Laparoscopic Duodenal Switch Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass at a High-Volume Community Hospital: a Retrospective Cohort Study from a Rural Setting

Outcomes Comparison Between Primary and Revisional Duodenal Switch in Patients with a BMI Greater than 55 kg/m2

Background: Revisional bariatric surgery for recurrent weight gain is becoming more common, though it carries higher risks and may be less effective than primary bariatric surgery. This study compares clinical outcomes between primary and revisional duodenal switch (DS) in patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 55 kg/m2. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 20 patients who underwent either primary or revisional duodenal switch (DS) surgeries, including biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPDDS) and Single-Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-s), between January 2015 and December 2023. Revisional DS was defined as the conversion from Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) to either BPDDS (C-BPDDS) or SADI-S (C-SADI-S). Perioperative and postoperative variables were analyzed. A statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and McNemar tests for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Eleven primary DS patients (six BPDDS, five SADI-s) and nine revisional DS patients (five C-BPDDS, four C-SADI-s) were included. The revisional group had a slightly higher preoperative BMI (57.56 ± 5.92 kg/m2 vs. 55.93 kg/m2 ± 6.91 kg/m2). Although operative times were shorter in the revisional group (153.20 ± 53.26 vs. 193.27 ± 46.79 min), the length of stay was longer (2.70 ± 1.25 vs. 2.18 ± 1.16 days). Primary DS patients experienced three minor late complications (dehydration, nephrolithiasis), whereas the revisional group had one major complication (internal hernia requiring reoperation). At the 12-month follow-up, both groups demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) (primary DS: 25.25% ± 12.38 vs. revisional DS: 30.31% ± 10.79) and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) (primary DS: 48.41% ± 22.93 vs. revisional DS: 53.24% ± 14.48). Conclusions: Revisional DS was associated with shorter operation times and similar weight loss to primary DS. Additionally, it was accomplished safely and led to adequate and sustained weight loss in patients with a BMI greater than 55 kg/m2.

Challenges of Revisional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Comprehensive Guide to Unraveling the Complexities and Solutions of Revisional Bariatric Procedures

Revisional metabolic and bariatric surgery (RMBS) presents unique challenges in addressing weight loss failure or complications arising from initial bariatric procedures. This review aims to explore the complexities and solutions associated with revisional bariatric procedures comprehensively, offering insights into the evolving terrain of metabolic and bariatric surgery. A literature review is conducted to identify pertinent studies and expert opinions regarding RMBS. Methodological approaches, patient selection criteria, surgical techniques, preoperative assessments, and postoperative management strategies are synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of current practices and advancements in the field, including institutional protocols. This review synthesizes key findings regarding the challenges encountered in RMBS, including the underlying causes of primary procedure failure, anatomical complexities, technical considerations, and assessments of surgical outcomes. Additionally, patient outcomes, complication rates, and long-term success are presented, along with institutional approaches to patient assessment and procedure selection. This review provides valuable insights for clinicians grappling with the complexities of RMBS. A comprehensive understanding of patient selection, surgical techniques, preoperative management, and postoperative care is crucial for enhancing outcomes and ensuring patient satisfaction in the field of metabolic bariatric surgery.

Evaluation of Alternate Laparoscopic Stapling Device for Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

As laparoscopic bariatric surgical techniques have matured, the incidence of complications has decreased over time. Surgical stapling devices are commonly used for resection and anastomosis of gastric tissue during bariatric surgery. The purpose of this study is to assess and compare complication rates and clinical outcomes between patient cohorts using 2 different approved stapling devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared for patients undergoing bariatric surgery between April 2019 and December 2020 using laparoscopic surgical stapling device A (LSSD-A) against outcomes between January 2017 and September 2018 using laparoscopic surgical stapling device B (LSSD-B). Tradenames for LSSD-A and LSSD-B were AEON Endostapler and Endo GIA with Tri-Staple Technology, respectively.

RESULTS

In all, 814 patients underwent laparoscopic bariatric operation using LSSD-A and 1034 using LSSD-B. Laparoscopic surgery included sleeve gastrectomy (n=1359, 73.5%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n=425, 23.0%), and single anastomosis duodenoileostomy with gastric sleeve (n=64, 3.5%). Stapler-related complications were evenly distributed over the 20.9-month LSSD-B study period. No stapler-related complications were seen in the last 13 months of the LSSD-A study period, during which time 428 (52.5%) laparoscopic bariatric operations were performed. One staple line leak was observed, occurring in the LSSD-B group. Patients undergoing laparoscopic RYGB with LSSD-A had fewer overall complications, fewer transfusions, and fewer reoperations for staple line bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LSSD-A and LSSD-B were safe and effective in the performance of laparoscopic bariatric operations with low complication rates and comparable clinical performance in sleeve gastrectomy and single anastomosis duodenoileostomy with gastric sleeve. Statistically significant differences in complication rates were observed in RYGB favoring LSSD-A.

