Laparoscopic gastric bypass for failure of adjustable gastric banding: a review of 85 cases

Mid-term quality of life after gastric band removal and single-stage conversion to gastric bypass: a single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Revision surgeries in patients with failed gastric banding including band removal are increasingly necessary. However, long-term outcomes after band removal alone are unsatisfactory due to weight regain and limited improvement in quality of life. This study aimed to report mid-term quality of life outcomes after gastric band removal and single-stage conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

METHODS

Data of 108 patients who underwent conversion surgery from 2011 to 2017 were extracted from a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed. During follow-up visits, physical and laboratory data as well as quality of life questionnaires were obtained.

RESULTS

Postoperative mean Moorehead score increased significantly after 1 year (1.62 ± 0.86, p < 0.001) and after 5 years (1.55 ± 0.84, p < 0.001) compared to baseline values (0.72 ± 1.1). The mean follow-up time was 53 months. Moorehead scores at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperative were available in 75% (n = 81), 71% (n = 77), and 42% (n = 45) of cases, respectively. Mixed ANOVA analysis showed a significantly superior increase in Moorehead score in males (p = 0.024). No other significant predictors were identified. Lasting BMI reduction (- 4.6 to 33.0 ± 6.7 kg/m², p < 0.001) and weight loss (- 12.9% (- 13.6 kg), p < 0.001) 5 years after conversion surgery were seen. Postoperative complications occurred in 35% (n = 38) of patients with a re-operation rate of 30.5% (n = 33).

CONCLUSION

The current study shows that band removal with single-stage gastric bypass in patients with failed gastric banding leads to a lasting improvement in quality of life and may be the rescue procedure of choice in this setting.

The first survey addressing patients with BMI over 50: a survey of 789 bariatric surgeons

Background

Bariatric surgery in patients with BMI over 50 kg/m² is a challenging task. The aim of this study was to address main issues regarding perioperative management of these patients by using a worldwide survey.

Methods

An online 48-item questionnaire-based survey on perioperative management of patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m² was ideated by 15 bariatric surgeons from 9 different countries. The questionnaire was emailed to all members of the International Federation of Surgery for Obesity (IFSO). Responses were collected and analyzed by the authors.

Results

789 bariatric surgeons from 73 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (89.9%) believed that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) on patients with BMI over 50 kg/m² should only be performed by expert bariatric surgeons. Half of the participants (55.3%) believed that weight loss must be encouraged before surgery and 42.6% of surgeons recommended an excess weight loss of at least 10%. However, only 3.6% of surgeons recommended the insertion of an Intragastric Balloon as bridge therapy before surgery. Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) was considered the best choice for patients younger than 18 or older than 65 years old. SG and One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass were the most common procedures for individuals between 18 and 65 years. Half of the surgeons believed that a 2-stage approach should be offered to patients with BMI > 50 kg/m², with SG being the first step. Postoperative thromboprophylaxis was recommended for 2 and 4 weeks by 37.8% and 37.7% of participants, respectively.

Conclusion

This survey demonstrated worldwide variations in bariatric surgery practice regarding patients with a BMI superior to 50 kg/m². Careful analysis of these results is useful for identifying several areas for future research and consensus building.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08979-w.

Conversion of Adjustable Gastric Banding to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in One or Two Steps: What Is the Best Approach? Analysis of a Multicenter Database Concerning 832 Patients

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is often the preferred conversion procedure for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) poor responders. However, there is controversy whether it is better to convert in one or two stages. This study aims to compare the outcomes of one and two-stage conversions of LAGB to RYGB.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a multicenter prospectively collected database. Data on conversion in one and two stages was compared.

RESULTS

Eight hundred thirty-two patients underwent LAGB conversion to RYGB in seven specialized bariatric centers. Six hundred seventy-three (81%) were converted in one-stage. Patients in the two-stage group were more likely to have experienced technical complications, such as slippage or erosions (86% vs. 37%, p = 0.0001) and to have had a higher body mass index (BMI) (41.6 vs. 39.9 Kg/m², p = 0.005). There were no differences in postoperative complications and mortality rates between the one-stage and two-stage groups (13.5% vs. 10.8%, and 0.7% vs. 0.0% respectively, p = ns). Mean final BMI and %total weight loss (%TWL) for the one-stage and the two-stage groups were 31.6 vs. 32.4 Kg/m² (p = ns) and 30.4 vs. 26.8 (p = 0.017) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Follow-up at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98%, 75%, and 54%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage conversion of LAGB to RYGB is safe and effective. Two-stage conversion carries low morbidity and mortality in the case of band slippage, erosion, or higher BMI patients. These findings suggest the importance of patient selection when choosing the appropriate conversion approach.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Destiny of Failed Adjustable Gastric Bandings: Do All the Patients Need Further Bariatric Surgery?

