Revisional Gastric Bypass Is Inferior to Primary Gastric Bypass in Terms of Short- and Long-term Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Safety and factors associated with early discharge in revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: analysis of the MBSAQIP database

BACKGROUND

Improvements in bariatric surgery outcomes have prompted policy initiatives that explore shifting bariatric surgery toward outpatient procedures. While the safety of early discharge after primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been reported, its safety for revisional LRYGB remains uncertain. Our study aimed to investigate the safety and patient factors associated with early discharge in patients undergoing revisional LRYGB compared with primary LRYGB.

METHODS

We identified adult patients who underwent primary and revisional LRYGB from 2020 to 2022 in the MBSAQIP database. Patients discharged early, i.e., same-day discharge (SDD) and next-day discharge (NDD) were compared to inpatients. Outcomes included 30-day complications (minor = Clavien-Dindo 1-2; major = Clavien-Dindo 3-4), mortality, readmissions, and reoperations. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative time were fitted to assess the study outcomes.

RESULTS

SDD rate was similar after primary (3,422/137,406; 2.5%) and revisional LRYGB (781/32,721; 2.4%), while NDD rate was higher in primary LRYGB (59.8% vs 54.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). SDD patients had lower odds of major complications compared to inpatients following primary (2% vs 7%, aOR: 0.30, 95%CI 0.24-0.38) and revisional LRYGB (3.7% vs 9.3%, aOR: 0.43, 95%CI 0.29-0.62, respectively). NDD patients had similarly lower odds of morbidity outcomes. ASA Classification IV/V was associated with lower odds of SDD compared to Class I/II (Primary: 0.9% vs. 3%, aOR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78; Revisions: 0.9% vs. 3%, aOR: 0.24, 95%CI 0.10-0.55).

CONCLUSION

Early discharge after revisional LRYGB, particularly after an overnight stay, can be accomplished safely in carefully selected patients. However, SDD rates remain low limiting its safety assessment. Further, almost half of the patients stay more than 48 h in the hospital suggesting that policy initiatives toward outpatient management after bariatric surgery may be inappropriate for this patient population.

Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Is Intrathoracic Migration of the Sleeve of High Incidence?

BACKGROUND

Conversion of SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is increasing. Intrathoracic migration of the sleeve (ITM) often seems associated and is increasingly reported.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent a conversion of SG to RYGB from August 2013 to December 2022 were included. Two groups were compared: patients operated on for weight loss failure (WLF gp) and those operated on for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD gp). Demographic data, the incidence of ITM, weight loss outcomes, resolution of symptoms, and morbidity were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included with an average follow-up of 32 months: 46 patients in the GERD gp (78%) were compared to 13 patients (22%) in the WLF gp. Groups were comparable regarding age and gender, but BMI and commodities were significantly higher in the WLF gp. In the GERD gp, on preoperative gastroscopy, 30% had a esophagitis, 48% had an ITM which required a posterior crural closure versus no esophagitis (p=0.02) and 23% of ITM in the WLF gp (p=0.11). Conversion led to 93% of GERD symptom improvement. In the WLF gp, mean TWL% was 15.3%, significantly greater than in the GERD gp (TWL% = 4.6%, p = 0.01). The complication rate was 10% at 30 days and 3.4% after 30 days, not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

The main indication of conversion of SG to RYGB was because of GERD: in these indications, the incidence of ITM was high requiring a surgical treatment with a very good efficacy on symptoms. Weight loss results were disappointing.

Primary Versus Revisional Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery in Patients with a Body Mass Index ≥ 50 kg/m2-90-Day Outcomes and Risk of Perioperative Mortality

BACKGROUND

Bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) is an effective treatment for patients with severe obesity. Patients with higher body mass index (BMI) and patients undergoing revisional surgery have a higher rate of major complications. This study purpose is to evaluate perioperative outcomes of patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 undergoing BMS between 2015 and 2023 was conducted. A comparative analysis was performed between patients undergoing primary versus revisional surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 263 patients were included in the study. Primary procedures were performed in 220 patients (83.7%) and revisional procedures in 43 patients (16.3%). BMS included one anastomosis gastric bypass (n = 183), sleeve gastrectomy (n = 63), and other procedures (n = 17). Mean BMI was 54.6 with no difference between groups. There was no difference in baseline characteristics except the revisional group was older (44.8 ± 9.6 versus 39 ± 13 years; p = 0.006), had higher rates of gastroesophageal reflux disease (21% vs 7.3%; p = 0.005), and fatty liver disease (74% vs 55%; p = 0.02). There was perioperative mortality in three cases (1.1%) with no significant difference between groups. Leak rates were higher, and length of stay (LOS) was longer in the revisional group (4.6% vs 0.45%; p = 0.018 and 2.9 vs 3.7; p = 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Revisional BMS in patients with a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 is associated with increased leak rates and LOS. Mortality rate is 1.1% and is insignificantly different between groups. Further prospective and large-scale studies are needed to clarify the optimal surgical approach to patients with extreme BMI including revisional surgery.

