Early results of conversion of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy as Revisional Procedures after Adjustable Gastric Band: 5-Year Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a worldwide bariatric surgery survey showed that laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has been abandoned in favor of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGBP).

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare results of LRYGBP and LSG performed as a revisional procedure after LAGB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients converted from LAGB to LSG or to LRYGBP from January 2007 to December 2011 were included in the study. Clinical data collected were age, gender, indications for revision, complications, body mass index (BMI), and body weight at revisional procedures. Weight loss was calculated at 1, 3, and 5 years after conversion.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included in this study, 43 females and 8 males. Twenty-four patients were converted to LRYGBP (LRYGBP group) and 27 to LSG (LSG group). Indication for conversion was weight loss failure in 34 (67%) patients and band complications in 17 (33%) patients. No significant difference in age, BMI, and body weight in the two groups was found at the time of revision. One patient converted to LRYGBP had an internal hernia; one patient initially scheduled for LSG was intraoperatively converted to LRYGBP due to staple line leak. No other major perioperative complication was observed. Follow-up rate at 5 years was 84.3% (43 patients out of 51 patients) Delta-BMI and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) were not significantly different in the two groups at 1, 3, and 5 years (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LRYGBP or LSG are feasible and effective surgical options after LAGB. Satisfactory weight loss was achieved after both procedures.

Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Revisional bariatric procedures are increasingly common. With more primary procedures being performed to manage severe obesity and its complications, 5% to 8% of these procedures will fail, requiring revisional operation. Reasons for revisional bariatric surgery are either primary inadequate weight loss, defined as less than 25% excess body weight loss, or weight recidivism, defined as a gain of more than 10 kg based on the nadir weight; however, each procedure also has inherit specific complications that can also be indications for revision. This article reviews the history of each primary bariatric procedure, indications for revision, surgical options, and subsequent outcomes.

Revisions after failed gastric band: sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic gastric band is an appealing bariatric operation due to its simplicity and good short-term outcomes; however, it is associated with complications (slippage, erosion, prolapse) and failure in reaching target weight loss. This study describes our experience with failed gastric bands that required a revisional procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis includes all consecutive patients who underwent a gastric band removal and revisional surgery in our hospital from January 2008 to June 2014. A total of 81 patients were identified and divided in three groups: Group one included patients who just had the gastric band removed (43), group two consisted of patients who underwent a conversion to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (26), and group three included patients who required a conversion to Roux-en Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (12). Patient demographics, date of gastric band placement, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and % excess weight loss (%EWL) were recorded. Perioperative and clinical outcomes were compared between conversions to SG and RYGB.

RESULTS

In group two (n = 26), 21 conversions to SG were performed in concurrence with the band removal as a one-stage operation, while five procedures were performed in two-stages. There were no complications and no case was converted to open. Patients who underwent a one-stage procedure had a longer operative time, although it did not reach statistical significance. In group three, 12 patients underwent a conversion to RYGB as a revisional operation; 11 were performed as a one-stage procedure and only one patient underwent a two-stage procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

SG and RYGB are safe options to revise a failed gastric band. Both groups who received either a SG or RYGB had a low complication rate and acceptable %EWL with no statistical difference between the two.

Two stages conversion of failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding to laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass. A study of one hundred patients

INTRODUCTION

Conversion to laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB) appears to be the treatment of choice after failed LAGB. To reduce the risk of postoperative complications, some surgeons routinely adopt a two-stage strategy. The purpose of this study was to analyze our institution's experience with the two-stage procedure for LAGB conversion to LRYGB MATERIALS AND METHODS: The bariatric database of our institution was reviewed to identify patients who had undergone conversion of LAGB to LRYGB from November 2007 to June 2012.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included. Of these, 62 (62%) required conversion to LRYGB for inadequate weight loss or weight regain and 38 for band-related complications. All the procedures were performed in two stages and laparoscopically. The average time between band removal and LRYGB was 17.3 months. The mean follow-up after LRYGB was 31 ± 18.7 months. The mean BMI prior to LRYGB conversion was 45.3 ± 5.2. Early complications occurred in 15 patients (15%), while late complications occurred in only 3 patients (3%). The average %EWL at 24 months and 48 months after conversion was 70.1 and 69.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although a two-stage conversion strategy increases the number of operations and hospital stay without decreasing the rate of early complications compared to one-stage conversion; it has shown to be associated with low rates of GJA stenosis and excellent %EWL.

