decreased risk of 30-day reoperation.

Weight loss and malnutrition after conversion of the primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass to distal gastric bypass in patients with morbid obesity

BACKGROUND

After Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 15% to 35% of patients fail to lose sufficient weight. Distalization of the limbs of the RYGB (D-RYGB) with shortening of the common channel (CC), has been used to induce additional weight loss. However, this may increase the risk of malnutrition.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess postoperative outcomes after D-RYGB with an alimentary limb of 250 to 300 cm and CC of 100 cm.

SETTING

General hospital, specialized in bariatric surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied all patients who underwent revision of RYGB to D-RYGB between January 2014 and April 2018. Data were collected from medical records, including weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, and co-morbidities. Questionnaires on defecation pattern, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were obtained.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were included. Total weight loss (%TWL) increased significantly from 12% to 30% after D-RYGB. In 62% of patients %TWL >25% was achieved. Patients with %TWL <25% after primary RYGB, lost significantly more weight than initially reached after RYGB. Diabetes and hypertension remission occurred in 67% and 50%, respectively. Five patients (11%) needed subsequent lengthening of the CC to 250 cm due to protein malnutrition or debilitating defecation patterns. Nutritional deficiencies were present in 89% of patients after D-RYGB despite the prescription of specialized multivitamins.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of the primary RYGB to D-RYGB improves weight loss and co-morbidities in patients with insufficient weight loss after primary RYGB. After D-RYGB, nutritional complications and diarrhea are a risk. Based on this study, a modified D-RYGB with a longer CC of >200 cm will be considered.

30-Day Outcomes of Revisional Bariatric Stapling Procedures: First Report Based on MBSAQIP Data Registry

INTRODUCTION

The number of bariatric revisional cases has nearly doubled since 2011, and now comprises 13.6% of the total number of cases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and safety of the two most common stapling revisional procedures, namely, sleeve and gastric bypass in comparison to primary stapling procedures using the MBSAQIP data registry.

METHODS

We reviewed all the sleeve and gastric bypass cases entered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, in the MBSAQIP data registry. We, then, identified sleeve and bypass patients who have had a previous bariatric procedure. Demographics and 30 day outcomes of all sleeve and gastric bypass patients were analyzed. We conducted within group comparisons comparing primary sleeve gastrectomy (PS) and primary gastric bypass (PB) patients to revisional sleeve (RS) and revisional gastric bypass (RB) patients, respectively. We, then, conducted group comparisons comparing RS to RB patients.

RESULTS

The total number of patients analyzed was 141,577 (98,292 or 69% sleeve patients and 43,285 or 31% gastric bypass patients). Among the sleeve patients, 92,666 (94%) had a PS and 5626 (6%) had RS. Among the bypass patients, 39,567 (91%) had a PB and 3718 patients (9%) had RB. 30-day readmission rate of RS was significantly higher as compared to PS (4.1 vs 0.4%, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention within 30 days following RS was twice as high as compared to PS (1.9 and 2% for RS vs 0.9 and 1.1% for PS respectively, p < 0.05). Length of stay and 30 day mortality rates for PS and RS were the same. 30-day readmission rate of RB as compared to PB was 8.3 vs 6.3% (p < 0.05). Also, the incidence of at least one complication requiring reoperation or reintervention following RB was 3.9 and 4%, respectively vs 2.4 and 2.7% for PB (p < 0.05). In addition, readmission rates and unplanned admission rates to the ICU were significantly higher for RB compared to RS (8.3 and 2% for RB vs 4.1 and 0.9% for RS respectively, p < 0.05). The incidence of at least one reoperation or one intervention following RB were also significantly higher compared to RS (3.9 vs 1.9% and 4 vs 2% respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Revisional stapling procedures are safe but the rates of complications following RS and RB are twice as high compared to PS and PB. Also, RB are more likely to develop complications compared to RS.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Radiological Guide to Common Postsurgical Failure

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is one of the most common bariatric procedures worldwide. It has recently gained in popularity because of a low complication rate, satisfactory resolution of comorbidities, and excellent weight loss outcome. This article reviews the surgical technique, expected postsurgical imaging appearance, and imaging findings of common complications after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Understanding of the surgical technique of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and of the normal postsurgical anatomy allows accurate interpretation of imaging findings in cases of insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and postsurgical complications.