Decision-making Considerations in Revisional Bariatric Surgery

OBJECTIVE

With drastic variations in bariatric practices, consensus is lacking on an optimal approach for revisional bariatric surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors reviewed and consolidated bariatric surgery literature to provide specific revision suggestions based on each index surgery, including adjustable gastric band (AGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS), single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve (SADI-S), one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG).

RESULTS

AGB has the highest weight recurrence rate and can be converted to RYGB, SG, and BPD-DS. After index SG, common surgical options include a resleeve or RYGB. The RYGB roux limb can be distalized and pouch resized in context of reflux, and the entire anatomy can be revised into BPD-DS. Data analyzing revisional surgery after a single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve was limited. In patients with one anastomosis gastric bypass and vertical banded gastroplasty anatomy, most revisions were the conversion to RYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

As revisional bariatric surgery becomes more common, the best approach depends on the patient's indication for surgery and preexisting anatomy.

Adjuvant Glucose-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for Suboptimal Weight Loss After Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review

Addressing suboptimal weight loss post-bariatric surgery poses a challenge. While glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) show promise in managing obesity, their role as an adjuvant treatment after bariatric surgery remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic literature review focused on the efficacy and safety of GLP1-RA in bariatric surgery patients with insufficient weight loss or distant weight regain. Our literature search identified 1167 articles, with 10 (involving 594 patients) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria for detailed review. GLP1-RA therapy resulted in 5 to 17% weight loss over 6 to 12 months, with 10-50% experiencing non-severe side effects like nausea. Overall, GLP1-RA emerges as an effective adjuvant therapy for patients experiencing inadequate weight loss or regain after bariatric surgery, offering a viable alternative to revision surgery.

Primary versus Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Outcomes of Patients with at Least 8-Year Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) prevalence is increasing worldwide and shows good mid- to long-term results. Data on long-term outcomes of revisional OAGB (rOAGB) is limited. This study's objective was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing primary OAGB (pOAGB) and rOAGB.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained patient registry at a single-tertiary center. Patients undergoing OAGB from January 2015 to May 2016 were included and grouped into pOAGB and rOAGB.

RESULTS

There were 424 patients, of which 363 underwent pOAGB, and 61 underwent rOAGB. Baseline characteristics were insignificantly different between groups except for the type 2 diabetes (T2D) rate which was higher in pOAGB (26% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.01). The mean follow-up time was 98.5 ± 3.9 months, and long-term follow-up data were available for 52.5% of patients. The mean total weight loss (TWL) was higher in the pOAGB group (31.3 ± 14 vs. 24.1 ± 17.6, p = 0.006); however, TWL was comparable when relating to the weight at primary surgery for rOAGB. The rate of T2D and hypertension resolution was 79% and 72.7% with no difference between groups. Thirteen patients (5.9%) underwent OAGB revision during follow-up, with no difference between groups. Two deaths occurred during follow-up, both non-related to OAGB.

CONCLUSION

OAGB is effective as a primary and as a revisional procedure for severe obesity with good long-term results in terms of weight loss and resolution of associated diseases. In addition, the revisional surgery rates and chronic complications are acceptable. Further large prospective studies are required to clarify these data.

Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal bypass (SADI-S) as Primary or Two-Stage Surgery: Mid-Term Outcomes of a Single Canadian Bariatric Center

PURPOSE

Compare primary single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) and two-stage SADI after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in terms of weight loss, reduction/remission of comorbidities, and morbidity.

METHODS

Retrospective study including 179 patients treated laparoscopically between 2016 and 2020. A 50Fr bougie was used for the SG in the primary SADI-S (group 1) and 36/40Fr for the two-stage procedure (group 2). The duodeno-ileal anastomosis was performed at 250 cm from the ileocecal valve and at least 2 cm after the pylorus.

RESULTS

Mean age was 44.1 years old, and there were 148 women and 31 men. There were 67 (37.4%) patients in group 1 and 112 (62.6%) in group 2, with 67% completing the 4-year follow-up. Mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 51.1 kg/m2 and 44.6 kg/m2 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Preoperative comorbidities were obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia in 103 (57.5%), 93 (52%), 65 (36.3%), and 58 (32.4%) of cases. At 4 years postoperatively, excess weight loss (EWL) was 67.5% in group 1 and 67% in group 2 (p = 0.1005). Both groups had good comorbidity remission rates. Early postoperative morbidity rate was 10.4% in group 1 and 3.6% in group 2. In group1, there were mostly postoperative intra-abdominal hematomas managed conservatively (n = 4). Two revisional surgeries were needed for duodeno-ileal anastomosis leaks. Postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), daily diarrhea, vitamin, and protein levels were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both types of strategies are efficient at short and mid-term outcomes. Preoperative criteria will inform surgeon decision between a primary and a two-stage strategy.