Primary sleeve gastrectomy compared to sleeve gastrectomy as revisional surgery: weight loss and complications at intermediate follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) can be revised to sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) for various reasons. Data are limited on the safety and efficacy of single-stage removal of LAGB and creation of LSG.

METHODS

A retrospective review of cases was performed from 2010 to 2013. From the primary LSG group, a control group was matched in a 2:1 ratio.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent single-stage revision from LAGB to LSG, with a control group of 64. The most common indication for revision was insufficient weight loss (62.5%). Operative time for revision and control groups was 134 and 92 min, respectively (p < 0.0001). Hospital stay was 3.22 and 2.59 days, respectively (p = 0.02). Overall, the 30-day complication rate for revision and control patients was 14.71 and 6.25%, respectively (p = 0.20). There were no leaks, one stricture (3.13%) in the revision group, and one reoperation for bleeding in the control group (1.56%). For patients with BMI >30 at surgery, change in BMI at 12 months for revision and control was 8.77 and 11.58, respectively (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Single-stage revision can be performed safely, with minimal increases in hospital stay and 30-day complications. Weight loss is greater in those who undergo primary LSG compared to those who undergo LSG as revision.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as revisional procedure after adjustable gastric band--a systematic review

The adjustable gastric band (L)AGB gained popularity as a weight loss procedure. However, long-term results are disappointing; many patients need revision to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). The purpose of this study was to assess morbidity, mortality, and results of these two revisional procedures. Fifteen LRYGB studies with a total of 588 patients and eight LSG studies with 286 patients were included. The reason for revision was insufficient weight loss or weight regain in 62.2 and 63.9% in LRYGB and LSG patients. Short-term complications occurred in 8.5 and 15.7% and long-term complications in 8.9 and 2.5%. Reoperation was performed in 6.5 and 3.5%. Revision to LRYGB or LSG after (L)AGB is feasible and relatively safe. Complication rate is higher than in primary procedures.

Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force

BACKGROUND

Reoperative bariatric surgery has become a common practice in many bariatric surgery programs. There is currently little evidence-based guidance regarding specific indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery. A task force was convened to review the current evidence regarding reoperative bariatric surgery. The aim of the review was to identify procedure-specific indications and outcomes for reoperative procedures.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting indications for and outcomes after reoperative bariatric surgery. Specifically, operations to treat complications, failed weight loss, and weight regain were evaluated. Abstract and manuscript reviews were completed by the task force members to identify, grade, and categorize relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 819 articles were identified in the initial search. After review for inclusion criteria and data quality, 175 articles were included in the systematic review and analysis. The majority of published studies are single center retrospective reviews. The evidence supporting reoperative surgery for acute and chronic complications is described. The evidence regarding reoperative surgery for failed weight loss and weight regain generally demonstrates improved weight loss and co-morbidity reduction after reintervention. Procedure-specific outcomes are described. Complication rates are generally reported to be higher after reoperative surgery compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSION

The indications and outcomes for reoperative bariatric surgery are procedure-specific but the current evidence does support additional treatment for persistent obesity, co-morbid disease, and complications.

Revisional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following failed laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a worldwide epidemic and surgery is the only proven long-term treatment. The two most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). There are advocates of both procedures but LAGB is associated with potentially high failure rates and may require conversion to an alternative procedure.

