One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass (OAGB-MGB) as revisional bariatric surgery after failed primary adjustable gastric band (LAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG): A systematic review of 1075 patients

One anastomosis gastric bypass in children and adolescents: An international expert survey

Despite the growing popularity of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) as the third most commonly performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedure worldwide, concerns remain among MBS surgeons about performing OAGB in children and adolescents. This international expert survey was conducted to assess the perspectives of experts regarding the different aspects of OAGB specific to these patient groups. A total of 102 expert MBS surgeons from 41 countries were invited to participate in this survey, which took place between 24 May 2024, and 11 June 2024. The participating surgeons provided their responses through a 30-question online survey, employing a multiple-choice format. Approximately 6.85% of participants believe there should be no minimum age limit for OAGB and 26.5% of experts perform OAGB only in patients 18 years old and above. The experts define adherence to postoperative diet, patient cooperation, and managing family expectations as the main challenges encountered when performing OAGB in this population. About 92.2% of experts believe that consultation and follow-up by a paediatrician, as part of a multidisciplinary team (MDT), are essential before surgery. Also, 76.5% of experts believe that bone age should be determined in these age groups before OAGB. Despite the absence of strong evidence refuting the safety and efficacy of OAGB in children and adolescents, this survey revealed that there are still some concerns about the long-term safety and efficacy of OAGB in children and adolescents.

The trend of atherogenic indices in patients with type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery has profound effects on weight loss, metabolic regulation, and gut hormone modulation, which make it an efficient tool for managing obesity and improving diabetes outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate the atherogenic indices, including atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), atherogenic coefficient (AC), Castelli's risk index II (CRI-II), and lipoprotein combine index (LCI) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) living with excess weight, who have undergone bariatric surgery.

SETTING

Three types of surgery including one-anastomosis gastric bypass/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were performed on patients with obesity and T2D in the period of August 2009 to February 2021 at the Surgical Department of Hazrat-e Rasool Hospital (University Hospital), Tehran, Iran.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort, 1246 individuals with obesity and T2D who underwent 3 types of bariatric surgery including RYGB, SG, and OAGB/MGB were studied for 2years after the surgery; the data were derived from the National Iranian Obesity Surgery Database. Afterward, the trend of biochemical parameters, total weight loss (TWL%), and atherogenesis-related indices were evaluated from baseline up to 2years in 5 follow-up visits.

RESULTS

A total of 1246 patients with T2D and obesity who underwent bariatric surgery were included in this study. The trend of all atherogenesis-related indices, including AIP, LCI, CRI-II, and AC, showed a significant reduction (49.2%, 53.4%, 20.8%, 22%, respectively) 2years after the bariatric surgery (P < .05). In the 6-month follow-up, 1-year follow-up, and 2-year follow-up, 1023 (83.10%), 719 (57.70%), and 341 (27.36%) individuals participated, respectively. In addition, a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was observed 2years after the surgery in both sexes (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The bariatric surgery significantly reduced the levels of atherogenic indices including AIP, CRI-II, LCI, and AC.

Comparison of Benefits and Risks of Metabolic Surgery for Long-Term (5 Years) Weight Loss and Diabetes Remission in Overweight/Obese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

While there have been studies comparing the efficiency of several metabolic operations in overweight or obese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there is currently no comprehensive evidence about the complete remission of diabetes and its long-term safety.

METHODS

This comprehensive review and network meta-analysis encompassed searches of many databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. The search was conducted from the beginning of these databases' existence until 1 May 2024. The study selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a 5-year follow-up period to compare the clinical benefits and evaluate the occurrence of side events. The network meta-analysis employed a random-effects model. The registration number for PROSPERO is CRD42023412536.

RESULTS

There was a total of 16 RCTs that included 1059 patients. A total of 897 patients, representing 84.7% of the entire sample, successfully completed the 5-year follow-up. Seven metabolic procedures were conducted. All ensuing estimates are to the comparison with a non-surgical treatment (NST). The evidence strongly supports that One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is the most effective surgical procedure for achieving long-term complete remission of diabetes (relative risk [RR] 10.28, 95% CI 1.87 to 56.40). Additionally, Biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) is the most effective procedure for achieving long-term partial remission of diabetes (RR 16.74, 95% CI 4.66 to 60.12). The study found that BPD was the most successful method for long-term weight loss, with a mean difference of -11.68 in BMI decrease (95% CI -15.06 to -8.31) and a mean difference of -32.01 in weight change (95% CI -43.27 to -20.74). The evidence supporting this conclusion is of moderate quality. Regarding the occurrence of adverse events and complications related to surgery, gastrointestinal, macrovascular, and microvascular issues are not as frequent in BPD compared with NST (relative risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 1.37). On the other hand, OAGB may have a higher occurrence of these difficulties, second only to BPD (relative risk 0.08, 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 3.29). Based on the findings on effectiveness and safety, it has been determined that OAGB (One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass) is more effective in obtaining long-term complete remission of diabetes and in assuring overall safety in diabetes management. However, BPD is superior to OAGB in terms of partial remission, weight loss and safety in diabetes management, ranking second in these aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Both BPD and OAGB have been demonstrated superior efficacy in achieving long-term weight loss and diabetes remission in overweight/obese individuals with T2DM. OAGB is particularly advantageous for achieving long-term complete remission of diabetes mellitus and boasts a higher level of safety overall. The study found that BPD was the most efficacious treatment for achieving partial remission and weight loss in patients with long-term diabetes, while also having the lowest number of reported side events.

MGB-OAGB International Club-Results of a Modified Delphi Consensus on Controversies in OAGB

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) presently constitutes 7.6% of all metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedures globally. Despite being approved by the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) as a standalone MBS procedure and two consensus efforts in the past, multiple areas of controversies remain. This consensus builds upon previous consensus efforts to address unresolved controversies in the field. A modified Delphi consensus exercise was conducted over 4 weeks under the aegis of the MGB-OAGB International Club. A panel of 86 bariatric experts from 25 countries participated in 3 rounds of voting on 29 questions on patient selection, technical standardization, revisional surgeries, and post-operative care. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. Consensus was achieved on 22 out of 29 questions. Key areas of agreement included suitability of OAGB for adolescents above the age of 15 years and patients with class 1 obesity with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Patients with severe esophagitis and Barrett's esophagus were not considered as good candidates for OAGB. Crural repair with OAGB was considered as an appropriate procedure in patients with large hiatus hernia. While a bilio-pancreatic limb (BPL) length of 150 - 200 cm was deemed suitable, it was recommended to tailor the BPL length to prevent protein energy malnutrition. It was also agreed to routinely administer ursodeoxycholic acid and proton-pump inhibitors for 6 months post-operatively. This modified Delphi consensus represents a critical step forward in addressing the controversies surrounding OAGB. It also emphasizes on the importance of individualized patient care and the need for ongoing research to refine surgical practices and improve outcomes.