The Trajectory of Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Open to Laparoscopic to Robotic

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is the most effective therapeutic intervention for patients with obesity, with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) being the most commonly performed primary MBS procedure. Long-term studies have demonstrated that 15-20% of patients require revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) due to weight-related issues or surgical complications. Despite the gold standard being laparoscopic revision, there are other available approaches such as open or robotic-assisted. An extensive literature review was performed for articles from their inception to February 2024. A descriptive review of MBS procedures (SG, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy (SADI) and biliopancreatic diversion-duodenal switch (BPD-DS)) was carried out to report and compare outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery. A similar review was conducted to compare outcomes of revisional approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic). RYGB remains the dominant RBS with a similar safety profile compared to revisional SADI and BPD-DS. In terms of the RBS surgical approach, all three options showed comparable short and long-term outcomes, with robotic RBS being associated with longer operative time and variable length of stay. Additional long-term studies are required to further validate our conclusions.

Outcome comparison between primary and revisional bariatric surgery: A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric procedures for weight recurrence are rising but are considered higher risk and less effective than primary bariatric procedures. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between primary and revisional bariatric surgery for weight recurrence.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from adult patients who underwent revisional or primary bariatric surgery from 2016 to 2020 in an academic institution were reviewed. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy were performed primarily or as conversion procedures after laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, vertical banded gastroplasty, and sleeve gastrectomy. 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between revisional bariatric surgery and primary bariatric surgery, and logistic regression analysis was used to compare up to 2-year weight loss and comorbidity resolution outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of172 cases (86 revisional bariatric surgery versus 86 primary bariatric surgery) were included. Groups were matched for age, sex, preoperative body mass index, bariatric procedure, diabetes, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. Procedure duration (203 ± 78 vs 154 ± 69 minutes; P < .001) and length of stay (2.3 ± 2.1 vs 1.7 ± 1 days; P = .02) were longer for revisional bariatric surgery versus primary bariatric surgery, respectively. Total weight loss was less in revisional bariatric surgery compared with primary bariatric surgery at 1 year (23 ± 10% vs 32 ± 9%; P < .001) and 2 years (21 ± 12.% vs 32 ± 10%; P < .001) of follow-up; however, no differences were detected in postoperative occurrences, emergency department visits, readmissions, reintervention and reoperation rates, and comorbidity resolution.

CONCLUSION

Although revisional bariatric surgery was associated with longer operation times, prolonged hospitalization, and lower weight loss than primary bariatric surgery, it was accomplished safely and led to substantial weight loss and comorbidity resolution. This information can guide patient counseling before revisional surgery for weight recurrence.

Boosting weight loss after conversional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with liraglutide and placebo use. A double-blind-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Conversional bariatric surgery inherently has less weight loss (WL) compared to primary procedures. Adjunctive use of the GLP-1 analog, liraglutide with conversional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (cRYGB) may maximize the WL benefits of surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This single-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial included 80 patients randomized into two groups; the liraglutide group (40 patients) who received daily injections of liraglutide, and the placebo group (40 patients) who received normal saline starting at 6 weeks from cRYGB and continued for 6 months. After discontinuing the drugs at 6 months and unblinding, the patient were followed up to 12 months. The endpoints were percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), and changes in the metabolic biomarkers, and complications within 30 and 90 days according to the global outcome benchmark (GOB) stratification.

RESULTS

In total, 38 patients in the liraglutide group and 31 in the placebo group completed the 24 weeks. Liraglutide group experienced better WL with a significantly higher mean %TWL at 1 month (10.27±1.39 vs. 8.41±2.08), at 6 weeks (12.65±1.77 vs. 10.47±2.23), at 6 months (18.29 ±1.74 vs. 15.58 ±1.65), and at 12 months 24.15±2.35 versus 22.70±2.13 (all P <0.001). For %EWL, this was also significantly higher in the liraglutide group at all time points. A %TWL of greater than 20% at 6 months of treatment was recorded in six (15.8%) patients in the liraglutide group and none in the placebo group ( P =0.029). Both groups had comparable changes in metabolic biomarkers. Adverse events were recorded in 11 (27.5%) patients in the liraglutide, with no adverse events in the placebo group ( P <0.001). Both groups had Clavien-Dindo scores I and II (5.0 and 2.5%), and GOB values indicated that 90.0 and 97.5% were low-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive use of liraglutide with cRYGB gives significantly higher WL and resolution of associated medical problems.

Experience of Robotic Complex Revisional Bariatric Surgery in a High-Volume Center

PURPOSE

A revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is necessary in about 28% of the patients. The role of robotic surgery in RBS is still a subject of debate. We aim to report the outcomes of robotic-assisted RBS at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients who underwent robotic-assisted RBSs between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2022. We analyzed patient demographics and indications for surgery. Measured outcomes included peri- and postoperative morbidity, comorbidity management, and weight loss outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included. Primary procedures were adjustable gastric band 44 (41.5%), sleeve gastrectomy 42 (39.6%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) 18 (17%), duodenal switch (DS) 1 (0.9%), and vertical banded gastroplasty 1 (0.9%). RBSs performed included 85 (78.7%) RYGB, 16 (14.8%) redo-gastrojejunostomy, and 5 (4.6%) DS. The median time to revision was 8 (range 1-36) years, and the main indication was insufficient weight loss (49%). Median length of hospital stay was 2 (range 1-16) days, and 9 (8.5%) patients were readmitted during the first 30 days. Only 4 (3.7%) patients had early Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher adverse events. No anastomotic leaks were documented. Median excess weight loss was 35.1%, 42.23%, and 45.82% at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Of 57 patients with hypertension, 29 (50.9%) reduced their medication dosage, and 20/27 (74.1%) reduced their diabetes mellitus medication dosage. Finally, of the 75 patients with symptoms, 64 (85.3%) reported an improvement after the RBS.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted RBS is feasible, significantly improves patients' comorbidities and symptoms, and leads to considerable weight loss.