METHODS

This study reports our unit results for failed LAGB converted to LRYGB and compares them to primary LRYGB patients. All patients undergoing revisional LRYGB from July 2006 to December 2011 were included in the study. Comparisons were made to patients undergoing primary LRYGB over the same time period for post-operative weight loss, complications and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 722 were analysed of which 55 underwent revisional surgery. There was no statistical difference in percentage of excess weight loss at 6 months, 1 year or 2 years following surgery between the primary and revisional surgery cohorts (54.5, 63.7, 65.2 vs 51.6, 59.5, 59.4, p = NS). There was no difference in morbidity, mortality or length of stay between the two groups. Revisional LRYGB was carried out as a single surgery in 43 (78 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional LRYGB surgery can be carried out safely and efficiently in experienced bariatric units. Good short- and medium-term weight loss can be achieved with no increase in morbidity, mortality or length of hospital stay. This study adds weight to the argument that LRYGB is the revisional procedure of choice following failed LAGB.

Revisional surgery after failed adjustable gastric banding: institutional experience with 90 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Revisional surgery may be required in a high percentage of patients (up to 30 %) after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We report our institutional experience with revisional surgery.

METHODS

From January 1996 to November 2011, 90 patients underwent revisional surgery after failed LAGB. Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) were proposed. In the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal dysmotility, hiatal hernia, or diabetes, RYGB was preferentially proposed.

RESULTS

In two cases, revisional surgery was aborted due to local severe adhesions. Eighty-eight patients (74 females; mean age 42.79 ± 10.03 years; mean BMI 44.73 ± 6.19 kg/m(2)) successfully underwent revisional SG (n = 48) or RYGB (n = 40). One-stage surgery was performed in 29 cases. Follow-up rate was 78.2 % (n = 61) and 40.9 % (n = 36) at 12 and 24 months respectively. One major complication after SG (staple-line leakage) was observed. Overall postoperative excess weight loss (%EWL) was 31.24, 40.92, 52.41, and 51.68 % at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up respectively. There was a statistically significant higher %EWL at 1 year in patients <50 years old (55.9 vs. 41.5 % in patients >50 years old; p = 0.01), of female gender (55.22 vs. 40.73 % in male; p = 0.04), and in patients in which the AGB was in place for <5 years (57.09 vs. 47.43 % if >5 years p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Revisional surgery is safe and effective. Patients <50 years, of female gender, and with the AGB in place for <5 years had better %EWL after revisional surgery.

Revisional bariatric surgery: perioperative morbidity is determined by type of procedure

BACKGROUND

Revisional bariatric procedures are on the rise. The higher complexity of these procedures has been reported to lead to increased risk of complications. The objective of our study was to compare the perioperative risk profile of revisional bariatric surgery with primary bariatric surgery in our experience.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing bariatric surgery by three fellowship-trained bariatric surgeons from June 2005 to January 2013 at a center of excellence was reviewed. Patient demographics, type of initial and revisional operation, number of prior gastric surgeries, indications for revision, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were recorded. These outcomes were compared between revisional and primary procedures by the Mann-Whitney or Chi square tests.

RESULTS

Of 1,556 patients undergoing bariatric surgery, 102 patients (6.5%) underwent revisional procedures during the study period. Indications for revisions included inadequate weight loss in 67, failed fundoplications with recurrent gastroesophageal reflux disease in 29, and other in 6 cases. Revisional bariatric procedures belonged into four categories: band to sleeve gastrectomy (n = 23), band to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 25), fundoplication to bypass (n = 29), and other (n = 25). Revisional procedures were associated with higher rates of readmissions and overall morbidity but no differences in leak rates and mortality compared with primary procedures. Band revisions had similar length of stay with primary procedures and had fewer complications compared with other revisions. Patients undergoing fundoplication to bypass revisions were older, had a higher number of prior gastric procedures, and the highest morbidity (40%) and reoperation (20%) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands, many revisional bariatric procedures can be accomplished safely, with excellent perioperative outcomes that are similar to primary procedures. As the complexity of the revisional procedure and number of prior surgeries increases, however, so does the perioperative morbidity, with fundoplication revisions to gastric bypass representing the highest risk group.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: a 10-year single-centre experience of 575 cases with weight loss following surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is one of the commonest bariatric procedures in the UK. This study reports our experience with this procedure over the last 10 years.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all the patients undergoing LAGB at our centre between March 2000 and August 2010 was analysed.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-five patients underwent LAGB at our centre. There was no mortality in this series. Early (30-day) morbidity rate was 2.2 %. Late complications (20 %) comprised: 78 repositioning of the inflation port in 65 patients, repositioning of band in 24 patients (4 %), removal of band in 20 patients (3.4 %), conversion to bypass in 41 patients (7 %), diagnostic laparoscopy in 1 patient and subtotal gastrectomy in 1 patient. Median follow-up was 29 months. The median of percentage of weight loss (%WL) and excess body weight loss (EBWL) was 18.3 and 40 %, respectively, at ≥ 5 years post-LAGB. Patients with body mass index (BMI) over 50 kg/m(2) were compared to those with BMI ≤ 50 kg/m(2). No significant difference was noted in the weight loss between both of these groups. No significant difference was noted with regards to weight loss between patients <60 and >60 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients, %WL and EBWL were 18.3 and 40 % ≥ 5 years after LAGB, respectively, and early and late complication rates were 2.2 and 20 %, respectively. Majority of late complications were in the first 100 patients. Multifactorial causes included the surgical learning curve and patient selection process.