Transoral outlet reduction: a comparison of purse-string with interrupted stitch technique

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Weight regain after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) correlates with dilated gastrojejunal anastomosis (GJA). Endoscopic sutured transoral outlet reduction (TORe) is a safe and effective management and has predominantly been performed by either placing interrupted sutures at the GJA or the creation of a purse-string suture. The aim of the current study was to compare these techniques.

METHODS

All patients undergoing TORe for weight regain after RYGB were prospectively enrolled. Primary outcome was mean percent total weight loss (%TWL) at 3 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included percent excess weight loss (%EWL), percent regained weight lost (%RWL), and total weight loss. Proportions were compared using the Fisher exact test and continuous variables using the Student t test. A P = .05 was significant. Multivariable regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-one patients were enrolled (purse string = 187, interrupted = 54). There was no statistical difference between the purse-string and interrupted groups at 3 months in %TWL (8.6 vs 8.0, P = .41), %EWL (20.5 vs 16.7, P = .39), % RWL (44.7 vs 33.3, P = .56), and total weight loss (9.5 vs 11.3, P = .32). At 12 months the purse-string group achieved statistically significant improvement in %TWL (8.6 vs 6.4, P = .02), %EWL (19.8 vs 11.7, P < .001), %RWL (40.2 vs 27.8, P = .02), and total weight loss (9.5 vs 7.8, P = .04). Multivariable regression showed that technique (P = .006) was an independent predictor of %TWL at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

TORe is effective in treatment of weight regain after failed gastric bypass. The purse-string technique results in greater weight loss at 12 months than the traditional interrupted suture pattern.

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.

Complications of Bariatric Surgery: What You Can Expect to See in Your GI Practice

Obesity is one of the most significant health problems worldwide. Bariatric surgery has become one of the fastest growing operative procedures and has gained acceptance as the leading option for weight-loss. Despite improvement in the performance of bariatric surgical procedures, complications are not uncommon. There are a number of unique complications that arise in this patient population and require specific knowledge for proper management. Furthermore, conditions unrelated to the altered anatomy typically require a different management strategy. As such, a basic understanding of surgical anatomy, potential complications, and endoscopic tools and techniques for optimal management is essential for the practicing gastroenterologist. Gastroenterologists should be familiar with these procedures and complication management strategies. This review will cover these topics and focus on major complications that gastroenterologists will be most likely to see in their practice.

A comparison of revisional and primary bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery is an important component of addressing weight regain and complications following primary bariatric surgery. Owing to provincial need and the complexity of this patient population, a specialized multidisciplinary revision clinic was developed. We sought to characterize patients who undergo revision surgery and compare their outcomes with primary bariatric surgery clinic data.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of bariatric revision clinic patients compared with primary bariatric surgery patients from December 2009 to June 2014.

RESULTS

We reviewed the charts of 2769 primary bariatric clinic patients, 886 of whom had bariatric surgery, and 534 revision bariatric clinic patients, 83 of whom had revision surgery. Fewer revision clinic patients underwent surgery than primary clinic patients (22% v. 32%). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.7 ± 9.5 in revision patients compared with 45.7 ± 7.6 in primary bariatric surgery patients. Most revision patients had a prior vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG; 48%) or a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB; 24%). Bands were removed in 36% of all LAGB patients presenting to clinic. Of the 134 procedures performed in the revision clinic, 83 were bariatric weight loss surgeries, and 51 were band removals. Revision clinic patients experienced a significant decrease in BMI (from 44.7 ± 9.5 to 33.8 ± 7.5, p < 0.001); their BMI at 12-month follow-up was similar to that of primary clinic patients (34.5 ± 7.0, p = 0.7). Complications were significantly more frequent in revision patients than primary patients (41% v. 15%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A bariatric revision clinic manages a wide variety of complex patients distinct from those seen in a primary clinic. Operative candidates at the revision clinic are chosen based on favourable medical, anatomic and psychosocial factors, keeping in mind the resource constraints of a public health care system.