Revisional Procedures after Sleeve Gastrectomy for Weight Recurrence or Inadequate Weight Loss: An Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database

INTRODUCTION

The safety of conversional bariatric procedures after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for weight recurrence (WR) or inadequate weight loss (IWL) is debated due to limited evidence. Conversion options include Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (SADI), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS). We aimed to compare serious complications and mortality rates between these procedures within 30 days.

METHODS

Using the 2020 and 2021 MBSAQIP databases, we identified patients who underwent a conversion from SG to RYGB, SADI, or BPD-DS. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to assess predictors of 30-day complications and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 7388 patients (77.6% RYGB, 8.7% SADI, 13.7% BPD-DS), those undergoing SADI and BPD-DS had higher preoperative body mass index. Conversion reasons included WR (63.0%) and IWL (37.0%). SADI and BPD-DS patients had longer operative times (p < 0.001) and higher leak rates (p = 0.001). Serious complications, reoperations, readmissions, and 30-day mortality were similar across groups. Conversion procedure type was not an independent predictor of complications.

CONCLUSION

RYGB was the most performed conversional procedure after SG. The study indicated a similar safety profile for revisional RYGB, SADI, and BPD-DS, with comparable 30-day complications and mortality rates. However, SADI and BPD-DS patients had longer operative time and higher leak rates.

Predictors of morbidity in revisional bariatric surgery and bariatric emergencies at an MBSAQIP-accredited community hospital

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to primary bariatric surgery. No formal outcome benchmarks exist that distinguish MBSAQIP-accredited centers in the community from unaccredited institutions.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 53 bariatric surgery revisions and 61 bariatric surgical emergencies by a single surgeon at a high-volume community hospital accredited program from 2018 to 2020. Primary outcomes were complications or deaths occurring within 30-days of the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included operative time, leaks, surgical site occurrences (SSOs), and deep surgical site infections.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of the study groups. Mean operative time was significantly longer for revisions as compared to emergency operations (149.5 vs. 89.4 min). Emergencies had higher surgical site infection (5.7% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.05) and surgical site occurrence (SSO) (1.9% vs. 29.5%, p < 0.05) rates compared to revisions. Logistic regression analysis identified several factors to be predictive of increased risk of morbidity: pre-operative albumin < 3.5 g/dL (p < 0.05), recent bariatric procedure within the last 30 days (p < 0.05), prior revisional bariatric surgery (p < 0.05), prior duodenal switch (p < 0.05), and pre-operative COPD (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Bariatric surgery revisions and emergencies have similar morbidity and mortality, far exceeding those of the primary operation. Outcomes comparable to those reported by urban academic centers can be achieved in community hospital MBSAQIP-accredited centers.

Duodenal switch versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a perioperative risk comparative analysis of the MBSAQIP Database (2015-2019)

BACKGROUND

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) is a procedure that has long been considered to have a higher early postoperative morbidity than Roux-En-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). However, patients who undergo BPD/DS have more baseline co-morbidities that may affect the reported early postoperative morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality between BPD/DS and RYGB propensity score-matched cohorts obtained from the MBSAQIP database.

SETTING

Analysis of data obtained from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 21-variable propensity score-matched patients in the BPD/DS and RYGB groups obtained from the MBSAQIP database between 2015 and 2019. Variables included age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and pertinent medical co-morbidities. Data were analyzed for 30-day postoperative morbidity, mortality, reoperation, reintervention, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Before matching, RYGB and BPD/DS cohorts contained 134 188 and 5079 patients, respectively. After multivariable propensity score matching, each cohort contained 5050 patients. The RYGB group had a higher rate of surgical-site infections than the BPD/DS group (1% versus .5%, P = .007) and a higher rate of blood product transfusions (1.1% versus .6%, P = .018). The rate of other early postoperative complications was similar between the 2 groups (P > .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day mortality, readmission rate, reoperation rate, or reintervention rate between the 2 groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

When matched for baseline body mass index and co-morbidities, BPD/DS does not lead to a higher 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality than RYGB. Patients can be counseled that in the short term, BPD/DS is as safe as RYGB.