Anastomotic Ulcer Perforation Following One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass

American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery literature review on risk factors, screening recommendations, and prophylaxis for marginal ulcers after metabolic and bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Marginal ulcers (MU) are a significant postoperative complication following anastomotic metabolic and bariatric surgeries including Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS). This review summarizes current knowledge on MU risk factors, screening, and prophylactic strategies.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this review is to examine technical and patient-related risk factors for MU, assess screening strategies, and recommend prophylactic approaches to reduce MU incidence after anastomotic metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS).

SETTING

A comprehensive review was conducted by members of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) Clinical Issues Committee, based on available literature from 2000 to the present.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Relevant studies were screened for inclusion. Technical and patient-related factors were evaluated, and recommendations for MU prevention were formulated.

RESULTS

Several risk factors for MU were identified, including large gastric pouch size, circular stapled anastomoses, use of nonabsorbable sutures, smoking, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use, and immunosuppression. While prophylactic proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is widely recommended, its optimal duration remains debated. The role of Helicobacter pylori in MU development is not clearly defined.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic PPI therapy for at least 3 months postsurgery significantly reduces the risk of MU. Risk stratification and individualized treatment plans are essential to minimize postoperative complications. Further research is needed to clarify the role of H. pylori and optimize prophylactic strategies.

ASMBS literature review on the treatment of marginal ulcers after metabolic and bariatric surgery

Marginal ulcers (MUs) encompass a group of mucosal disruptions and subsequent inflammatory changes and their sequala found after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) oneanastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), and, less commonly, after biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileostomy with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S). Prevalence of MU after RYGB ranges from .6%-16%. This review summarizes the current knowledge about the treatment options available for MU after MBS for providers who treat them.

Similar Rates of Symptomatic Marginal Ulcers After One-Anastomosis-Gastric Bypass Compared to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

PURPOSE

One-anastomosis-gastric-bypass (OAGB) has become a common bariatric procedure worldwide. Marginal ulcers (MU) are a significant non-immediate complication of gastric bypass surgeries. There seems to be concern among surgeons that MU are more common after OAGB compared with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to the constant and extensive exposure of the anastomosis to bile. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence, presentation, and management of MU between the two surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of prospectively collected data was performed to include all consecutive patients between 2010 and 2020, who underwent elective OAGB or RYGB at our institution. Patients diagnosed with symptomatic MU were identified. Factors associated with this complication were assessed and compared between the two surgeries.

RESULTS

Symptomatic MU were identified in 23/372 OAGB patients (6.2%) and 35/491 RYGB patients (7.1%) (p = 0.58). Time to ulcer diagnosis was shorter in OAGB patients (12 ± 11 vs. 22 ± 17 months, p < 0.01). Epigastric pain was the common symptom (78% OAGB vs. 88.5% RYGB, p = 0.7) and approximately 15% of ulcers presented with perforation upon admission (17% vs.11.4%, p = 0.7). Re-operation was required in 5/23 OAGB (21.7%) and 6/36 RYGB (17%) patients (p = 0.11) while the rest of the patients were managed non-operatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of developing a marginal ulcer is similar between patients who underwent OAGB and RYGB. Patients diagnosed with MU following OAGB tend to present earlier; however, the clinical presentation is similar to RYGB patients. The management of this serious complication seems to be associated with acceptable outcomes with comparable operative and non-operative approaches.

Marginal Ulcer Perforation after One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: Surgical Treatment and Two-Year Outcomes

Background: Marginal ulcer (MU) perforation is a chronic complication after One-anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB). This study's purpose was to analyze patients undergoing OAGB revision due to MU perforation and describe the two-year outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a database in a single-tertiary hospital. All patients undergoing surgical revision due to MU perforation were included. Results: During the study period, 22 patients underwent OAGB revision due to MU perforation. The rate of MU perforation was 0.98%. The median age was 48 years and there were 13 men (59%). The median time from OAGB to MU perforation was 19 months with a median total weight loss of 31.5%. Nine patients (41%) were smokers. Omental patch (±primary closure) was performed in 19 patients (86%) and three patients (14%) underwent conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). At a median follow-up of 48 months, three patients (14%) had recurrent MU diagnosis, of which one had a recurrent MU perforation. Four patients (18%) underwent conversion to RYGB during follow-up. Conclusions: MU perforation is a chronic complication after OAGB. In this cohort, most patients were men and likely to be smokers. Omental patch was effective in most cases. Recurrent MU rates at two years follow-up were acceptable.