Quality criteria in bariatric surgery: Consensus review and recommendations of the Spanish Association of Surgeons and the Spanish Society of Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery has proven to be highly effective in controlling obesity and metabolic syndrome; the results of this surgery are not only expressed in terms of weight loss, but also in terms of resolution of comorbidities, improved quality of life and complications. The different parameters used to measure these outcomes require uniformity and reference patterns. Therefore, it is essential to identify those indicators and quality criteria that are helpful in defining the «best practice» principles in bariatric surgery. In this regard, the Section of Obesity of the Spanish Association of Surgeons, in collaboration with the Spanish Society for Bariatric Surgery (SECO), present as an objective to identify the key points that define «quality» in this type of surgery. We describe the main indicators based on the published literature as well as the criteria for referral of the main comorbidities according to the evidence found and grades of recommendation.

Psychosocial presentation of female bariatric surgery patients after multiple revisional surgeries: A qualitative study

Bariatric surgery is currently the most viable and cost-effective treatment for obesity. This study aimed to understand, from a female patient’s perspective, what contributed to not achieving or maintaining excess weight loss from a primary laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery, leading to subsequent multiple revisional bariatric surgeries. The purposive sample of participants ( N = 17 females) were over 18 years, had a primary failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and had more than three revisional procedures. Participants were individually interviewed and data were analysed from a grounded theory methodology to build a causal model with the core category of unrealistic expectations of bariatric surgery and other important conceptual categories.

Revisional bariatric surgery following failed primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review

Revisional bariatric surgery following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) failure presents a clinical challenge for the bariatric surgeon. Limited evidence exists in selecting the appropriate revisional operation: laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB), laparoscopic re-sleeve gastrectomy (LRSG), or other surgical intervention (OSI), to address weight regain. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the efficacy of existing revisional surgery. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) was completed. All randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparison study, and case series were included. Eleven primary studies (218 patients) were identified and included in the systematic review. Studies were grouped into three main categories: LGB, LRSG, and OSI. Preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 41.9 kg/m(2) (LGB), 38.5 kg/m(2) (LRSG), and 44.4 kg/m(2) (OSI). After conversion to LGB, BMI decreased to 33.7 and 35.7 kg/m(2) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) was 60 and 48 % over the same periods. After LRSG, BMI decreased to 30.4 and 35.3 kg/m(2) with corresponding EWL of 68 and 44 %, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. After OSI, BMI decreased to 27.3 kg/m(2) with an EWL of 75 % at 24-month follow-up but could not be analyzed due to incomplete data collection in primary studies. Both LGB and LRSG achieve effective weight loss following failed LSG. The less technically challenging nature of LRSG may be more widely applicable. Further research is required to elicit sustainability in long-term weight loss benefits.

Revisional surgery after failed gastric banding: results of one-stage conversion to RYGB in 195 patients

BACKGROUND

The most performed restrictive bariatric procedure is the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB). With many patients still receiving a LAGB in Europe and the United States, inevitably, the number of complications also increases. For many complications revisional bariatric surgery is necessary. In this study, the outcomes of one-stage LAGB conversion to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) at our institution are presented. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of RYGB performed as a one-stage procedure after failed LAGB.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The gastric band had to be in situ for at least 1 year and minimum postoperative follow-up was 12 months. The revisional RYGB had to be performed as a 1-step procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 195 patients were included while 3 were lost to follow up. Overall, 178 (91%) procedures were performed without perioperative complications, and only 8 (4%) patients required reoperation within 30 days. The mean follow-up was 40 months (±24) after RYGB. Mean excess weight loss (EWL) increased from 25% (±26/-50- 120%) to 60% (±21.2/0- 130), 65% (±23.5/0- 131), 63% (±24.2/2- 132), 60% (±24.1/0- 111) and 53% (±28.7/-39- 109) in the first 5 postoperative years.

CONCLUSION

Converting a gastric band to a RYGB in a one-stage procedure is safe and feasible, with acceptable complication rates when performed in a specialized institution. The RYGB conversion results in a good EWL of 65% after 2 years. However, proper patient selection is of the utmost importance.

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.

Metabolic surgery: shifting the focus from glycaemia and weight to end-organ health

Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for weight loss and glycaemic control. The focus of clinical studies and clinical experience has predominantly been on the numerical reductions of bodyweight and glucose after surgery. In this Series paper, we examine evidence on the efficacy of bariatric surgery for pancreatic, renal, retinal, peripheral nervous, cardiovascular, hepatic, and reproductive end-organ damage or disease. The overall conclusions are that, in most cases, patients' end-organ damage is expected to either stabilise or improve postoperatively. However, some of these clinical outcomes have not been assessed with robust methods and, in many cases, do not have support from randomised controlled clinical trials comparing bariatric surgery with non-surgical interventions. Such trials are urgently needed to inform patients and clinicians on whether the risks of surgery outweigh the significant benefits for end-organ health.