Therapeutic Options for Recurrence of Weight and Obesity Related Complications After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: An IFSO Position Statement

Obesity is a chronic disease that may require multiple interventions and escalation of therapy throughout the years. Until recently, no universal definition existed for recurrent weight gain and insufficient weight loss. Standardization of reporting is key so outcomes can be compared and data can be pooled. The recent IFSO consensus provided standard terminology and definitions that will likely resolve this in the future, and publishers will need to enforce for authors to use these definitions. This current IFSO position statement provides guidance for the management of recurrent weight gain after bariatric surgery.

Revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass for failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term weight loss outcomes and complications of revisional one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) following failed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). A total of 586 patients underwent LSG from January 2010 to February 2018. Revisional OAGB (rOAGB) was performed in 22 (3.8%) patients. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 20 patients with at least 12 months of follow-up after the revisional OAGB was carried out. The indications for revisional surgery were as follows: insufficient weight loss-4 (20%), weight regain-13 (65%), weight regain and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-2 (10%), and dysphagia with gastroesophageal reflux-1 (5%). The mean interval between the LSG and rOAGB was 35.3 ± 15.4 months (range 4-64). The mean follow-up time after rOAGB was 45.5 ± 17.1 months (range 12-54). At the end of the follow-up after rOAGB, %TWL was 26.4 ± 8.9%, and %EWL was 58.5 ± 21.6%, based on pre-LSG body weight. In all three patients with intractable GERD, the clinical symptoms of reflux retreated after revisional OAGB. The overall complication rate was 20%. In conclusion, the main indications for revision after LSG are weight regain, insufficient weight loss, and intractable GERD. Revisional OAGB emerges as a viable surgical alternative for unsuccessful LSG, presenting notable weight loss outcomes; however, it may be linked to an increased incidence of complications.

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.

Revision/Conversion Surgeries After One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass-An Experts' Modified Delphi Consensus

PURPOSE

There is a lack of evidence for treatment of some conditions including complication management, suboptimal initial weight loss, recurrent weight gain, or worsening of a significant obesity complication after one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study was designed to respond to the existing lack of agreement and to provide a valuable resource for clinicians by employing an expert-modified Delphi consensus method.

METHODS

Forty-eight recognized bariatric surgeons from 28 countries participated in the modified Delphi consensus to vote on 64 statements in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was regarded to indicate a consensus.

RESULTS

A consensus was achieved for 46 statements. For recurrent weight gain or worsening of a significant obesity complication after OAGB, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus that elongation of the biliopancreatic limb (BPL) is an acceptable option and the total bowel length measurement is mandatory during BPL elongation to preserve at least 300-400 cm of common channel limb length to avoid nutritional deficiencies. Also, more than 85% of experts reached a consensus on conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with or without pouch downsizing as an acceptable option for the treatment of persistent bile reflux after OAGB and recommend detecting and repairing any size of hiatal hernia during conversion to RYGB.

CONCLUSION

While the experts reached a consensus on several aspects regarding revision/conversion surgeries after OAGB, there are still lingering areas of disagreement. This highlights the importance of conducting further studies in the future to address these unresolved issues.

Sleeve Migration Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review of Current Literature

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide. The incidence and consequences of sleeve migration (SM) are not clearly understood. There is no clear consensus on appropriate measures to reduce the risk of SM. This study systematically reviewed the literature and identified 405 cases of SM from 21 studies. Age ranged from 18 to 68 years. Thirty-two percent and 11% of patients were females and males respectively, while sex was not reported in 57%. Time to diagnosis ranged from 1 day to 5 years postoperatively. A total of 9.6% and 58.8% of patients had or had no previous hiatal hernia respectively. SM incidence, risk factors, proposed mechanisms, clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and potential preventive strategies are described in this review.

Technical Variations and Considerations around OAGB in IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC Chapters, an Expert Survey

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the technical variations of one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) among IFSO-APC and MENAC experts.

BACKGROUND

The multitude of technical variations and patient selection challenges among metabolic and bariatric surgeons worldwide necessitates a heightened awareness of these issues. Understanding different perspectives and viewpoints can empower surgeons performing OAGB to adapt their techniques, leading to improved outcomes and reduced complications.

METHODS

The scientific team of IFSO-APC, consisting of skilled bariatric and metabolic surgeons specializing in OAGB, conducted a confidential online survey. The survey aimed to assess technical variations and considerations related to OAGB within the IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC chapters. A total of 85 OAGB experts participated in the survey, providing their responses through a 35-question online format. The survey took place from January 1, 2024, to February 15, 2024.

RESULTS

Most experts do not perform OAGB for children and adolescents younger than 18 years. Most experts create the gastric pouch over a 36-40-F bougie and prefer to create a gastrojejunostomy, at the posterior wall of the gastric pouch. An anti-reflux suture during OAGB is performed in all patients by 51.8% of experts. Most experts set a common limb length of > 4 m in revisional and conversional OAGBs to prevent nutritional complications.

CONCLUSION

The ongoing debate among metabolic and bariatric surgeons regarding the technical variations and patient selection in OAGB remains a significant point of discussion. This survey demonstrated the variations in technical aspects and patient selection for OAGB among MBS surgeons in the IFSO-APC and IFSO-MENAC chapters. Standardizing the OAGB technique is crucial to ensure optimal safety and efficacy in this procedure.

Medium and Long-Term Weight Loss After Revisional Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the current increase in revisional bariatric surgery (RBS), data on the sustainability of weight loss remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess weight loss outcomes in adult patients undergoing RBS with follow-up > 2 years. Twenty-eight observational studies (n = 2213 patients) were included. The %TWL was 27.2 (95%CI = 23.7 to 30.6), and there was a drop in BMI of 10.2 kg/m2 (95%CI =  - 11.6 to - 8.7). The %EWL was 54.8 (95%CI = 47.2 to 62.4) but with a high risk of publication bias (Egger's test = 0.003). The overall quality of evidence was very low. Our data reinforce that current evidence on RBS is mainly based on low-quality observational studies, and further higher-quality studies are needed to support evidence-based practice.