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass as Conversion Procedure of Failed Gastric Banding: Short-Term Outcomes of 1295 Patients in One Single Center

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) has high technical and weight loss failure rates. We evaluate here the 1-year morbidity, mortality, and weight loss of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (LRYGB) as a feasible conversion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with a failed primary LAGB who underwent LRYGB from July 2004 to December 2019 were selected from an electronic database at our center. Patients had a conversion to LRYGB at the same time (one-stage approach) or with a minimum of 3 months in between (two-stage approach). Primary outcomes included 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), and percent excess BMI lost (%EBMIL) at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 1295 patients underwent a conversion from LAGB to LRYGB at our center: 1167 patients (90.1%) in one stage and 128 patients (9.9%) in two stages. There was no mortality. An early (30-day) postoperative complication occurred in 93 patients (7.2%), with no significant difference found between groups. Hemorrhage was the most common complication in 39 patients (3.0%), and the reoperation was required in 19 patients (1.4%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean BMI was 28.0 kg/m2, the mean %EWL 72.8%, and the mean %EBMIL 87.0%. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to LRYGB can be considered as a safe and effective option with low complication rate and good weight loss outcomes at 1 year. One-stage conversion provides the same early outcome as two-step surgery with a competent surgeon.

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.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in symptomatic patients following fundoplication failure: a meta-analysis

Revisional surgery may be required in a subset of patients who remain symptomatic despite undergoing laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While revisional LF (RLF) is feasible in these patients, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) may serve as an alternative, although its efficacy and safety remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the outcomes of LRYGB in symptomatic patients following failed LF for GERD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were systematically searched for studies reporting LRYGB outcomes in symptomatic adults despite undergoing LF for GERD. Postoperative symptom resolution, recurrence of heartburn and dysphagia, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and body mass index (BMI) reduction were assessed to determine LRYGB efficacy. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were used to evaluate LRYGB safety. Twenty-two studies with 1523 patients were included. Pooled rates of symptom resolution, recurrence of heartburn and dysphagia, PPI use, morbidity, and mortality were 71.6% (95% CI 59.4-86.4), 15.6% (8.9-27.3), 20.7% (12.5-34.3), 29.6% (18.8-46.5), 39.5% (29.9-52.3), and 2.2% (1.2-4.0), respectively, following LRYGB. Similar rates were observed after RLF. However, BMI reduction was significantly greater after LRYGB compared with RLF (mean difference 6.1 kg/m², 4.8-7.4; p < 0.0001). LRYGB resulted in symptom relief in a majority of patients, and proved comparable to RLF regarding symptom recurrence and PPI use. Morbidity and mortality following LRYGB also did not differ from RLF. However, LRYGB was associated with considerably greater weight loss relative to RLF. Therefore, LRYGB is efficacious and an acceptable revisional procedure in symptomatic GERD patients who have previously undergone LF.

Conversion of Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Indications, Prevalence, and Safety

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) frequently requires conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or weight recurrence. Current evidence evaluating the safety of conversion from SG to RYGB and its indications is limited to single centers.

METHODS

The objective was to determine the rate of serious complications and mortality of conversion of SG to RYGB (SG-RYGB) compared to primary RYGB (P-RYGB). This was a retrospective analysis of the MBSAQIP database which includes 30-day outcomes. Individuals undergoing P-RYGB or SG-RYGB were included. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine if revisional surgery was an independent predictor of serious complications or mortality.

RESULTS

In 2020 and 2021, 84,543 (86.3%) patients underwent P-RYGB and 13,432 (13.7%) underwent SG-RYGB. SG-RYGB cohort had lower body mass index, lower rates of diabetes and hypertension, and higher rates of GERD. GERD was the most common indication for revision (55.3%) followed by weight regain (24.4%) and inadequate weight loss (12.7%). SG-RYGB had longer operative times (145 vs. 125 min, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of serious complications (7.2 vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). This included higher rates of anastomotic leak (0.5 vs. 0.4%, p = 0.002), bleeding (2.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), and reoperation (3.0 vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) but not death (0.1 vs. 0.1%, p = 0.385). On multivariable analysis, SG-RYGB was independently predictive of serious complications (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.32, p < 0.001) but not mortality (p = 0.316).

CONCLUSIONS

While SG-RYGB is safe with a low complication rate, SG-RYGB was associated with a higher rate of serious complications compared to P-RYGB.