Laparoscopic removal of poor outcome gastric banding with concomitant sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a significant incidence of long-term failure, which may require an alternative revisional bariatric procedure to remediate. Unfortunately, there is few data pinpointing which specific revisional procedure most effectively addresses failed gastric banding. Recently, it has been observed that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is a promising primary bariatric procedure; however, its use as a revisional procedure has been limited. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSG performed concomitantly with removal of a poor-outcome LAGB.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent LAGB removal with concomitant LSG at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia between September 2007 and April 2012. Patient body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), duration of operation, length of hospital stay, complications after LSG, and indications for revisional surgery were all reviewed and compared to those of patients who underwent LSG as a primary procedure.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients (70 % female) underwent conversion of LAGB to LSG concomitantly, and 128 (66 % female) patients underwent primary LSG surgery. The revisional and primary LSG patients had similar preoperative ages (mean age 33.5 ± 10.7 vs. 33.6 ± 9.0 years, respectively; p = 0.43). However, revisional patients had a significantly lower BMI at the time of surgery (44.4 ± 7.0 kg/m(2) vs. 47.9 ± 8.2; p < 0.01). Absolute BMI postoperative reduction at 24 months was 14.33 points in the revision group and 18.98 points in the primary LSG group; similar %EWL was achieved by both groups at 24 months postoperatively (80.1 vs. 84.6 %). Complications appeared in two (5.5 %) revisional patients and in nine (7.0 %) primary LSG patients. No mortalities occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of LAGB by means of concomitant LSG is a safe and efficient procedure and achieves similar outcomes as primary LSG surgery alone.

What happens after gastric band removal without additional bariatric surgery?

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) is widely used for the treatment of morbid obesity. Many patients benefit from this procedure initially, but experience complications after a few years. The treatment for many complications is revisional bariatric surgery. A number of patients, however, request only band removal without secondary bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative and medium term outcomes of patients who had their LAGB removed without secondary bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected using a prospectively collected database. The LAGB had to be in situ for at least 1 year, and minimum postoperative follow-up had to be 12 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients who had their LAGB laparoscopically removed between 2000 and 2010 were included. Median follow-up after LAGB removal was 3.0 (1.4 to 8.9) years. Only 2 complications (5%) and no mortality occurred perioperatively. In the 21 patients who did not undergo additional bariatric surgery, the median excess weight loss (EWL) decreased from 41% (-12% to -100%) at band removal to 9% (-10% to 90%), 0% (-20% to 78%), and -11% (-12% to 56%) after 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Percentage weight loss (%WL) was 17% (-54% to -5%), 4% (-47% to -9%), 0% (-41% to 11%), and -5% (-29% to 9%) after these same time intervals, respectively. After a median 2.1 (.5 to 9.9) years, 17 patients underwent either a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (14 patients) or a Scopinaro (3 patients) all because of weight regain. The current EWL and %WL in these patients is 67% (24% to 113%) and 30% (12% to 53%), respectively compared with -11% (-33% to 57%) and -4% (-14% to 34%) in patients without a secondary bariatric procedure (P< .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who have their LAGB removed are guaranteed to suffer from weight regain. It is inadvisable to only remove the LAGB without performing an additional bariatric procedure when deemed technically feasible and safe. In this study, no patient was able to maintain the weight loss achieved with the LAGB after its removal.

Revisionary bariatric surgery: indications and outcome of 100 consecutive operations at a single center

BACKGROUND

A growing number of revisionary and secondary bariatric operations have been performed in recent years, with the number of operations doubling each year at the authors' center. Diagnostics, indications, and most revisionary operations should be performed by an experienced bariatric surgeon. This study was undertaken to evaluate indications and outcomes of revisionary bariatric operations at a specialized center.

METHODS

At the Centre of Obesity and Metabolic Surgery (University of Freiburg, Germany), 100 consecutive revisionary bariatric operations performed between March 2007 and September 2009 were analyzed concerning indications and outcomes.