Current recommendations for procedure selection in class I and II obesity developed by an expert modified Delphi consensus

Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is widely considered the most effective option for treating obesity, a chronic, relapsing, and progressive disease. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) issued new guidelines on the indications for MBS, which have superseded the previous 1991 National Institutes of Health guidelines. The aim of this study is to establish the first set of consensus guidelines for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, using an Expert Modified Delphi Method. In this study, 78 experienced bariatric surgeons from 32 countries participated in a two-round Modified Delphi consensus voting process. The threshold for consensus was set at an agreement or disagreement of ≥ 70.0% among the experts. The experts reached a consensus on 54 statements. The committee of experts reached a consensus that MBS is a cost-effective treatment option for Class II obesity and for patients with Class I obesity who have not achieved significant weight loss through non-surgical methods. MBS was also considered suitable for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. The committee identified intra-gastric balloon (IGB) as a treatment option for patients with class I obesity and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) as an option for patients with class I and II obesity, as well as for patients with T2DM and a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2. Sleeve gastrectomy (1) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) were also recognized as viable treatment options for these patient groups. The committee also agreed that one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a suitable option for patients with Class II obesity and T2DM, regardless of the presence or severity of obesity-related medical problems. The recommendations for selecting procedures in Class I and II obesity, developed through an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus, suggest that the use of standard primary bariatric endoscopic (IGB, ESG) and surgical procedures (SG, RYGB, OAGB) are acceptable in these patient groups, as consensus was reached regarding these procedures. However, randomized controlled trials are still needed in Class I and II Obesity to identify the best treatment approach for these patients in the future.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Revisional Surgery Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) worldwide, some patients require conversional procedures due to weight recurrence or late complications. Recently, one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) gained popularity as a viable option to address those problems. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of conversional OAGB after primary SG in the management of patients with obesity.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to February 2023 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42023403528).

RESULTS

From 1,117 studies screened, twenty studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,057 patients with obesity undergoing conversional OAGB after primary SG. The mean age ranged from 28.2 to 49.5 years, and 744 patients (75.2%) were women. At one year after revisional OAGB, the pooled mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) was 65.2% (95%CI: 56.9, 73.4, I2 = 97%). The pooled mean %EWL after conversional OAGB was 71.1% (95%CI: 62.2, 80.0, I2 = 90%) at two years and 71.6% (95%CI: 61.0, 82.2, I2 = 50%) at five years. Additionally, resolution rates of diabetes and hypertension were 65.4% (95%CI: 0.522, 0.785, I2 = 65%) and 58.9% (95%CI: 0.415, 0.762, I2 = 89%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated OAGB as an effective conversional procedure after primary SG in terms of weight loss and obesity-associated medical problems for selected patients. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and more extended follow-up periods are necessary to determine if the OAGB is the best conversional surgery after SG.

ReSleeve or revisional one anastomosis gastric bypass for failed primary sleeve gastrectomy with dilated gastric tube: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) has been increasingly performed due to weight loss failure (WLF). Many revisional procedures have been proposed after primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (pLSG) failure, including ReSleeve gastrectomy (ReLSG), and laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (LOAGB). Choosing the RBS post-pLSG failure represents a challenge. WLF without gastric tube (GT) dilation is undoubtedly converted to a malabsorptive procedure, but the presence of GT dilation makes it more difficult to select a RBS. This study aimed to compare two relatively simple revisional procedures after pLSG failure with dilated GT to help decision making on which procedure better done to which patient.

METHODS

Data of 52 patients who completed one year follow-up (FU) after their RBS (ReLSG: 27 or LOAGB: 25) for their failed pLSG were collected, assessed, correlated to weight loss (WL) and compared.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 97 ± 18.4 min. with revisional LOAGB (RLOAGB) and 62 ± 11 min. with ReLSG. Six patients (11.5%) had seven postoperative procedure-specific complications. Significant hemorrhage occurred in three patients. Two cases of leakage were encountered with each procedure. LOAGB Patients had lower mean final weight (76.2 ± 10.5 vs 85.3 ± 13), lower mean Final BMI (26.4 ± 2.5 vs 29.7 ± 2.9) and higher mean percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) (83.6 ± 13.5% vs 60.29 ± 14.6%). All RLOAGB patients and 77.8% of ReLSG patients had EWL% > 50%. RLOAGB patients had higher EWL% compared to ReLSG (p < 0.001). Insufficient WL (IWL) patients had higher EWL% compared to weight regain (WR) patients (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Both procedures (RLOAGB and ReLSG) were relatively safe and effective in terms of WL. RLOAGB led to higher WL compared to ReLSG in all types of patients despite higher Caloric intake. IWL patients had more WL compared to WR patients. WL was not related to GT dilation type. Large-scale longer-FU studies are still needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PACTR202310644487566 (retrospectively registered).

Bariatric Surgery in Obesity: Metabolic Quality Analysis and Comparison of Surgical Options

Obesity is a constantly growing health problem which reduces quality of life and life expectancy. Bariatric surgery (BS) for obesity is considered when all other conservative treatment modalities have failed. Comparison of the multidisciplinary programs with BS regarding to the weight loss showed that substantial and durable weight reduction have been achieved only with bariatric surgical treatments. Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is the most popular BS, it has high long-term failure rates, and it is claimed that one of every three patients will undergo another bariatric procedure within a 10-year period. Although BS provides weight loss and improvement of metabolic comorbidities, in long-term follow-up, weight gain is observed in half of the patients, while decrease in bone mass and nutritional deficiencies occur in up to 90%. Moreover, despite significant weight loss, several psychological aspects of patients are worsened in comparison to preoperative levels. Nearly one-fifth of postoperative patients with "Loss-of-eating control" meet food addiction criteria. Therefore, the benefits of weight loss following bariatric procedures alone are still debated in terms of the proinflammatory and metabolic profile of obesity.