Comparison of early post-operative complications in primary and revisional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and duodenal switch MBSAQIP-reported cases from 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is now the most performed bariatric surgery, though gastric bypass (GB) and duodenal switch (DS) remain common, especially as conversion/revision (C/R) procedures. This analysis compared early postoperative outcomes of primary and C/R laparoscopic SG to DS and GB; and primary procedures of each vs C/R counterparts.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) dataset was queried for SG, GB, and DS cases from 2015 to 2019. Multivariable logistic regression calculated crude and adjusted odds ratios for surgical site infection (SSI), reoperation, and readmission at 30 days in two initial comparisons: (1) primary SG vs DS or GB and (2) C/R SG vs DS or GB. A secondary analysis compared primary GS, GB, or DS with C/R counterparts. Models were adjusted for confounding demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 755,968 primary cases, most were SG (72.8%), followed by GB (26.3%), then DS (0.9%). Compared to SG, GB and DS demonstrated higher odds of SSI (aOR 3.02 [2.84, 3.2]), readmission (aOR 1.97 [1.92, 2.03]), and reoperation (aOR 2.74 [2.62, 2.86]), respectively. Of 68,716 C/R cases, SG was most common (43.2%), followed by GB (37.5%), then DS (19.2%). C/R GB and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (aOR 2.28 [1.98, 2.62]), readmission (aOR 2.10 [1.94, 2.27]), and reoperation (aOR 2.3 [2.04, 2.59]) vs SG, respectively. C/R SG and DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 2.09 [1.66, 2.63]; 1.63 [1.24, 2.14), readmission (OR 1.13 [1.02, 1.26]), and reoperation (OR 1.27 [1.06, 1.52]; 1.58 [1.24, 2.0]), vs primary procedures. C/R DS demonstrated greater risk of SSI (OR 1.23 [1.66, 2.63]).

CONCLUSIONS

Early complications are comparable between GB and DS, and greater than SG. In C/R procedures, GB and DS demonstrate greater risk than SG. Overall, C/R procedures demonstrate greater risk of most, but not all, early postoperative complications.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: laparoscopic vs. robot assisted

There is controversy over the possible advantages of the robotic technology in revisional bariatric surgery. The aim of this study is to report the experience of a high-volume bariatric center on revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with robot-assisted (R-rRYGB) and laparoscopic (L-rRYGB) approaches, with regards to operative outcomes and costs. Patients who underwent R-rRYGB and L-rRYGB between 2008 and 2021 were included. Patients' baseline characteristics and perioperative data were recorded. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morbidity. A full economic evaluation was performed. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed on laparoscopic anastomotic leak and reoperation rates. A total of 194 patients were included: 44 (22.7%) L-rRYGB and 150 (77.3%) R-rRYGB. The robotic approach was associated with lower overall complication rate (10% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.038), longer operative time, and a reduced length of stay compared to L-rRYGB. R-rRYGB was more expensive than L-rRYGB (mean difference 2401.1€, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was 18,906.3€/complication and the incremental cost-utility ratio was 48,022.0€/QALY (quality-adjusted life years), that is below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Decision tree analysis showed that L-rRYGB was the most cost-effective strategy in the base-case scenario; a probability of leak ≥ 13%, or a probability of reoperation ≥ 14% following L-rRYGB, or a 12.7% reduction in robotic costs would be required for R-rRYGB to become the most cost-effective strategy. R-rRYGB was associated with higher costs than L-rRYGB in our base-case scenario. However, it is an acceptable alternative from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Does endoscopy at the time of revisional bariatric surgery decrease complication rates? an analysis of the NSQIP database

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy is performed routinely during bariatric surgery. It is often used for provocative testing and intraluminal inspection during Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RNYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Recent publications would indicate about one-quarter of bariatric cases are performed with concurrent endoscopy, resulting in a slight increase in time but no increase in complications within 30 days compared with cases where no endoscopy is performed. Do these results persist for endoscopy during revisional bariatric surgery (RBS)?

METHODS

An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Initiative Program (NSQIP) was conducted for the years 2005-2017. Seventeen postoperative outcomes were analyzed in this database. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was completed for 13 patient comorbidities and demographics. A McNemar's test for paired categorical variables and a paired t-test for continuous variables were completed, with a significant P value of 0.05. The results were reported as the frequency and percentage for categorical variables and the mean (± standard deviation) for continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 7249 RBS cases were identified. After propensity score matching for patient comorbidities and demographics 2329 cases remained. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed in 375 (16%) of these patients. There were no differences in complication rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to non-revisional bariatric surgery, there is no difference in 30-day postoperative complications when endoscopy is performed in RBS. Endoscopy is performed in about one-sixth of RBS cases.

Intraoperative Patterns of Gastric Microperfusion During Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

INTRODUCTION

Visible light spectroscopy (VLS) represents a sensitive, non-invasive method to quantify tissue oxygen levels and detect hypoxemia. The aim of this study was to assess the microperfusion patterns of the gastric pouch during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) using the VLS technique.

METHODS

Twenty patients were enrolled. Tissue oxygenation (StO2%) measurements were performed at three different localizations of the gastric wall, prior and after the creation of the gastric pouch, and after the creation of the gastro-jejunostomy.