Comparison of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy for Revision of Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding: 5-Year Outcomes

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is in continuous decline due to low effectiveness and high reoperation rates. This study aims to evaluate outcomes of converting LAGB to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for insufficient weight loss or weight regain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective comparative study, based on prospective registry database of a tertiary center (2012-2019).

RESULTS

In all, 276 LAGB patients were converted to OAGB (n = 125) and SG (n = 151). Body mass index (BMI) at revision was 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42.3 ± 9.6 kg/m2 (P = 0.34) in OAGB and SG patients, respectively. Time interval was longer in OAGB patients (p < 0.001). Major early complication rates were comparable (2.4% and 4%; p = 0.46). At 5-years, OAGB patients had lower BMI (31.9 vs. 34.5 kg/m2; p = 0.002), and a higher total weight loss (25.1% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.003), compared with SG patients. Resolution of type 2 diabetes was higher in OAGB patients (93.3% vs. 66.6%; p = 0.047), while resolution of hypertension was not significantly different (84.6% and 80.5%; p = 0.68). Revision due to delayed complications was required in five (4%) OAGB patients and nine (8.6%) SG patients (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

OAGB for revision after LAGB due to insufficient weight loss or weight regain is safe, and has better effectiveness in weight reduction and resolution of type 2 diabetes than SG.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Compared with Sleeve Gastrectomy in Elderly Patients: Safety and Long-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

As life expectancy increases, more elderly patients are being considered for metabolic bariatric surgery. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term effectiveness of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) compared to sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative study of OAGB and SG (2012-2019) in patients aged ≥ 65 years.

RESULTS

In all, 124 patients underwent OAGB (n = 41) and SG (n = 83). Mean age was 67.6 ± 2.8 and 67.6 ± 2.6 years (p = 0.89), respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable, except lower rates of hypertension (HTN) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in OAGB than SG patients (43.9% vs. 74.6%; p < 0.001, and 39.0% vs. 89.1%; p < 0.001, respectively). Body mass index (BMI) of OAGB and SG patients decreased from 41.8 ± 7.8 and 43.3 ± 5.9 kg/m² (p = 0.25) to 28.6 ± 4.7 and 33.2 ± 5.3 (p < 0.001), at long-term follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) > 50% was achieved in 80.6% and 43.2% of OAGB and SG patients, with a mean EWL of 67.2% ± 22.3 and 45.8% ± 18.0 (p < 0.001) and a mean total weight loss (TWL) of 30.7% ± 10.4 and 21.9% ± 8.1 (p < 0.001), respectively. Resolution rates of obesity-associated medical problems were similar, except type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HTN, which were 86.6% and 73.3% in OAGB, compared with 29.7% and 36.3% in SG patients (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001), respectively. Major early complication rates were comparable (2.4% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.73, respectively). Revision for late complications was required in two OAGB patients.

CONCLUSIONS

OAGB in the elderly is safe and results in better long-term weight reduction and resolution of T2D and HTN than SG.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Revision of Restrictive Procedures: Mid-Term Outcomes and Analysis of Possible Outcome Predictors

PURPOSE

Revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) for insufficient weight reduction following primary restrictive procedures is still investigated. We report mid-term outcomes and possible outcome predictors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative study of revisional OAGB outcomes (2015-2018) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG); silastic ring vertical gastroplasty (SRVG) is separately discussed.

RESULTS

In all, 203 patients underwent revisional OAGB following LAGB (n = 125), SG (n = 64), and SRVG (n = 14). Comparing LAGB and SG, body mass index (BMI) at revision were 41.3 ± 6.6 and 42 ± 11.2 kg/m² (p = 0.64), reduced to 31.3 ± 8.3 and 31.9 ± 8.3 (p = 0.64) at mid-term follow-up, respectively. Excess weight loss (EWL) > 50% was achieved in ~ 50%, with EWL of 79.4 ± 20.4% (corresponding total weight loss 38.5 ± 10.4%). SRVG patients had comparable outcomes. Resolution rates of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension (HTN) were 93.3% and 84.6% in LAGB compared with 100% and 100% in SG patients (p = 0.47 and p = 0.46), respectively. In univariable analysis, EWL > 50% was associated with male gender (p < 0.001), higher weight (p < 0.001), and BMI (p = 0.007) at primary surgery, and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for EWL > 50% were male gender (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.27-6.18; p = 0.01) and higher BMI at revisional OAGB (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Revisional OAGB for insufficient restrictive procedures results in excellent weight reduction in nearly 50% of patients, with resolution of T2D and HTN at mid-term follow-up. Male gender and higher BMI at revision were associated with EWL > 50% following revisional OAGB. Identification of more predictors could aid judicious patient selection.