Effects of gastric bypass bariatric surgery on gut microbiota in patients with morbid obesity

The Western diet is associated with gastrointestinal dysbiosis, an active contributor to the pathophysiology of obesity and its comorbidities. Gastrointestinal dysbiosis is strongly linked to increased adiposity, low-grade inflammation, dyslipidaemia, and insulin resistance in individuals with morbid obesity. Bariatric bypass surgery remains the most effective treatment for achieving significant weight loss and alleviating obesity-related comorbidities. A growing body of evidence indicates that traditional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) improves the disrupted gut microbiota linked with obesity, potentially contributing to sustained weight loss and reduction of comorbidities. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB), a relatively new and technically simpler bariatric procedure, has shown both safety and efficacy in promoting weight loss and improving comorbidities. Few studies have investigated the impact of OAGB on gut microbiota. This review provides insights into the pathogenesis of obesity, current treatment strategies and our current understanding of the gut microbiota in health and disease, including modulating the gut microbiota as a promising and novel way to alleviate the burden of obesity and cardiometabolic conditions. By exploring the impact of gastric bypass surgery on gut microbiota-host interactions, we aim to shed light on this evolving field of research and uncover potential therapeutic targets for elevating outcomes in bariatric surgery.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in 6722 Patients: Early Outcomes from a Private Hospital Registry

BACKGROUND

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is an emerging metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) type used in both primary OAGB (pOAGB) and revisional OAGB (rOAGB). We studied ≤30-day outcomes of pOAGB and rOAGB and identified predictors of early complications.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of all OAGBs performed between January 2017 and December 2021 at a high-volume bariatric clinic in Israel comprising four hospital centers were scanned retrospectively using specialized data software (MDClone software, version 6.1). Data gathered were patients' characteristics, surgical procedure, and ≤30-day complications with Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors related to early complications of pOAGB and rOAGB.

RESULTS

A total of 6722 patients underwent a pOAGB (n = 5088, 75.7%) or rOAGB (n = 1634, 24.3%) procedure at our institution. Preoperative mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 40.6 ± 11.5 years and 41.2 ± 4.6 kg/m2, respectively. Early complications occurred in 258 (3.8%) patients (176 pOAGB and 82 rOAGB) and included mainly bleeding (n = 133, 2.0%), leaks (n = 31, 0.5%), and obstruction/strictures (n = 19, 0.3%). CDC complications for grades 1-2 and grades 3a--5 were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 0.03% (n = 2). Age, operative time ≥3 h, and any additional concomitant procedure were independent predictors of early complications following pOAGB, while a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and operative time ≥3 h were independent predictors of early complications following rOAGB.

CONCLUSIONS

OAGB was found to be a safe primary and revisional MBS procedure in the ≤30-postoperative day term. The most common complications were gastrointestinal bleeding, leaks, and obstruction/stricture.

Is one-anastomosis gastric bypass a good revisional bariatric surgery? A single-center retrospective cohort study

<b><br>Introduction:</b> The rate of revisional surgeries following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has increased. One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) appears to have multiple advantages as a primary bariatric procedure. OAGB as revisional surgery is still being investigated.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of OAGB performed as a post-SG revisional surgery.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted using a routinely collected database of adults undergoing revisional OAGB after SG. A survey of patients was conducted, obtaining information on changes in body weight and improvement in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and obesity-related diseases.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> The study group included 74 patients: 59 women (80%) and 15 men, mean age of 41.61 9.21 years. The most common indication for OAGB was weight regain. The follow-up was up to 7 years, the mean time was 3.58 1.21 years. The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 40.38 6.15. All patients experienced significant weight loss, reaching a BMI of 33.61 (27.28- 37.13) at the last observation. After surgery, 35% of patients achieved successful weight loss and 48% of patients achieved remission or improvement of GERD.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Revisional OAGB seems to be a good alternative after a failed SG in terms of obesity-related disease recurrence, not of weight regain. Long-term follow-up revealed that only a third of patients achieved successful weight loss. When proposing revisional OAGB, the risk of complications - mainly anemia and the possibility of de novo GERD should be considered.</br>.

Revisional surgery after restrictive surgery: midterm outcomes of a tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is a challenging type of procedure for the surgeons due to its specific morbidity and efficiency. The RBS has a higher prevalence nowadays and this study may help to improve scarce data upon this specific topic.

METHODS

Data from 252 patients undergoing RBS after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2005 and 2019, were analyzed at 2 years of follow up. A subgroup analysis of third procedure was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the LSG group and 40 patients (25%) in the LAGB group (p = 0.045). At 2 years of RBS, mean weight was 92.8 ± 26.7 kg, BMI was 33.1 ± 8.56 kg/m2 for patients who had RBS after LSG. When RBS was performed after LAGB, mean weight at 2 years was 90.1 ± 20.7 kg and BMI was 32.5 ± 6.45 kg/m2. TWL for RBS performed after LSG was 12.7 ± 16.4% versus 25.5 ± 10.3% after LAGB (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RBS after LSG seems to lead to higher overall morbidity whereas RBS after LAGB lead to more perioperative issues.

Two-Year Results of the Banded Versus Non-banded Re-sleeve Gastrectomy as a Secondary Weight Loss Procedure After the Failure of Primary Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Insufficient weight loss or weight regain has been reported in up to 30% of patients after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Approximately 4.5% of patients who undergo LSG need revisional surgery for a dilated sleeve.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial compared the outcomes between banded (BLSG) and non-banded re-LSG (NBLSG) after weight regain. Percentage excess body weight loss (%EWL), percentage total weight loss (%TWL), associated medical problems, gastric volume measurement, and endoscopy were measured preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Both groups (25 patients each) achieved similar % EWL and %TWL at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively (%EWL 46.9 vs. 43.6, 83.7 vs. 86.3, and 85.7 vs. 83.9) (p= > 0.151) (%TWL 23.9 vs. 21.8, 43.1 vs .43.3, 44.2 vs. 42.2) (p=>0.342), respectively. However, the body mass index was significantly lower with BLSG (24.9 vs. NBLSG, 26.9). Both groups showed a significant reduction in stomach volume after two years (BLSG -248.4 mL vs. NBLSG -215.8 mL). Food tolerance (FT) scores were significantly reduced in both groups, whereby BSLG had significantly lower FT with an average of -1.1 point. No significant differences were observed regarding improvement of the associated medical problems after the first and two years after revisional LSG or the postoperative complications between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic re-LSG is feasible and safe with satisfactory outcomes in patients with weight regain after LSG who have gastric dilatation without reflux esophagitis. Both groups had comparable significant weight loss effects and improvement of associated medical problems. The BLSG tends to have a more stable weight loss after two years with a significantly lower BMI, lower stomach volume, and less weight regain. Food tolerance decreased in both groups but reduced more in the BLSG group. After a 2-year follow-up, we may regard both procedures are safe, with no significant differences in the occurrence of complications and nutritional deficits.