RESULTS

Prior to the creation of the gastric pouch, the lowest StO2% levels were observed at the level of the distal esophagus with a median StO2% of 43 (IQR 40.8-49.5). After the creation of the gastric pouch and after the creation of the gastro-jejunostomy, the lowest StO2% levels were recorded at the level of the His angle with median values of 29% (IQR 20-38.5) and 34.5% (IQR 19-39), respectively. The highest mean StO2 reduction was recorded at the level of the His angle after the creation of the gastric pouch, and it was 18.3% (SD ± 18.1%, p < 0.001). A reduction of StO2% was recorded at all localizations after the formation of the gastro-jejunostomy compared to the beginning of the operation, but the mean differences of the StO2% levels were statistically significant only at the resection line of the pouch and at the His angle (p = 0.044 and p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Gastric pouch demonstrates reduction of StO2% during LRYGB. VLS is a useful technique to assess microperfusion patterns of the stomach during LRYGB.

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.

Endoscopic therapy of weight regain after bariatric surgery

Weight regain following primary bariatric surgery occurs in a significant proportion of patients and is attributed to epidemiological, anatomical and metabolic factors. Surgical revision of these patients has significant risks and limited benefits. Endoscopic revisions that reduce gastric pouch size and diameter of the gastrojejunal anastomosis may offer an effective, safe, less invasive and even reproducible treatment. We herein discuss the indication, selection and feasibility of different endoscopic techniques that could be used in the management of weight regain following primary bariatric surgery. Future research could optimize a personalized approach not only in the endoscopic management but also in combination with other therapeutic modalities for weight regain after bariatric surgery.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS).

BACKGROUND

Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS.

METHODS

Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years.

RESULTS

The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ± 10 years, 8.4 ± 5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ± 7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

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.

Development of the "OS-SEV90 Score" to Predict Severe Postoperative Complications at 90 Days Following Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery may be associated with severe postoperative complications (SPC). Factors associated with the risk of SPC have not been fully investigated.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify preoperative risk factors of SPC within 90 days and to develop a risk prediction model based on these factors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study based on a prospectively maintained database of obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery from October 2005 to May 2019. All SPC occurring up to the 90th postoperative day were recorded according to the Dindo-Clavien classification. Associations between potential risk factors and SPC were analyzed using a logistic regression model, and the risk prediction ("OS-SEV90 score") was computed. Based on the OS-SEV90 score, the patients were grouped into 3 categories of risk: low, intermediate, and high.

RESULTS

Among 1963 consecutive patients, no patient died and 82 (4.2%) experienced SPC within 90 days. History of gastric or esophageal surgery (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.040, 95% confidence interval; CI 1.78-5.20, p< 0.0001), past of thromboembolic event aOR 2.26, 95%; CI 1.12-4.55, p = 0.0225), and surgery performed by a junior surgeon (aOR 1.99, 95%; CI 1.26-3.13, p = 0.003) were all independently associated with risk for SPC, adjusting for ASA physical status system (ASA) score ≥ 3, severe OSA, psychiatric disease, asthma, a history of abdominal surgery, alcohol, cardiac disease, and dyslipidemia. "the OS-SEV90 score" based on these factors was constructed to classify patients into 3 risk groups: low (≤2), intermediate (3-4), and high (≥5). According to "the OS-SEV90 score," SPC increased significantly from 2.9% in the low-risk group, 7.7% in the intermediate-risk group, and 23.3% in the high-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

A predictive model of SPC within 90 days "the OS-SEV90 score" has been developed using 9 baseline risk factors. The use of the OS-SEV90 score may help the multidisciplinary team to identify the specific risk of each patient and inform them about and optimize the comorbidities before the surgery. Further studies are warranted to validate this score in a new independent cohort before using it in clinical practice.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric surgery is a growing subset of all bariatric procedures. Although revisions can be associated with higher morbidity rates and less optimal outcomes than those seen with primary procedures, they can be safely performed, with excellent outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. Facility and familiarity with revisional principles and techniques are necessary components of bariatric surgical practice.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as revisional surgery

The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a worldwide-performed procedure as primary surgery, and as conversional procedure after complications and/or failure of other bariatric procedures. RYGB can be performed as revisional surgery after adjustable gastric banding, vertical banded gastroplasty, sleeve gastrectomy and one anastomosis gastric bypass. Each of these revisional procedures may be technically challenging, and accurate preoperative work-up and operative planning is required. If correctly performed, RYGB as revisional procedure is associated with satisfying outcomes and is indicated in the treatment of insufficient weight loss and postoperative complications of a primary bariatric procedure - such as chronic leak or gastroesophageal reflux after sleeve gastrectomy. The present article analyzes the most important indications, technical points and tips and tricks to safely perform RYGB as a secondary procedure.

How Far Can Our Expectations Go on Revisional Bariatric Surgery After Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding?

PURPOSE

Bariatric surgery has proven its effectiveness in the treatment of obesity and related comorbidities. However, several procedures may be required to treat this chronic disease and/or complications after bariatric surgery. The most frequent revisional surgeries performed after failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) have been Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to compare medium-term outcomes of primary and revisional bariatric procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single institution, matched case-control study of obese patients submitted to bariatric surgery, divided into four groups of 50 patients: (A) primary RYGB; (B) primary SG; (C) revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (rRYGB) after failed laparoscopic AGB; (D) revisional sleeve gastrectomy (rSG) after failed laparoscopic AGB. Demographic variables, surgical procedures characteristics and complications, weight loss outcomes and resolution of comorbidities were compared.