Laparoscopic conversion of failed gastric banding to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: short-term follow-up and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

The most common bariatric procedure in Australia is laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Although successful, there is a substantial long-term complication and failure rate. Band removal and conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can be an effective treatment for complicated or failed bands. There is increasing evidence supporting good weight loss and resolution of band-related complications after conversion.

METHODS

A prospective database of all bariatric procedures is maintained. Patients having revision of LAGB to RYGB between December 2007 and April 2011 were included in this study. Indications for surgery, operative details, morbidity and mortality, weight loss data, and post-operative symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included. Indications for surgery were inadequate weight loss (n = 42), adverse symptoms (reflux = 8, dysphagia = 2), and band complications (band erosion = 7, band sepsis = 1, band slip = 11, esophageal dilatation = 11). Seventy-eight percent of procedures were completed in a single stage and 96.3% laparoscopically. There was no 30-day mortality. Total morbidity was 46.3% (minor complications = 32.9%, major complications = 13.4%). Median BMI was 43 kg/m(2) pre-RYGB and 34 kg/m(2) after 12 months. All patients with adverse band-related symptoms had resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGB has a considerable complication and failure rate. Conversion of these patients to RYGB results in further weight loss and resolution of adverse symptoms. This is a challenging procedure, but can usually be performed in a single stage with acceptable morbidity and mortality. These patients should be treated in high-volume, subspecialty bariatric units.

Revisional bariatric surgery

With the increase in bariatric surgical procedures, an increase in revision operations is expected. A thorough preoperative work-up is essential to formulate an appropriate revision strategy. Outcomes vary according to the primary operation and chosen approach to revision. Recent studies have shown acceptably low complication rates and good weight loss with the associated health benefits. Although there is no direct evidence in the form of randomized studies indicating which patients with inadequate weight loss or weight regain will benefit most from revision, or to support one particular revision approach rather than another, it is possible to develop general, effective strategies.

Band revision versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conversion as salvage operation after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding

BACKGROUND

With the increasing popularity of laparoscopic adjustable banding (LAGB), reoperations to treat band complications have become increasingly more common. Few studies, however, have documented the outcomes of such revisional procedures. The purpose of the present study was to compare the different reoperative approaches after LAGB placement. The present study was conducted at a tertiary referral academic medical center in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed our bariatric database to identify patients who had undergone LAGB from 2004 to 2007 and had undergone either revision of their original band or conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 47 (71.2%) had undergone revision and 19 (28.8%) conversion. The patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups. The interval to revision or conversion was 22 and 28 months, respectively. Band slippage was the most common surgical indication in the revision group, and inadequate weight loss was the most common in the conversion group. Although patients in the revision group had experienced good weight loss before their reoperation, the conversion group had not. However, the conversion group experienced good weight loss after their reoperation, with an average excess body weight loss of 48%.

CONCLUSION

Patients who have experienced successful weight loss with LAGB and experience band complications will have satisfactory outcomes with band revision, maintaining their excess body weight loss. These data suggest that patients with inadequate weight loss after LAGB can do well after conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.