One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass for Revisional Bariatric Surgery: Assessment of Short-Term Safety

PURPOSE

With the continued increase in bariatric procedures being performed in the USA, a growing percentage are revisions for weight regain after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric banding (LAGB). Standard practice in the USA involves conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Internationally, one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has become a popular and effective alternative. Without the jejuno-jejunal anastomosis, OAGB has reduced potential related long-term complications. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term safety of revision to OAGB versus RYGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent conversion to OAGB from LAGB or SG for weight regain from January 2019 to October 2021 were compared to BMI, sex, and age-matched patients who underwent conversion to RYGB.

RESULTS

In our study, 82 patients were included, 41 in each cohort (41 OAGB vs. 41 RYGB). The majority in both groups underwent conversion from SG (71% vs. 78%). Operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were comparable. There was no difference in 30-day complications (9.8% vs. 12.2%, p = .99) or reoperation (4.9% vs. 4.9%, p = .99). Mean weight loss at 1 month was also comparable (7.91 lbs vs 6.36 lbs).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing conversion to OAGB for weight regain had similar operative times, post-operative complication rates, and 1-month weight loss compared to those who underwent RYGB. While more research is needed, this early data suggests that OAGB and RYGB provide comparable outcomes when used as conversion procedures for to failed weight loss. Therefore, OAGB may present a safe alternative to RYGB.

Weight loss and clinical outcomes following primary versus secondary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a multi-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric surgeries are increasing for weight recurrence and return of co-morbidities. Herein, we compare weight loss and clinical outcomes following primary Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (P-RYGB), adjustable gastric banding to RYGB (B-RYGB), and sleeve gastrectomy to RYGB (S-RYGB) to determine if primary versus secondary RYGB offer comparable benefits.

METHODS

Participating institutions' EMRs and MBSAQIP databases were used to identify adult patients who underwent P-/B-/S-RYGB from 2013 to 2019 with a minimum one-year follow-up. Weight loss and clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years. Our multivariable model controlled for year, institution, patient and procedure characteristics, and excess body weight (EBW).

RESULTS

768 patients underwent RYGB: P-RYGB n = 581 [75.7%]; B-RYGB n = 106 [13.7%]; S-RYGB n = 81 [10.5%]. The number of secondary RYGB procedures increased in recent years. The most common indications for B-RYGB and S-RYGB were weight recurrence/nonresponse (59.8%) and GERD (65.4%), respectively. Mean time from index operation to B-RYGB or S-RYGB was 8.9 and 3.9 years, respectively. After adjusting for EBW, 1 year %TWL (total weight loss) and %EWL (excess weight loss) were greater after P-RYGB (30.4%, 56.7%) versus B-RYGB (26.2%, 49.4%) or S-RYGB (15.6%, 37%). Overall comorbidity resolution was comparable. Secondary RYGB patients had a longer adjusted mean length of stay (OR 1.17, p = 0.071) and a higher risk of pre-discharge complications or 30-day reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Primary RYGB offers superior short-term weight loss outcomes compared to secondary RYGB, with decreased risk of 30-day reoperation.

Management of leaks following one-anastomosis gastric bypass: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 318 patients

INTRODUCTION

One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) complication, such as leakage, can be dangerous and should be managed properly, yet little data exist in the literature regarding the management of leaks after OAGB, and there are no guidelines to date.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature and 46 studies, examining 44 318 patients were included.

RESULTS

There were 410 leaks reported in 44 318 patients of OAGB published in the literature, which represents a prevalence of 1% of leaks after OAGB. The surgical strategy was very variable among all the different studies; 62.1% of patients with leaks had to undergo another surgery due to the leak. The most commonly performed procedure was peritoneal washout and drainage (with or without T-tube placement) in 30.8% of patients, followed by conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in 9.6% of patients. Medical treatment with antibiotics, with or without total parenteral nutrition alone, was conducted in 13.6% of patients. Among the patients with the leak, the mortality rate related to the leak was 1.95%, and the mortality due to the leak in the population of OAGB was 0.02%.

CONCLUSION

The management of leaks following OAGB requires a multidisciplinary approach. OAGB is a safe operation with a low leak risk rate, and the leaks can be managed successfully if detected in a timely fashion.

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.

Best practice approach for redo-surgeries after sleeve gastrectomy, an expert's modified Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common metabolic and bariatric surgical (MBS) procedure worldwide. Despite the desired effect of SG on weight loss and remission of obesity-associated medical problems, there are some concerns regarding the need to do revisional/conversional surgeries after SG. This study aims to make an algorithmic clinical approach based on an expert-modified Delphi consensus regarding redo-surgeries after SG, to give bariatric and metabolic surgeons a guideline that might help for the best clinical decision.

METHODS

Forty-six recognized bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 25 different countries participated in this Delphi consensus study in two rounds to develop a consensus on redo-surgeries after SG. An agreement/disagreement ≥ 70.0% on statements was considered to indicate a consensus.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for 62 of 72 statements and experts did not achieve consensus on 10 statements after two rounds of online voting. Most of the experts believed that multi-disciplinary team evaluation should be done in all redo-procedures after SG and there should be at least 12 months of medical and supportive management before performing redo-surgeries after SG for insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, experts agreed that in case of symptomatic GERD in the presence of adequate weight loss, medical treatment for at least 1 to 2 years is an acceptable option and agreed that Roux-en Y gastric bypass is an appropriate option in this situation. There was disagreement consensus on efficacy of omentopexy in rotation and efficacy of fundoplication in the presence of a dilated fundus and GERD.

CONCLUSION

Redo-surgeries after SG is still an important issue among bariatric and metabolic surgeons. The proper time and procedure selection for redo-surgery need careful considerations. Although multi-disciplinary team evaluation plays a key role to evaluate best options in these situations, an algorithmic clinical approach based on the expert's consensus as a guideline can help for the best clinical decision-making.

Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer After Bariatric Surgery: an Up-to-Date Systematic Scoping Review of Literature of 324 Cases

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to give an updated overview of the occurrence, diagnosis, treatment and outcome of oesophageal and gastric cancer after bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS).

METHODS

Two searches were done (one for original studies and one for systematic reviews) using an adapted form of "scoping review methodology". MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on patients with either oesophageal or gastric cancer after BMS.