RESULTS

Mortality and morbidity were comparable between primary and revisional procedures. Weight loss outcomes were inferior in patients submitted to rRYGB when compared to those submitted to RYGB, with no significant differences found when comparing the other groups. Regarding comorbidities' outcomes, only patients submitted to rSG had lower odds of comorbidities' improvement. Patients submitted to rRYGB had an odd 7 times higher of comorbidities' improvement than those submitted to rSG, independent of weight loss outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Revisional surgeries are safe procedures with adequate weight loss outcomes in this difficult set of patients. The choice of revisional procedure may not influence weight loss outcomes, but rRYGB seems to be a better option regarding comorbidities' resolution.

Robotic Revisional Bariatric Surgery: a High-Volume Center Experience

PURPOSE

The number of bariatric revisional procedures is growing. Scarce evidence is available regarding the role and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery (RRBS). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and postoperative outcomes of RRBS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent RRBS between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day major morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), urgent reoperation rates, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL).

RESULTS

RRBS was performed in 76 patients; among these 60 (78.9%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (C-RYGB). Failed weight loss (76%) and gastroesophageal reflux (9.2%) were the main indications for revision. Primary bariatric procedures included gastric band (LAGB) (50%), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (40.8%), and RYGB (6.6%). Major morbidity and mortality rates were 3.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Mean LOS was 2.1 days, and 3 patients (3.9%) required urgent reoperation. The %TWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 10.2%, 16.6%, 18.3%, and 22.4% respectively. Comparative analysis of C-RYGB after failed LAGB and SG showed similar morbidity. Higher readmission rates (SG: 22.2% vs. LAGB: 0%, p = 0.007) and lower %EWL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were found in C-RYGB after SG.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the largest single-center series of RRBS published in the literature; the data indicate that robotic approach for revisional bariatric surgery is safe and helps achieving further weight loss. RRBS outcomes might be influenced by the primary procedure.

Outcomes of primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multicenter analysis of ten-year experience

Background

Postoperative morbidity after laparoscopic bariatric surgery is considered higher for patients undergoing revisional versus primary procedures. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare outcomes between patients undergoing primary versus revisional robotically assisted laparoscopic (RAL) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Methods

Data of all patients who underwent RAL primary and revisional RYGB between 2009 and 2019 at two accredited, high-volume bariatric surgery centers—the Memorial Hermann – Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX, and the Tower Health, Reading Hospital, Reading, PA, were analyzed. Primary outcomes were early (< 30 days) and overall postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications, operative times, conversions to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, early (< 30 days) postoperative readmissions and deaths.

Results

Data of 1072 patients were analyzed, including 806 primary and 266 revisional RAL RYGB procedures. Longer operative times (203 versus 154 min, P < 0.001), increased number of readmissions for oral intolerance (10.5% versus 6.7%, P = 0.046) and higher rate of gastrojejunal stricture (6.4% versus 2.7%, P = 0.013) were found in the revisional group. Gastrointestinal leak rates were 0.2% for the primary versus 1.1% for the revisional group (P = 0.101). Early (< 30 days) reoperations rates were 2.2% for the primary versus 1.1% for the revisional group (P = 0.318). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in overall and severe complication rates.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing RAL primary and revisional RYGB had comparable overall outcomes, with a non-significant higher early complication rate in the revisional group. Despite the study being underpowered to detect differences in specific complication rates, the morbidity seen in the revisional RYGB group remains markedly below literature reports of revisional laparoscopic RYGB and might suggest a benefit of robotic assistance. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Bariatric revisional surgery: What are the challenges for the patient and the practitioner?

Bariatric revisional surgery represents an important new issue for obese patients because of the considerable rate of failure and complications following bariatric surgery. As the frequency of bariatric procedures increases, so too does the incidence of revisional surgery, which has become becoming increasingly important. The surgeon must know the indications and the results of the various revisional procedures in order to best guide the therapeutic decision. The current challenge is to correctly select the patients for revisional surgery and to choose the appropriate procedure in each case. Multidisciplinary management is essential to patient re-assessment and to prepare the patient for a re- intervention. The objective of this update, based on data from all the most recent studies concerning revisional surgery, is to guide the surgeon in the choice of the revisional procedure, depending on patient characteristics, co-morbidities, the previously performed procedure, the type of failure or complication observed, but also on the surgeon's own habits and the center's expertise. The collected results show that revisional surgery is difficult, with higher complication rates and weight-loss results that are often lower than those of first-intent surgery. For these reasons, patient selection must be rigorous and multidisciplinary and the management in expert centers of these difficult situations must be encouraged.