RESULTS

Only 9 of the 100 revisions were due to early complications (<30 days after the primary operation). The indication for most revisions was poor weight loss (n = 55). A mean body mass index reduction of 10 points could be achieved in 1 year, which equals a 56% excess weight loss (EWL). No significant difference in weight reduction between restrictive and malabsorptive revisions was observed. Revisions due to implant-related problems also were frequent (n = 25). Laparoscopic revision was possible in 95% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient weight loss is the most frequent indication for revisionary bariatric surgery. The surgery can be performed laparoscopically in most cases, and a significant EWL (> 50%) can be achieved in 1 year if the right revisionary procedure is chosen.

Endoscopic management of gastrogastric fistulae does not increase complications at bariatric revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Gastrogastric fistula (GGF) is a challenging complication of primary obesity surgery that often leads to revision surgery. The impact of prior endoscopic intervention on subsequent surgical revisional outcomes remains unknown. We present the largest series of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass GGF with subsequent surgical revision of fistulae to date.

METHODS

A database of bariatric surgical revisions performed at a single institution was collected. The cohort was divided between patients with and without attempted endoscopic fistula closure prior to surgical revision. Thirty-day morbidity and mortality was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Thirty-five cases of revision were performed for GGF. Of the 35 cases, 22 patients had attempted endoscopic closure prior to surgical revision while 13 patients went directly to surgical revision. In the endoscopy group, two minor complications and seven major complications occurred (total 9 of 22; 40.9%). In the surgery only group, three minor complications and three major complications occurred (total 6 of 13; 46.1%). No deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

Prior attempts at endoscopic fistula closure do not lead to increased surgical complications at the time of surgical revision.

Endoscopic findings and outcomes of revisional procedures for patients with weight recidivism after gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Significant weight regain occurs for 10% to 20% of patients after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Potential causative factors include anatomic abnormalities such as enlargement of the gastric pouch and gastrojejunostomy (GJ). This report describes endoscopic findings for patients referred for investigation of weight regain and presents the outcomes of revisional therapy for patients with abnormal anatomy.

METHODS

To evaluate gastric pouch and stoma size, RYGB patients referred for weight regain underwent upper endoscopy. A GJ was defined as enlarged if it had a diameter greater than 2 cm in any dimension, and a pouch was defined as enlarged if its length exceeded 6 cm long or its width exceeded 5 cm. Patients with abnormal anatomy who subsequently underwent revisional procedures were arbitrarily categorized into three groups based on the interval from RYGB to endoscopic evaluation: less than 5 years (group 1), 5 to 10 years (group 2), longer than 10 years (group 3). The percentage of regained weight lost (%RWL) after revision was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 205 RYGB patients (176 women with a mean age of 47 ± 10 years and a current body mass index [BMI] of 43.4 ± 8.4 kg/m(2)) were evaluated. The mean time from primary RYGB was 6.9 ± 3.7 years, and the increase in BMI from its nadir was 9.78 ± 5.80 kg/m(2). Abnormal endoscopic findings (n = 146, 71.2%) included large GJ (n = 86, 58.9%), large pouch (n = 42, 28.8%), or both (n = 18, 12.3%). Of the 205 patients, 51 (24.9%) underwent a revisional surgical or endoluminal procedure. At a mean follow-up assessment 13 months after revision, group 1 (n = 12) had a mean %RWL of 103% ± 89.3%, and 62% of these patients lost all their regained weight. The mean %RWL was 45% ± 12.6% in group 2 (n = 30) and 40% ± 13.6% in group 3 (n = 9).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy is a valuable tool for evaluating weight regain after bariatric surgery that can identify abnormal post-RYGB anatomy in a majority of patients. Revisional procedures to restore normal RYGB anatomy appear to be most successful if performed within 5 years after the primary procedure.