RESULTS

A total of 52 unique studies were included which reported on 324 patients, which included 110 (34%) males and 136 (42%) females. In the remaining 78 patients, gender was not specified. A mean of 62.95 ± 32.75 months was the time from BMS to diagnosis of cancer. Most of the patients had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) as index bariatric surgical procedure, followed by gastric banding (GB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (respectively, 133 (41.0%) RYGB, 97 (30.0%) GB and 58 (18.0%) SG). Seven cases have been reported after OAGB-MGB (3 in gastric remnant, 4 in oesophagus/gastric pouch). Seventy-seven (24%) had distant metastasis (≥ M1/Mx status). The majority of tumours were adenocarcinoma (n = 208, 87.4%). In the majority of the cases, a surgical approach was preferred with either adjuvant chemo or radiotherapy. In the course of the disease, 122 of 324 patients died (37.8%).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the most up-to-date review addressing oesophageal and gastric malignancies after bariatric surgery. Future research should focus to optimise screening for oesophageal and gastric cancer after bariatric surgery.

From surgery to endoscopy: the evolution of the bariatric discipline

ABSTRACT

Obesity, with its increasing morbidity and prevalence, is now a worldwide public health problem. Obesity and its related comorbidities impose a heavy burden on societal health and the economy. The practice of bariatric surgery has evolved from its early surgical procedures, many of which are no longer routine operations. With clinical practice, research, and experience, bariatric surgery has gradually become an important last resort for the control of weight and obesity-related metabolic diseases in moderately and severely obese patients. However, there is still room for further improvements in bariatric surgical procedures, especially with regard to long-term issues and complications. Endoscopic weight loss technology has developed rapidly in recent years. The advantages of this technology include minimal invasiveness, an obvious weight loss effect, and few complications, thus filling the gap between medications and lifestyle adjustments and surgical treatment of obesity. Endoscopic weight loss technology may even replace surgical bariatric procedures. This review summarized the current status of bariatric metabolic surgery and newly developed bariatric endoscopic procedures.

Analysis of the Factors Contributing to Bariatric Success After Laparoscopic Redo Bariatric Procedures: Results from Multicenter Polish Revision Obesity Surgery Study (PROSS)

INTRODUCTION

With continuously growing number of redo bariatric surgeries (RBS), it is necessary to look for factors determining success of redo-surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent RBS in 12 referral bariatric centers in Poland from 2010 to 2020. The study included 529 patients. The efficacy endpoints were percentage of excessive weight loss (%EWL) and remission of hypertension (HT) and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESULTS

Group 1: weight regain Two hundred thirty-eight of 352 patients (67.6%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in body mass index (BMI) pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure < 10.6 kg/m2 (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.43-3.80, p = 0.001) was independent factor contributing to bariatric success after RBS, i.e., > 50% EWL. Group 2: insufficient weight loss One hundred thirty of 177 patients (73.4%) exceeded 50% EWL after RBS. The difference in BMI pre-RBS and lowest after primary procedure (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.001) was independent factors lowering odds for bariatric success. Group 3: insufficient control of obesity-related diseases Forty-three of 87 patients (49.4%) achieved remission of hypertension and/or type 2 diabetes. One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) as RBS was independent factor contributing to bariatric success (OR 7.23, 95% CI: 1.67-31.33, p = 0.008), i.e., complete remission of HT and/or T2D.

CONCLUSIONS

RBS is an effective method of treatment for obesity-related morbidity. Greater weight regain before RBS was minimizing odds for bariatric success in patients operated due to weight regain or insufficient weight loss. OAGB was associated with greater chance of complete remission of hypertension and/or diabetes.

Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Revisional One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass After Failed Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

High rates of revision surgery have been reported for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), with weight regain (WR) as the most frequently reported cause. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the most commonly performed revision procedure, whereas one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) is a less popular approach.

Methods

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted. One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled and randomized. After loss to follow-up, 80 patients for RYGB and 80 patients for OAGB were analyzed, with a 2-year follow-up. Patients with grade B or higher gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were excluded. Early and late postoperative complications were recorded. Body mass index (BMI), percentage of excess BMI loss (%EBMIL), nutritional laboratory test results, and the resolution of associated medical problems were assessed after revision surgery.

Results

After 2 years, both groups achieved significantly lower BMI than their post-LSG nadir BMI (p < 0.001). The %EBMIL changes showed significantly faster weight loss in the OAGB group than in the RYGB at the 6-month follow-up (mean difference: 8.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2 to 16.9%). However, at 1-year and 2-year follow-ups, the differences were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Early and late complications were similar between two groups. Both groups showed improvement or resolution of associated medical problems, with no statistically significant differences after 2 years (p = 1.00).

Conclusion

Both revisional RYGB and OAGB have comparable significant weight loss effects when performed for WR after LSG. After a 2-year follow-up, both procedures were safe, with no significant differences in the occurrence of complications and nutritional deficits.

Graphical abstract

Bariatric Surgery Conversions in MBSAQIP Centers: Current Indications and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The demand for revisional bariatric surgery has increased, and bariatric conversions (BC) to a different procedure represent most of the revisional cases. The 2020 Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditfnation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database was expanded to include additional variables on BC. This study aims to analyze the indications and outcomes of BC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the 2020 MBSAQIP database was performed. Patients who underwent BC were included in the analysis. Index procedures, rates, and indications for BC of the different bariatric operations were described. Outcomes of the most frequent BC were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 168,548 bariatric surgeries were done; 20,387 (12.1%) were revisional, and from those 15,031 (73.7%) were BC. The most converted index operations were sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (49.3%) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (45.9%). The most frequent conversions were SG to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (40.3%) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (54.2%) and weight loss failure (WLF) (35.8%), AGB to SG (27%) or RYGB (16.2%) for WLF (67% and 61.3%, respectively), and SG to biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (3.2%) or single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass (2%) for WLF (91.2% and 92.4%, respectively). Postoperative overall morbidity, serious morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates ranged from 5.3 to 20.8%, 2.3 to 19.2%, 1.5 to 10%, and 0 to 0.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC represents the most frequent revisional bariatric procedure. GERD and WLF are the main causes for BC. Further research is needed to define the ideal BC according to the index procedure and indication.

Patient Selection in One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass-an Expert Modified Delphi Consensus

PURPOSE

One anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is up to date the third most performed obesity and metabolic procedure worldwide, which recently has been endorsed by ASMBS. The main criticisms are the risk of bile reflux, esophageal cancer, and malnutrition. Although IFSO has recognized this procedure, guidance is needed regarding selection criteria. To give clinicians a daily support in performing the right patient selection in OAGB/MGB, the aim of this paper is to generate clinical guidelines based on an expert modified Delphi consensus.