Recommendations Based on Evidence by the Andalusian Group for Nutrition Reflection and Investigation (GARIN) for the Pre- and Postoperative Management of Patients Undergoing Obesity Surgery

In order to develop evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus for nutrition management of patients undergoing bariatric surgery and postoperative follow-up, we conducted a systematic literature search using PRISMA methodology plus critical appraisal following the SIGN and AGREE-II procedures. The results were discussed among all members of the GARIN group, and all members answered a Likert scale questionnaire to assess the degree of support for every recommendation. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery should be screened preoperatively for some micronutrient deficiencies and treated accordingly. A VLCD (Very Low-Calorie Diet) should be used for 4-8 weeks prior to surgery. Postoperatively, a liquid diet should be maintained for a month, followed by a semi-solid diet also for one month. Protein requirements (1-1.5 g/kg) should be estimated using adjusted weight. Systematic use of specific multivitamin supplements is encouraged. Calcium citrate and vitamin D supplements should be used at higher doses than are currently recommended. The use of proton-pump inhibitors should be individualised, and vitamin B12 and iron should be supplemented in case of deficit. All patients, especially pregnant women, teenagers, and elderly patients require a multidisciplinary approach and specialised follow-up. These recommendations and suggestions regarding nutrition management when undergoing bariatric surgery and postoperative follow-up have direct clinical applicability.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Safe Surgical Opportunity? Results of a Case-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) after adjustable gastric banding (AGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) compared with primary RYGB, in regard to early and late morbidity, weight, and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The group of patients undergoing revisional RYGB was matched in a 1:1 ratio with control patient who underwent a primary RYGB, based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, preoperative body mass index (BMI), and diabetes mellitus. Demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative work-up, and perioperative data were retrieved.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients (16 males and 99 females) with a mean age of 45.5 ± 1.5 years underwent revisional RYGB following either LAGB in 82 patients (71.3%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in 33 patients (28.7%). There was no conversion and no mortality in either group. Revisional RYGB was associated with similar early (16.5 vs 15.6%, ns) and late (42.6% vs 32.2%, ns) morbidity rates with a mean follow-up of 25.3 ± 16.6 months compared to primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The revisional RYGB group had significantly less weight loss (mean %EWL 67.4 ± 20.7 vs 72.7 ± 22.9, p = 0.023 and mean %EBMI 68.1 ± 22 vs 78.3 ± 25.7, p = 0.01) at the time of 1 year. Improvement of comorbidities including hypertension (62.5 vs 70.5%; p > 0.05), diabetes (73.7 vs 79%; p > 0.05), and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (100 vs 97%; p > 0.05) was similar.

CONCLUSION

This large case-matched study suggests that conversion of SG or AGB to RYGB is feasible with early and late comparable morbidity in an accredited center; even weight results might be inferior.

Comparison of Repeat Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Case of Weight Loss Failure After Sleeve Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Few series are available on the results of repeat sleeve gastrectomy (re-SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) performed to manage the failure of primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The objective of this study was to compare the short- and medium-term outcomes of re-SG and RYGB after SG.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2017, patients undergoing re-SG (n = 61) and RYGB (n = 83) for failure of primary SG were included in this study. Revisional surgery was proposed for patients with insufficient excess weight loss (EWL ≤ 50%) or weight regain. The primary endpoint was the comparison of weight loss in the re-SG group and the RYGB group at the 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were overall mortality and morbidity, specific morbidity, length of stay, weight loss, and correction of comorbidities.

RESULTS

The mean interval between SG and re-SG was 41.5 vs. 43.2 months between SG and RYGB (p = 0.32). The mean operative time was 103 min (re-SG group) vs. 129.4 min (RYGB group). One death (1.7%; re-SG group) and 25 complications (17.4%; 9 in the re-SG group, 16 in the RYGB group) were observed. At the 1 year, mean body mass index was 31.6 in the re-SG group and 32.5 in the RYGB group (p = 0.61) and excess weight loss was 69.5 vs. 61.2, respectively (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Re-SG and RYGB as revisional surgery for SG are feasible with acceptable outcomes and similar results on weight loss on the first postoperative year.

The first consensus statement on revisional bariatric surgery using a modified Delphi approach

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) constitutes a possible solution for patients who experience an inadequate response following bariatric surgery or significant weight regain following an initial satisfactory response. This paper reports results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on RBS.

METHODS

We created a committee of 22 recognised opinion-makers with a special interest in RBS. The committee invited 70 RBS experts from 27 countries to vote on 39 statements concerning RBS. An agreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was regarded as a consensus.

RESULTS

Seventy experts from twenty-seven countries took part. There was a consensus that the decision for RBS should be individualised (100.0%) and multi-disciplinary (92.8%). Experts recommended a preoperative nutritional (95.7%) and psychological evaluation (85.7%), endoscopy (97.1%), and a contrast series (94.3%). Experts agreed that Roux-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (94.3%), One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) (82.8%), and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) (71.4%) were acceptable RBS options after gastric banding (84.3%). OAGB (84.3%), bilio-pancreatic diversion/duodenal switch (BPD/DS) (81.4%), and SADI-S (88.5%) were agreed as consensus RBS options after sleeve gastrectomy. lengthening of bilio-pancreatic limb was the only consensus RBS option after RYGB (94.3%) and OAGB (72.8%).

CONCLUSION

Experts achieved consensus on a number of aspects of RBS. Though expert opinion can only be regarded as low-quality evidence, the findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of RBS while we develop robust evidence to inform future practice.