3D gastric computed tomography as a new imaging in patients with failure or complication after bariatric surgery

The number of bariatric operations performed each year is increasing. As a result, a rising number of patients in possible need for revisional surgery are referred to bariatric surgeons. But the standard methods of evaluation are often insufficient, and the best strategy remains difficult to choose. In our centre, we have developed 3D gastric computed tomography with air (3D-GCT). The aim of this pilot study was to assess the usefulness of this new image modality as an aid in the decision-making process in patients with failure or complications after bariatric surgery. Twenty patients referred for failure or complications after various bariatric procedures were included in the study. 3D-GCT was performed on a multidetector CT scanner after absorption of effervescent salt diluted in 10 ml of water and IV injection of butylscopolamine. Thin-slice data were transferred to a dedicated 3D workstation creating three-dimensional volume-rendering images of the oesophagus, gastric cavities and anastomoses. The volume of the gastric pouches and the diameter of stoma or anastomoses were measured. No failure or complications were observed. In all patients, 3D-GCT resulted in very impressive precise 3D images of post-surgical anatomy of the stomach. Imaging findings allowed us to identify or to eliminate the common complications of each procedure with a good accuracy, resulting in an aid to choose the best strategy in each patient. In conclusion, our pilot study suggests that 3D-GCT is useful as a decision-making aid in patients with failure or complications after bariatric surgery.

Conversion of failed vertical banded gastroplasty to biliopancreatic diversion, a wise option

BACKGROUND

Reoperations due to failures constitute an essential but challenging part of bariatric surgery practice today. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative safety, efficacy, and postoperative quality of life in patients with biliopancreatic diversion (BPD), after failed vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG).

METHODS

Twelve patients after failed or complicated VBG, eight females and four males, median age 45 years (range 39-52), median body mass index (BMI) 46.39 kg/m2 (range 25.89-69.37), who underwent conversion to BPD, were studied.

RESULTS

Ten patients due to weight regain and two patients because of severe stenosis of the gastric pouch outlet were submitted in conversion to BPD. In eight (66.6%) patients the primary VBG had been followed by at least one revisional operation due to inadequate weight loss. The 10 patients after failed VBG, reached the lowest BMI recorded after VBG in just a year after BPD (p=0.721 for the comparison between the two time points). The two patients with stomal stenosis regained weight in the first six postoperative months and remain stable since then. Regarding safety, one major perioperative complication (gastrojejunostomy stenosis) occurred. At a median follow-up of 21 months (range 12-30) six complications have been documented, including a case of incisional hernia, four cases of pouch gastritis and a case of intractable iron-deficiency anemia.

CONCLUSION

Our early results indicate that conversion of failed VBG to BPD is highly effective with acceptable morbidity. Our data show that the effect on weight is strongly dependent on the indication for the conversion. Conversion to BPD, in such a group of patients, is a wise alternative, since it may reduce operative risks.

Comparison of 30-day outcomes after non-LapBand primary and revisional bariatric surgical procedures from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery study

BACKGROUND

The goals were to compare the morbidity and mortality between primary and revisional bariatric surgery and to identify the clinical predictors of adverse outcomes among patients undergoing revisional surgery in the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery consortium. The study was multi-institutional at university hospitals in the United States.

METHODS

Data from the LABS-1 (safety) cohort were analyzed, excluding primary gastric banding patients. A total of 3802 LABS-1 patients were included: 3577 who underwent primary surgery and 225 who underwent revisional surgery. The demographic, clinical, operative, and 30-day outcome data were compared between the 2 groups. A nonlinear mixed effects logit model was used to identify independent risk factors for adverse outcomes (death, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, reintubation, reoperation, or discharge after 30 days).

RESULTS

Compared with those undergoing revisional surgery, the primary surgery patients were younger (median age 44 versus 49 years, P <.0001) and more likely to be male (20.5% versus 12.7%, P = .006) and heavier (median body mass index 47.3 versus 41.2 kg/m(2), P <.0001) and to have more co-morbidities (P <.0001), including hypertension (56.0% versus 46.0%, P = .0044), diabetes (35.7% versus 20.0%, P <.0001), and sleep apnea (50.3% versus 27.2%, P <.0001). The operative time for the revisional procedures was longer (median 181 versus 135 min, P <.0001) and associated with greater blood loss (median 100 versus <50 mL, P <.0001). Adverse outcomes were more likely after revisional surgery (15.1% versus 5.3%, P <.0001, odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.6-3.6). After adjusting for patient characteristics previously shown to be associated with adverse outcomes, this difference remained statistically significant (odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.5-3.8). The 30-day mortality rate was similar in the 2 groups (.4%).

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgery was performed without substantial mortality but with a greater incidence of adverse outcomes than was primary bariatric surgery.