METHODS

A committee of 57 recognized bariatric surgeons from 24 countries created 69 statements. Modified Delphi consensus voting was performed in two rounds. An agreement/disagreement among ≥ 70.0% of the experts was considered to indicate a consensus.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for 56 statements. Remarkably, ≥ 90.0% of the experts felt that OAGB/MGB is an acceptable and suitable option "in patients with Body mass index (BMI) > 70, BMI > 60, BMI > 50 kg/m2 as a one-stage procedure," "as the second stage of a two-stage bariatric surgery after Sleeve Gastrectomy for BMI > 50 kg/m2 (instead of BPD/DS)," and "in patients with weight regain after restrictive procedures. No consensus was reached on the statement that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in case of resistant Helicobacter pylori. This is likely as there is a concern that this procedure is associated with reflux and its related long-term complications including risk of cancer in the esophagus or stomach. Also no consensus reached on OAGB/MGB as conversional surgery in patients with GERD after restrictive procedures. Consensus for disagreement was predominantly achieved "in case of intestinal metaplasia of the stomach" (74.55%), "in patients with severe Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)(C,D)" (75.44%), "in patients with Barrett's metaplasia" (89.29%), and "in documented insulinoma" (89.47%).

CONCLUSION

Patient selection in OAGB/MGB is still a point of discussion among experts. There was consensus that OAGB/MGB is a suitable option in elderly patients, patients with low BMI (30-35 kg/m2) with associated metabolic problems, and patients with BMIs more than 50 kg/m2 as one-stage procedure. OAGB/MGB can also be a safe procedure in vegetarian and vegan patients. Although OAGB/MGB can be a suitable procedure in patients with large hiatal hernia with concurrent hiatal hernia, it should not be offered to patients with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett's metaplasia.

Five-year outcomes of one anastomosis gastric bypass as conversional surgery following sleeve gastrectomy for weight loss failure

The most accepted procedures as conversion for poor weight changes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG), are malabsorptive surgeries. This study was designed to evaluate the 5-year outcomes of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) following SG due to weight loss failure and weight regain. From September 2014 to January 2017, totally 23 patients with a history of SG conversion to OAGB in terms of weight loss failure or weight regain who had completed their 5-year follow-ups were studied. Some obesity related co-morbidities containing type-2 diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were also investigated at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after conversional surgery. All cases had remission/improvement in DM, DLP, HTN and OSA 1 year after conversional OAGB. Analysis showed statistically significant (P < 0.001) change in trend of BMI. Mean BMI before conversional surgery, at 1, 2, 3and 5 years were 46.3 ± 10.4, 34.5 ± 8.5, 34.1 ± 8.6, 35.7 ± 8.7 and 37.5 ± 11.6, respectively. Mean percent excess weight loss (%EWL) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years was 51.6 ± 11.0, 52.9 ± 13.1, 45.5 ± 16.4 and 41.0 ± 18.0, respectively. Mean percent total weight loss (%TWL) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years was 26.6 ± 5.9, 27.4 ± 7.2, 23.9 ± 9.2 and 20.9 ± 9.3, respectively. OAGB is an effective conversional procedure for insufficient weight loss and weight regain following failed SG and lead to satisfactory changes in obesity associated medical problems. The optimal weight loss results are obtained at 2-year follow-ups and these effects are then reduced.

Reoperative bariatric surgery after primary laparoscopic gastric plication for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) often requires reoperative bariatric surgery (RBS) due to complications and insufficient weight loss. The aim of our study was to assess perioperative morbidity and weight loss during follow-up in patients undergoing RBS after primary LGP for morbid obesity.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using ("conversion"OR "revision*""OR "reoperat*")AND("gastric"OR "curvatur*")AND "plication." Studies were deemed eligible if data on RBS after LGP were provided. For each study, data were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

In the literature review, 291 articles were screened and 7 included. The studies covered a total of 367 patients, of whom 119 received a sleeve gastrectomy (SG), 85 a Roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB), 75 a one anastomosis-gastric bypass (OAGB), 45 a re-LGP, and 25 a jejuno-ileal bypass. After RBS, excess weight loss was 50.8 ± 6.5% at 6 months, 71.0 ± 7.7% at 12 months, and 89.0 ± 7.8% at 24 months. Operative time was 101.3 ± 14.6 min. Postoperatively, 18/255 patients (7.1%) had a complication, and leakage and reoperations were reported in 6/255 (2.4%) and 5/255 (2.0%) patients, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 3.1 ± 2.4 days. The quality of evidence was rated as "very low."

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that RBS after LGP has an acceptable rate of complications and is effective in terms of excess weight loss during follow-up. No specific operation (e.g., SG, RYGB, OAGB) can be suggested over another due to the lack of evidence.

Roux-en-Y Versus One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as Redo-Operations Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study was to improve knowledge about the best conversional bariatric procedure following sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

METHODS

Data of conversional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and of one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after SG were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Weight loss parameters, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and comorbidities outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Total of 123 patients (90 female, mean age 44 ± 0.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) 42 ± 0.8 kg/m²) had either RYGB (n = 68) or OAGB (n = 55). Perioperative mortality was zero. Mean surgery time was significantly shorter for OAGB (168 ± 7.2 vs. 201 ± 6.8 min). Perioperative complication rates were not significantly (ns) different between RYGB and OAGB. Total body weight loss (TBWL) in RYGB and OAGB was 18 ± 2.2% and 18 ± 1.9% (12 months) and 18 ± 3.0% and 23 ± 2.6% (24 months; ns), respectively. Length of (individualized) biliopancreatic limb (BPL) correlated significantly with weight loss. Remission rates after 12 months of RYGB and OAGB for arterial hypertension (aHt) were 89% and 92%, for obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS) 56% and 82%, for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) 100% and 92%, for osteoarthritis 64% and 85% and for GERD 89% versus 87% (ns), respectively. Nutritional deficiencies were comparable in RYGB (n = 11) and OAGB (n = 14) group (ns).

CONCLUSION

Both RYGB and OAGB are effective conversional procedures after SG, leading to comparable TBWL, BMI-loss and high remission rates of comorbidities including GERD. Significantly shorter operation times were in favor of OAGB. BPL, which was longer in OAGB was significantly related to higher %TBWL and %BMI-loss compared to RYGB.

Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass with a 150-cm Biliopancreatic Limb After Failure of Adjustable Gastric Banding: Mid-Term Outcomes and Comparison Between One- and Two-Stage Approaches

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) was a common procedure worldwide but associated with a high rate of long-term failure. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of conversion to one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) after failed LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database in a tertiary referral center for bariatric surgery. All cases of revisional OAGB with a biliopancreatic limb (BPL) of 150 cm after failed LAGB performed between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 215 patients underwent conversion from LAGB to OAGB. Indication for surgery was primary weight loss (WL) failure in 30.7% of cases and long-term complications in the remaining patients, with or without associated weight regain. At the time of OAGB, the mean age was 43.2 ± 10.5 years and the mean BMI was 42 ± 6.9. Overall postoperative morbidity was 13.5%. The postoperative abscess ± leak rate was 5.9% in the overall population. Two years after OAGB, 9.7% of patients were lost to follow-up, % excess weight loss (EWL) was 88.2 ± 23.9, and % total weight loss (TWL) was 38.7 ± 9.3. At 5 years, 16.6% of patients were lost to follow-up, %EWL was 82.4 ± 25, and %TWL was 36.1 ± 10. There was no statistical difference in complication rates or WL results between the one-stage and two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSION

OAGB with a 150-cm BPL represents a safe and effective option after failed LAGB. Both synchronous OAGB and two-step revisional OAGB guarantee satisfying results in terms of postoperative morbidity and WL outcomes.

Outcomes of bariatric surgery in extreme obesity: results from the United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgery Registry for patients with a body mass index >70 kg/m2

BACKGROUND

Bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) is an established safe, effective, and durable treatment for obesity and its complications. However, there is still a paucity of evidence on surgery outcomes in patients suffering from extreme obesity.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of BMS in weight loss and the resolution of co-morbidities in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥70kg/m2.

SETTING

National Health Service and private hospitals in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

This cohort study analyzed prospectively collected records from the UK National Bariatric Surgery Registry of patients with a BMI ≥70 kg/m2 undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), or adjustable gastric band (AGB) between January 2009 and June 2014.

RESULTS

There were 230 patients (64% female) eligible for inclusion in the study: 22 underwent AGB; 102 underwent SG, and 106 underwent RYGB. Preoperative weight and BMI values were comparable (76 ± 7 kg/m2 for AGB; 75 ± 5 kg/m2 for SG; 74 ± 5 kg/m2 for RYGB). The median postoperative follow-up was 13 months for AGB (10-22 mo), 18 for SG (6-28 mo), and 15 for RYGB (6-24 mo). Patients undergoing RYGB and SG exhibited the greatest postoperative total body weight loss (35 ± 13% and 31 ± 15%, respectively; P = .14), which led to postoperative BMIs of 48 ± 10 kg/m2 and 51 ± 11 kg/m2, respectively (P = .14). All procedures conferred a reduction in the incidence of co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes, and led to improved functional statuses. The overall complication rate was 7%, with 3 deaths (1%) within 30 days of surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study found that primary BMS in patients with a BMI >70kg/m2 has an acceptable safety profile and is associated with good medium-term clinical outcomes. RYGB and SG are associated with better weight loss and great improvements in co-morbidities than AGB. Given the noninferiority of SG outcomes and SG's potential for further conversion to other BMS procedures if required, SG may be the best choice for primary BMS in patients with extreme obesity.

Areas of Non-Consensus Around One Anastomosis/Mini Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB): A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

One anastomosis/mini gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) is now an established bariatric and metabolic surgical procedure with good outcomes. Despite two recent consensus statements around OAGB/MGB, there are some issues which are not accepted as consensus and need more long-term data and research.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After identifying the topic of non-consensus from the two recent OAGB/MGB consensuses, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched for articles published by November 2020.

RESULTS

In this study, we evaluated these non-consensus topics around OAGB/MGB and all related articles on these topics were assessed by authors to have an argument on these items.

CONCLUSION

There is enough evidence to include OAGB/MGB as an accepted standard bariatric and metabolic surgical procedure. However, long-term data and more research are needed to have a consensus in all aspects including these non-consensus topics.

A Global Survey by the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) on Perceptions of Bariatric Medical Tourism (BMT) by Health Professionals: Guidelines from IFSO for BMT

BACKGROUND

Bariatric medical tourism (BMT) is a rapidly expanding industry, with over 650 million people with obesity worldwide and total number rising by over 300% between 2003 and 2014. The overall health tourism industry is worth over $400 billion/year.

METHODS

International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) conducted a global survey to analyze the details of BMT and the perceptions of bariatric health care professionals (HCP) regarding BMT.

RESULTS

A total of 383 bariatric HCP's with experience of 272,548 procedures responded from 65 countries. Seventy-three percent of respondents had managed BMT patients, whilst low cost of surgery was felt to be the driving factor in 77% of cases. The USA contributed the most patients travelling for BMT with 11.6%. Twenty-four percent of respondents stated that they had no access to adequate notes regarding the patient's operation, whilst 12% felt BMT is associated with a higher mortality. Only 49% of respondents felt that IFSO guidelines were followed by the operating surgeon. Sleeve gastrectomy was the commonly offered surgery and an overall mean operation cost was $8716. Nearly 64% of respondents felt BMT needed better coordination between practitioners, whilst almost 85% of respondents supported the idea of a forum to facilitate safe BMT worldwide.

CONCLUSION

This IFSO survey has outlined the current BMT trends worldwide and highlighted areas of concern in the care of such patients. It has expanded our knowledge and should be used as a starting point to establish international forums to aid collaboration.

One Anastomosis/Mini-Gastric Bypass (OAGB/MGB) as Revisional Surgery Following Primary Restrictive Bariatric Procedures: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB/MGB) has gained popularity in the past decade. International databases were searched for articles published by September 10, 2020, on OAGB/MGB as a revisional procedure after restrictive procedures. Twenty-six studies examining a total of 1771 patients were included. The mean initial BMI was 45.70 kg/m2, which decreased to 31.52, 31.40, and 30.54 kg/m2 at 1, 3, and 5-year follow-ups, respectively. Remission of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) following OAGB/MGB at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up was 65.16 ± 24.43, 65.37 ± 36.07, and 78.10 ± 14.19%, respectively. Remission/improvement rate from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, 7.4% of the patients developed de novo GERD following OAGB/MGB. Leakage was the most common major complication. OAGB/MGB appears to be feasible and effective as a revisional procedure after failed restrictive bariatric procedures.