PURPOSE

The number of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) removal has increased throughout the years. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes in patients undergoing LAGB removal with or without further bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data prospectively collected from consecutive patients undergoing LAGB removal from 2008 to 2016 at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Obesity-related comorbidities, complications, and body mass index (BMI) before removal and at 1-year follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in the study. Seventy-six patients had further surgery (SURG group): 55 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and 21 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Eighty patients underwent only LAGB removal (No-SURG group). The mean BMI was lower in the No-SURG group (33.9 vs 36.3 kg/m², p = 0.0055). Reasons for removal were different in the two groups: dysphagia, frequent vomiting, and LAGB-related complications requiring urgent treatment occurred more commonly in the No-SURG group (p < 0.05): 71.3 vs 51.3%, 67.5% vs. 38.2%, 28.8% vs. 6.6%, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, 96.3% of No-SURG patients regained weight after LAGB removal; two (2.5%) patients showed new-onset comorbidities, four (5%) needed adjustments in pharmacological therapy, and four (5%) complained from persistence of GERD symptoms. Additional surgery provided significant weight loss: the mean %TWL was 23.7% after LSGs and 27.2% after LRYGBs.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB is associated with a high rate of reoperation. Further bariatric surgery after LAGB removal should be considered due to weight regain, persistence of GERD symptoms, and new-onset comorbidities.

Gastric Band Removal in Revisional Bariatric Surgery, One-Step Versus Two-Step: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the safety of one-step versus two-step revisional bariatric surgery from laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG). There is debate on the safety of removing the gastric band and performing revisional surgery immediately or in a delayed, two-step fashion due to potential higher complications in one-step revisions. A systematic and comprehensive search of the literature was conducted. Included studies directly compared one-step and two-step revisional surgery. Eleven studies were included with 1370 patients. Meta-analysis found comparable rates of complications, morbidity, and mortality between one-step and two-step revisions for both RYGB and SG groups. This suggests that immediate or delayed revisional bariatric surgeries are both safe options for LAGB revisions.

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.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band--a systematic review

The adjustable gastric band (L)AGB gained popularity as a weight loss procedure. However, long-term results are disappointing; many patients need revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The purpose of this study was to assess morbidity, mortality, and results of these two revisional procedures. Fifteen LRYGB studies with a total of 588 patients and eight LSG studies with 286 patients were included. The reason for revision was insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 62.2 and 63.9% in LRYGB and LSG patients. Short-term complications occurred in 8.5 and 15.7% and long-term complications in 8.9 and 2.5%. Reoperation was performed in 6.5 and 3.5%. Revision to LRYGB or LSG after (L)AGB is feasible and relatively safe. Complication rate is higher than in primary procedures.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after successful weight loss with a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band: rationales and early outcomes in patients of body mass index<35 kg/m(2.)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has a number of well-established acute and chronic issues that can require revisional surgical procedures. There is no existing data to evaluate conversion of band patients with body mass index (BMI)<35 kg/m(2) from LAGB to a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study aims to report on the indications for and the safety profile of conversion of the LAGB to RYGB in patients with BMI<35 kg/m(2).

METHODS

A review of data from 200 consecutive conversions of LAGB to RYGB was conducted. Fifty-two patients whose BMI was<35 kg/m(2) were included in this analysis. Indications for conversion, technical details, early morbidity, length of hospital stay, and weight loss data were assessed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic conversion to RYGB was performed in 100% of patients. The median BMI pre-RYGB was 32.8 kg/m(2). The most common indication for surgery was weight regain after removal of LAGB (28.8%). There was no mortality. Early morbidity was seen in 25% of patients; the most common complication was stricture of the gastrojejunal anastomosis (9 patients).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity resulting from conversion of LAGB to RYGB in patients with BMI <35 kg/m(2) is similar to that seen in the BMI>35 kg/m(2) population. The procedure is technically challenging and morbidity rates are higher than those reported for surgically 'naïve' patients. It is recommended that this procedure be undertaken by appropriately trained surgeons in high-volume bariatric centers to optimize safety and outcomes.

Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force

BACKGROUND

Reoperative bariatric surgery has become a common practice in many bariatric surgery programs. There is currently little evidence-based guidance regarding specific indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery. A task force was convened to review the current evidence regarding reoperative bariatric surgery. The aim of the review was to identify procedure-specific indications and outcomes for reoperative procedures.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting indications for and outcomes after reoperative bariatric surgery. Specifically, operations to treat complications, failed weight loss, and weight regain were evaluated. Abstract and manuscript reviews were completed by the task force members to identify, grade, and categorize relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 819 articles were identified in the initial search. After review for inclusion criteria and data quality, 175 articles were included in the systematic review and analysis. The majority of published studies are single center retrospective reviews. The evidence supporting reoperative surgery for acute and chronic complications is described. The evidence regarding reoperative surgery for failed weight loss and weight regain generally demonstrates improved weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after reintervention. Procedure-specific outcomes are described. Complication rates are generally reported to be higher after reoperative surgery compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSION

The indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery are procedure-specific but the current evidence does support additional treatment for persistent obesity, co-morbid disease, and complications.