Trends and progress of bariatric and metabolic surgery in India

LSG vs MGB-OAGB: 5-Year Follow-up Data and Comparative Outcome of the Two Procedures over Long Term-Results of a Randomised Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is a durable and effective way for the management of obesity and resolution of related comorbidities. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) over long term in a South Asian population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective randomised trial comparing the outcome of 100 and 101 LSG and OAGB patients respectively after 5-year follow-up. This study is in continuity with previous published papers with 1- and 3-year follow-up. 71 LSG and 73 OAGB patients followed at 5 years. The results of these patients were analysed and compared in terms of %EWL, comorbidity resolution and quality of life (QoL) at 5 years. Bariatric analysis reporting and outcome system (BAROS) was used to assess the outcome of patients.

RESULTS

At 5-year follow-up, both LSG and OAGB patients performed well and patients had significant improvement in BMI (kg/m²⁾. The mean preoperative BMI of LSG and OAGB patients was 44.89 ± 7.94 and 45.32 ± 8.24, and their mean BMI at 5 years was 33.41 ± 6.02, 30.80 ± 3.40 respectively. At 5 years, %EWL was 55.95 ± 27.01 and 65.28 ± 13.98 for LSG and OAGB patients respectively. The QoL score of LSG and OAGB patients was 1.86 ± 0.56 and 2.35 ± 0.41 while comorbidity score was 1.84 ± 0.68 and 2.24 ± 0.62 respectively at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LSG and OAGB are effective bariatric procedures over long term with respect to weight loss, comorbidity resolution and improvement in QoL. OAGB is significantly better than LSG in all the three parameters at 5 years.

Should Surveillance Endoscopy Be Routine After One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass to Detect Marginal Ulcers: Initial Outcomes in a Tertiary Referral Centre

PURPOSE

Encouraged by the excellent outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) reported by many authors, we added this procedure to our bariatric armamentarium in 2015. Here we present our initial experience of 68 cases and findings from routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy at 1 year.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of a single surgical unit in a tertiary referral centre. Patients undergoing OAGB from January 2015 to May 2019 were included. A fixed biliopancreatic (BP) limb length of 200 cm was used in all patients. Surveillance endoscopy was done at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients, of whom 67.6% were females, were analysed. Mean age was 40.8 ± 1 years. Mean preoperative weight and body mass index (BMI) were 131 ± 24.7 kg and 51 ± 7 kg/m², respectively. Median follow-up was 23 months (range 9-55 months), with 88% follow-up at 6 months and 1 year. At 1 year, mean total weight loss (TWL) and excess weight loss (EWL) were 35% and 71%, respectively. Endoscopy at 1 year revealed a 9.5% rate of marginal ulcers, majority of which healed with conservative treatment. Eighty-eight percent patients had complete remission of diabetes, and 94% had complete remission of hypertension. There was no 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

OAGB is a safe and effective bariatric procedure with excellent short-term outcomes in terms of weight loss, resolution of obesity-related co-morbidities and complications. Routine surveillance endoscopy at 1 year may detect asymptomatic marginal ulcers and, thus, prevent ulcer-related complications.

Five-Year Weight Loss Outcomes in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) has overtaken the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) as the most frequently performed bariatric surgical procedure. To date little has been reported on the long-term outcomes of the LVSG procedure comparative to the traditionally favoured LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the 5-year outcomes of comparing LVSG and LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare 5-year weight loss outcomes of randomized controlled trials comparing LVSG to LRYGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.